-
Quote:
Originally Posted by shokhead
MD is still MD on a clock radio or level 6 AudioNote system? Your hearing 1/10th what you should be hearing on a clock radio,come on. Thats like saying a picture of crap is the same as standing in it. One is as far away as you can get and the other is up close and detailed. Sound makes the movie better and gets you ready for the story and helps tell the story. I've enjoyed all my movies on my 8 year old 27" and hope they are better on my new 30" . I was brought up on four track so you dont know how cool it will be to hear DVD-A and SACD. I can hardly wait. For money growing on trees,i would rather wait and save to buy better then to buy now and not as good.
Well actually thinking it over I agree with you. I was one of hte people who bought and owned a Laserdisc at the age of 17 rather than buying a car because I wanted to see movies the way they were meant to be seen in widescreen. I didn;t really care about the picture quality and truthfully i suppose I still don't - I prefer the theater screen resoultion to what I saw on a $10,000 plasma or LCD at Future shop - there is a brightness issue for one design and a slowness of edges on the other - I can;t ay exactly what they're doing but they distract me - theater screens do not. Neither do picture tubes now out of style I gather - oh well.
And I do admit it is fun to impress everyone with that big THX comes up and the room rumbles - I even saw some cheap used Wharfedales(Diamonds $90.00Cdn) at a pawn shop that I could use as rears for my fronts :D They are form the same period as mine because of the type of wood grain.
That's the toy system for me but it's low priority because I don't watch a lot of movies anymore - judging by what gets nominated and what WON last year i'm not inspired by the quality of the film industry.
A good two channel system can capture the sound of a film and dialogue well - and with Saving Private Ryan will have gun fire coming from behind above and beside you - I have that disc and on a two channel Sugden that was quite impressive - worked on Mel Gibson's "The Patriot" as well(My pick for worst film of the year - but great sound).
The other option and I've considered it is the a H/T system around the Paradigm Atoms - that set may actually be cheaper than one set of AX Two's. My dealer has all Paradigms on at 20% off and might give me em even cheaper - since I will soon be buying the OTO Phono SE
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by kexodusc
Thanks Wooch, for the little history lesson on the "demise" of JBL...Too bad, I guess. I've got no problem with pushing inexpensive models if there's demand, but it's unfortunate if causes your better products to disappear because of this.
JBL has made numerous speaker models designed to compete in the high end, but hardly anyone in North America sells them since JBL is barely a blip among high end dealers for the aforementioned reasons. You certainly won't see Best Buy stocking the K2 models (includes a $25k horn speaker with a 15" woofer that weighs 200 lbs)! And they even have a second assembly plant in Denmark that manufactures an entirely different line of speakers exclusively for the European market.
All these other manufacturers that have pushed their way into some of the mass merchants in recent years have tried to avoid the pitfalls and bad blood that JBL created when they went mass market. That's why you see guys like Yamaha, Klipsch, Denon, Sony, and Onkyo going to a two-tiered distribution system. Yamaha gives its specialty dealers the RX-V series, while the mail order houses and mass merchants get the HTR series. Klipsch sells the Synergy series through Best Buy, while the Reference series goes to the specialty dealers. Denon has a number of rebadged products that they sell at Sears and other mass merchants. Onkyo sells its Integra branded products through specialty dealers, and its own products everywhere else. And it's the same rationale behind Sony ES and Pioneer Elite, which have numerous products that are simply rebadged versions of garden variety Sony and Pioneer models.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kexodusc
But still, even hearing their inexpensive junk, to me it's not nearly as bad as alot of people say it is. Not my first choice, but not terrible.
I don't think it's coincidental that in recent years JBL's speakers have begun to sound more like the Paradigm/Energy/PSB speakers whose performance parameters were influenced by Floyd Toole's research at the NRC. He was hired on at Harman in 2000, and the quality of the JBL's recent Studio and Northridge speakers are a noticeable step up from what they were producing before. Not my favorite speakers either, but certainly not junk and actually a decent value considering how often I see them on sale. Unfortunately, it takes more than just better products to recover from a tarnished reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kexodusc
I know first hand that big box stores can back fire in a big way for large manufacturers. If JBL becomes too dependant on Best Buy and Circuit City and such for distribution, these stores can command a lot influence on the MSRP, etc. Sometimes they prevent savings from being passed on to the consumer. And besides, who among us has really heard a Polk or JBL system properly calibrated and setup in a decent room with running on decent equipment recently? My trip the other day to Future Shop (Best Buy Canada) might as well have been a stroll through a large grocery store...Crowded shelfs, messy wires, 20 foot tall boxes of gear and 200 screaming customers isn't what I'd call optimal listening conditions.
Check out the thread that I started in the Home Theater section about Best Buy adding Magnolia (a high end AV chain on the west coast that BB acquired in 2000 and currently operates as an independent subsidiary) ministores to some of their California locations. These ministores have acoustically treated demo rooms, with a separate sales staff and noticeably higher tier products. If these ministores stores perform well, then brands like Primare, Vienna Acoustics, Def Tech, M&K, and maybe Sonus Faber, Martin Logan, B&K, and McIntosh will be available nationally by walking into Best Buy.
Surprisingly, Polk has managed to straddle that line between distributing into mass merchandisers and still maintaining at least some portion of their dealer network. Even among high end dealers, it's very hard to find any of them with optimally set up multichannel systems. My local Paradigm dealer was one of only two dealers in my area that sets up their multichannel demos using the ITU reference alignment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kexodusc
I'd be curious to know exactly what happened to Acoustic Research...seems to me they've long since fallen from grace...any ideas there?
Their parent company, Recoton, went bankrupt. NHT spun off as its own company, and Recoton tried for a long time to peddle the remaining brands. The main interest in AR was its accessories line.
Audiovox wound up acquiring most of the remaining brands (which include Advent and Jensen), including the entire AR lineup. In the meantime, I've seen that AR introduced some new speaker models, but none of their former dealers in my area stock them. Not sure how the AR brand will be handled given that Audiovox is mostly known as a low cost mobile and wireless electronics manufacturer. Considering AR's illustrious history with both speaker and turntable innovations, I would have preferred a more worthy suitor, but that's the times we live in.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
No, books are story driven -- movies need both visuals and sound to be a movie. Without the audio or visual angle, movies are nothing more than screenplays or storyboards. Citizen Kane or Goodfellas would not be the same if you took out either the sound or the visuals.
Your changing the argument however from one kind of sound to no sound. Movies are fo course story driven or character driven. Yes you need a picture and yes you need sound so you can hear what people are saying - you don't necessarily need to hear the bullet coming from behind you - just so long as you can hear the bullet. Of course Goodfellas needs sound so you can hear what they are saying - but a TV speaker can tell me what they're saying - since when is tv speakers producing dialong - no sound?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
Also, it's NOT at all implausible to go with the big sound and a 27" screen. Why? Because at home we sit a lot closer to the screen than we do at the movies. Nowadays, stadium theaters are designed with smaller screens than before (often under 20' wide), yet audiences perceives the image area as larger because the steep angle puts the majority of the seats closer to the screen than with a conventional rectangular setup.
Be serious I have a 27 inch TV - watching Terminator 2 on this screen and I confess the three times at the theater there is nothing about the visuals on the TV screen that made it SEEM bigger because I sit closer - let's get into reality - I'm sory if your hoaky ass theaters have itty bitty screens. And it applies to films like "In the Bedroom" - as for the loudmouth problems - well this isn't America :p
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
The sound in a 5.1 setup can elevate the overall experience because the visuals are flat and two-dimensional. The sound is the only part of the experience that can envelop the audience and make them part of the scene.
Well I won;t argue this point because it's subjective - My take on this though is that I don't and should not be a "part of the scene" just as I don't want to be or am not a "part of the band." This harkens back to the theatrical form where intelligent audience members suspend their disbelief. In some forms the writer would actually let you see the props and have characters perfrom an aside to fill in the audience as to what is happening. There were other forms where the audience would be more immersed in the goings on. Something like the recent High Fidelity and the original Alfie(have not seen the new one) had the audience immersed because they talk directly to us - I can buy an arguement that if Michale Caine is talking to me and i can hear a streetcar go behind me and plane flying over my head that I would be immersed as if I were standing right there - I don't feel that is necessary however - because the story is good enough on its own to do it and I'm used to the theater instead of let the movie do all the thinking. But I get the argument for the proponants of this moving to a virtual reality vision.
In fact i see it more-so in the very popular new wave of video games from Sony and for the X-Box - I bought a role playing game called Star Wars Knight of the old Republic - which is offerred in 5.1 - it's a role playing game and your character wanders around environments and talks to people and saves the universe etc - and the stories are actually quite interesting. And because the games are not static like a movie - you decide where it will go - The sound on these games can actually scare you and I perceive more of a value for surround sound on these kinds of video games than I do in movies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
That's probably because you've yet to actually hear a properly setup 5.1 system. Don't bring up the demo room experiences again. I'll reinterate again, the vast majority of demo rooms that I've visited do not have the surround setups configured properly. And without a SPL meter, proper adjustments to the delay timing, and proper placement, it won't sound right at home either.
Were you there? you say vast majority which implies some got it right - how do you know for sure they got it wrong. These guys Commercial Electronics then is the biggest High end dealer in BC and does custom home theater installs - if they can;t do it with Sony's help then no one on this planet and certainly not you can do it any better. Heaven they put on the show to impress people so that people would buy the stuff. Man it sure would not be the time to slack - they spent days setting it up - when they put shows on they close days in advance.
Yeah I would not trst a future shop to do it right but CE? Have you been there? And it was impressive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
Or it could be that the Marantz is bad at handling analog signals. A lot of entry level receivers convert all signals to digital and reconvert them to analog, even if the signal gets played with no signal processing. Don't know if your Marantz model does this, but it is a very frequent design approach at the entry level, and it's not until you get to midlevel or higher models that you see more analog bypass features incorporated.
That could be the case - I didn't think of that and here I was blaming the little Aspire DVD player - I should connect it to my Sugden to see what happens. The Aspire kills my Pioneer for features and has a better remote and cost me about 1/7 the price. It even looks better and does stuff like JPEG and MP3 and Progressive scan - and has a nice power saver so if you accidentally leave it on it will shut off by itself in ~20minutes. $50.00Cdn might be the best value thing I've ever bought. Hey it's even lasted more than a year now - surprise surprise.
The living room won't support the J's or my Wharfedales as rear speakers as the couch touches the back wall - so the rear speakers would have to be placed at best beside the two arms on the couch - wall speakers won't work as this is a rented apartment.
I lost the link of rear positioning with this kind of room set-up.
-
Rga:
I'm on the east coast, in New Brunswick for now, yes we have Future Shops, but no A&B sound. I spend lots of time in Toronto, Edmonton/Red Deer, and Winnipeg though so I'm familiar with them.
Regarding Totem: They have a good following and are highly successful in their market at what they do. I'm a fan of about 1/2 their models, and their prices aren't so bad. Mind you, most retailers I know cut quite a bit off the price, so maybe mark-up is high?
I actually visited them in Montreal though, and they have enjoyed tremendous growth internationally with the expansion of home theater, and have a fairly loyal following. They're small scale though. I agree that the do seek to add value in lovely cabinetry, but there's a portion of the audio community that does look for that. I'd love some fancy veneers, but at the rate I still waste, I'll stick with cheaper Canadian woods.
As for the environments in best buy. It's pretty hard to relatively compare the soundstage, and imaging capabilities of a speaker system when they are placed 10 feet apart, in a 6 foot deep room, at different heights, crammed against a wall. Sure, all the speakers suffer, but it's inaccurate to say that these compromised conditions treat all speakers the same. My Studio's 40's, for example, require a toe in to sound their best, while my ar.com DIY's sound phenomenal with none at all...great off-axis response. My Axiom M3Ti's need more toe-in than I'd ever give a speaker, but when set up properly, they sound acceptable. My point is, some speakers could be more forgiving of the environment. Every Maggie I've ever heard requires more trial and error with placement than most speakers I demo to sound good.
RGA, as far as your possible home theater goes, I've got an honest suggestion for you...try the BR-1 DIY kit from Parts Express. For $140 US (roughly the price of Atoms) plus a bit of shipping, duty, etc you will buy a pair of speakers that are far superior to the Atoms, Mini Monitors, and the Energy C-3's (I've personally head-to-heads against all 3) and I don't lie when I say any other speaker I've heard under $450. They're not pretty but they sound exceptional for the price.
What's more, the skills/tools required are very minimal, the desigin philosophy is simple, and this would be a great practice run for you before building an AN E kit or something.
For home theater on a budget, you simply cannot beat 5 or 6 of these...I'm quite tempted to do this for my mom and dad to upgrade them from the Atom/Titan system they have now..
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
I don't think the point is to have to listen to JBL in the best acoustical environment since most people don't have that - The Future SHops are not ideal - okay but it's not ideal for all th other brands - you should always be able to get a sense of how a speaker sounds - Sarah Mclachlan is sarah McLachlan in the bath tub or Queen Elizabeth theater or at an outdoor concert etc etc. What I think is important is to compare the speakers in the same acoustic environment and see what happens. A recent discussion going on about phase coherence etc going on at AA makes the same point - our ear filters out much of the crap and focuses in on what we wish to hear same as in a crowded room as it is in a room with a lot of echo - none of that shows up in measurements because they are woefully inadequate compared to what the human brain is capable of with regards to hear location.
Actually, listening to JBLs in a halfway decent acoustical environment is part of the whole point. The acoustical environment does not make Sarah McLachlan sound like Axel Rose, it's the REPRODUCTION of that source that is heavily influenced by the acoustics, which makes comparisons of how differently the speakers render an identical source difficult at best. I don't think that listening to a pair of JBLs at Best Buy and a pair of B&Ws in an acoustically treated room is at all comparable, or vice versa.
The noise level in the audio section at Best Buy is probably somewhere in the 75-85 db range, which is the reference playback range that I use while measuring my system. Inside the acoustically treated demo room at my local Magnolia Hi-Fi store, I measured the ambient noise at 50-55 db. Considering how obsessive audiophiles get over line level hissing on amps, the order of magnitude in the differences between these two acoustical environments is far more agregious, yet you say that the brain can filter out a noise level difference that large? If that's the case, then why would infinitesimal noise floor differences matter so much to other audiophiles, if gross room distortions can be filtered out by the brain, then why not these much smaller anomalies?
And then you add the variability of the room gain at the low end, and I don't see how the sound of the speakers can be even remotely comparable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Kex - you are in Canada now no? Paradigm is in a big box chain called AudioVideo Unlimited - Paradigm is better than JBL. You're in the east and I don't know if A&B sound is out there but all of the high end dealers have dumped Totem and they have gone to A&B Sound. I odn;t think it necessarily says anything about the quality and I don;t believe it's because people want to own boutique brands(some are better than others in both camps). High end dealers here simply don't carry Paradigm because they are not high end speakers - Soundhounds carries Wharfedale/Paradigm as good budget speakers and with the V2 I can't argue with that. As Terry said you need to carry a lot of selection so that people can make up their own mind and people want what they read about in last months stereo magazine - he noted that there are speakers you carry to sell and speakers you carry to own. Then there lines like Totem they carry in name only - he said it was useless they got dropped by Dynaudio on the drivers - they sold 6 Totem products all year - they sold 6 AN products in one day. So he keeps them becuase basically you can compare them in an A/B session which helps sell their biggest selling line in AN. ANd Totem takes up little space. They dumped ML and the Big Nautilus speakers because they kept coming back - sooner or later the faults became noticeable - the same set of N801's were brought back by three different customers - that's tough on a dealer so now he carries the smaller N803 and N805.
High end dealers don't carry Paradigm because they're not high end, yet YOUR very own favorite high end dealer carries them. So, does this mean that Soundhounds is a low end dealer because they carry Paradigm? Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.
In the U.S., Paradigm is not even carried by regional specialty chains. Regional chain Magnolia Hi-Fi sells Martin Logan and Sonus Faber, but those companies aren't high end either because Magnolia also sells Bose, right? Or if we assume that Magnolia's a high end store, does this mean that Bose is now high end because they're sold through a "high end" store?
At least you're now stating up front that where a brand gets sold doesn't say much, yet you still make the point that Paradigm is sold through whatever chain stores in Canada and that Totem now sells at those same chain stores, as if that actually says anything about the product quality. Where something gets sold is a BUSINESS decision, with a lot of dimensions attached to it. You talk about products to SELL versus products to OWN, yet you cite Soundhounds' AN sales. I guess that when they SELL to a customer, then that customer OWNS it. Again, it's a BUSINESS decision. AN sells well, so Soundhounds keeps that line. I don't think that Soundhounds operates as a charity, they're out to make a buck or two and keep their doors open just like anyone else. The high end dealers in my area all carry speaker lines in the affordable price ranges, because it makes good business sense to do so. I don't think they care one bit if they fit everybody's arbitrary definition of "high end" or not. If it's a good speaker that's competitive with other models at its price point, then why would a "high end" store not carry it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
I think Polk ran into financial trouble - they simply never were THAT great - and if you're a marginal high end brand like a Totem and you're selling 6 speakers a year at a huge dealer - then somewhere aloing the line you gotta eat - so you call up A&B Sound and Future Shop where you'll instantly be the prestige line at those places(Energy Veritas as well at A&B Sound). The problem is is that High end shoppers tend not to bother with A&B Sound and Future Shop and average Joe is probably not going to want to drop $3k on a standmount or $800.00Cdn on the Mite. These speakers are good I like the Rainmaker among others - but they're really small and average Joe likes big bass - and none of these cn produce bass with credible SPLs and if it's all about home theater - then the energy C series is cheaper and will do it H/T just as well. Which is why at least at this store Totem's prices are hacked and the manager told me they do the worst of all they carry in sales. If that is true across the board I don't see a big future for Totem - unless they cut corners - and then what's the point.
Credible SPL in the bass? Isn't that where subwoofers come in? If someone likes the Totems better, then the Energy C-series will not do HT "just as well" because in that person's view, the Totem's a better speaker. If Totem was already a low volume speaker manufacturer, then being the worst seller at Future Shop doesn't necessarily mean doom and gloom for them. I mean, if they're only selling 6 units a year at Soundhounds, they would be improving their situation if being the worst selling speaker at Future Shop still represents an increase in sales volume.
Do you know for a fact how Totem conducts their business? The independent store managers that I've talked to will typically search for new options if one of their supplier companies decides to go with a chain store. They simply have no interest in competing head to head with the big box stores or even the regional specialty chains, when they have other options that they can pick up. Paradigm has held onto their U.S. dealer network by being a top seller, and by not going into U.S. chain stores. Not biting the hand that feeds them, and providing a popular product that generates foot traffic for independent dealers, most of whom stock very high end products as part of their offerings. Sounds like good business practice. But, "high end" dealers won't carry Paradigm because they're not "high end." Uh, okay.
B&W, Energy, Vienna Acoustics, Martin Logan, Krell, and Sonus Faber, among others, have gone into regional chain stores, and created more jockeying around in the various business relationships. My local Paradigm dealer used to carry Sonus Faber, but they don't anymore. Magnolia (which carries SF at all 22 of their stores) opened a location nearby, and I don't know if it was the store's decision to drop SF or Sumiko (SF's distributor) that dropped them. Doesn't matter, the store picked up Acoustic Energy and they seem to be doing fine. In the case of B&W, they dropped one of the stores in my area because another one of their dealers relocated to that same city. Rather than have two B&W dealers within a mile of one another, B&W dropped the store that was there first in order to maintain their territorial protections. That store has since expanded, and picked up PSB and Vienna Acoustics. B&W did the same thing when one of their larger dealers opened a new location in an area already served by a B&W dealer. Again, B&W dropped the existing dealer, which later on went out of business. Simple business decisions all the way around, nothing more.
Like it or not, all of the big box stores are looking to expand their reach into the higher market segments. Best Buy has owned Magnolia Hi-Fi for five years, and recently started adding Magnolia ministores to place higher end product lines inside of Best Buy stores. Would not surprise me at all to see them try a similar approach with Future Shop (which they are trying to differentiate from their BB stores) and BB Canada.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Your changing the argument however from one kind of sound to no sound. Movies are fo course story driven or character driven. Yes you need a picture and yes you need sound so you can hear what people are saying - you don't necessarily need to hear the bullet coming from behind you - just so long as you can hear the bullet. Of course Goodfellas needs sound so you can hear what they are saying - but a TV speaker can tell me what they're saying - since when is tv speakers producing dialong - no sound?
You're the one who's telling me that movies are a story driven medium, while music is sound driven. Well, how can a movie tell a story without the visuals or the sound? A story driven medium is a book or a bedtime story. A movie by definition has moving pictures and sound (silent films excepted, but even they had musical accompaniment).
You only need a transistor radio and an earpiece to hear music, yet you talk about how receivers render music unlistenable, and the reason you know this is because you've heard better. Yet, with movies, it's perfectly enjoyable to experience movie sound through the very same receiver that you considered unlistenable with music -- AND you're not even getting the fully intended dimensionality that goes with the audio part of the movie. I'm pointing out that watching a movie with a fully appointed surround system is very much analogous to the added enjoyment that's possible with music when played through a great system. Improving the sound improves the overall enjoyment of the movie, it's that simple. It won't cure the ills of a bad movie, just as a great audio system will not make bad music any better. Why this applies to music and not to movies, I don't see the disconnect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Be serious I have a 27 inch TV - watching Terminator 2 on this screen and I confess the three times at the theater there is nothing about the visuals on the TV screen that made it SEEM bigger because I sit closer - let's get into reality - I'm sory if your hoaky ass theaters have itty bitty screens. And it applies to films like "In the Bedroom" - as for the loudmouth problems - well this isn't America :p
"hoaky ass" theaters? "itty bitty" screens? You mean, everybody in Canada goes to single-screen auditoriums with 80' wide screens, acoustic controls, and state-of-the-art sound systems? (Only residents living in L.A. are that lucky) Sorry, but I've been to your country and you got the same multiscreen megaplexes dotting the landscape that we got stateside. (In fact, some of the first big megaplexes in California in the late-80s were developed by Cineplex Odeon, a Canadian company) And nobody in Canada talks during a movie? Maybe I should have spent my entire Canadian vacation last year just going to movies if that was the case (doesn't matter if they would've been dubbed into French, nobody would be talking!).
I've talked to movie theater developers before, audiences like the steep stadium seating configuration because they think that the screen is larger than it actually is. This is what their audience response feedback is telling them. It's not something that I'm making up. Put that same screen into a traditional rectangular configuration and it seems smaller because the majority of the audience is sitting further away. Personally, I prefer the traditional configuration because the steep stadium seating angle truncates the imaging and the sound is more inconsistent in different spots of the theater.
Same thing with a home TV. Why would a 27" TV even be remotely tolerable if your standard is a 60' wide big screen? The movie theater screen will of course cover a wider portion of your peripheral vision, but the reduction will not be on the order of 30:1. That's why I don't see anything odd at all about going with a 27" TV with the full surround sound. Are you saying that the reduction in the scale of the sound quality should be proportional to the screen size in order for it to not be amusing in your view? I view the benefit of surround sound in much broader terms than just the pyrotechnics. If all you care about with home theater is the crashes and explosions, then maybe that explains why you find the odd humor in this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Well I won;t argue this point because it's subjective - My take on this though is that I don't and should not be a "part of the scene" just as I don't want to be or am not a "part of the band." This harkens back to the theatrical form where intelligent audience members suspend their disbelief. In some forms the writer would actually let you see the props and have characters perfrom an aside to fill in the audience as to what is happening. There were other forms where the audience would be more immersed in the goings on.
And we can all go back to grade school too where we "pretend" to do everything with imaginary friends and invisible objects to interact with. Are you saying that "intelligent audience members" are better off without surround sound because sound coming out of a crappy TV speaker will let them better suspend their disbeliefs? In my view, the suspension of disbelief is all the more convincing when the overall movie experience takes me into that world, rather than one that leaves me with telltale reminders that I need to overcome.
Aside from IMAX 3D (geez, a Canadian invention at that), which can't be practically replicated at home convincingly, sound is the only pragmatic avenue available to everyday consumers to bring the audience into the world on screen. Doesn't matter to me if I'm watching "Insomnia" on a 32" TV, the surround effect brings me into the eerie fog, with "Master and Commander" I can feel closed in beneath deck or wide open on the seas, with "The Haunting" I sense the ground giving way, and in a multitude of dialog driven movies, I get the much better perception of being a participant in a scene rather than some distant observer. Not bad for a dinky TV screen. If this is merely a crutch for a less intelligent audience, then bring on more lack of imagination. When I view performance art or go the the modern art museum to see an exhibit on minimalism, I'll let my imagination run wild.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Were you there? you say vast majority which implies some got it right - how do you know for sure they got it wrong. These guys Commercial Electronics then is the biggest High end dealer in BC and does custom home theater installs - if they can;t do it with Sony's help then no one on this planet and certainly not you can do it any better. Heaven they put on the show to impress people so that people would buy the stuff. Man it sure would not be the time to slack - they spent days setting it up - when they put shows on they close days in advance.
Because you spout off about how unconvincing surround sound is, how it's about nothing but little sounds in the back, and how you've yet to hear a setup that you like, etc. You're right, I wasn't there. Maybe the setup was correct, but you just don't like the surround effect. I mean, my mom to this day prefers mono and hates the stereo because in her view it's distracting. But, even a lot of dedicated theaters that I've heard are designed to sound like large movie theaters (with dipolar surrounds that run the surround output out of phase), rather than something optimized for the best imaging effect at the listening position (which is how multichannel music gets mixed, and how more movies get remixed for their DVD transfers).
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
The living room won't support the J's or my Wharfedales as rear speakers as the couch touches the back wall - so the rear speakers would have to be placed at best beside the two arms on the couch - wall speakers won't work as this is a rented apartment.
I lost the link of rear positioning with this kind of room set-up.
You only need enough space behind the sofa to create a 110 degree offset from the center line. Depending on how big the sofa is, that's usually less than one foot behind the sofa. Elevate the speakers above ear level and point them directly at one another, and that should be close enough to optimal positioning. Match the levels and set the delay timing, and you're good to go. Besides, it doesn't have to be permanent.
-
Kex - the kit may be an option since I'm looking to buy the stripped down Nitty Gritty LP cleaning machine called the KAB Or something along these lines. So I'll see how that is all dealt with at the border to see how it goes. Right now I'm on path for the AN OTO Phono SE which I'm trying to work on with taking out some RRSP's to get it. LOL :D yes it's crazy. (Sorry but it is better than any SS amp I've heard and it's not close - but yeah it's subjective and it may only apply with specific speakers in question).
I would like a cheap option on kits because the Atoms are not world beaters -though they;re very good under $170.00Cdn.
Wooch
Yes my post was contradictory in that i said no high end dealers carry Paradigm here but that Soundhounds carries them and Wharfedale as entry level stuff - in fact the issue of High end is spurious because it really doesn't have any context other than high priced. The B&W 705 is considered High End I bet and the AX Two at $700.00 is not - that doesn't say much about which is better however.
I was not clear on my dealer's comments either. But I don't want to be any clearer out of respect for their business with other brands that he carries - I'll leave it at what he and everyone who works there owns all fall in line with one brand they carry(even years before they carried the company for himseld) while all the other brands they sell they choose not to own themselves.
Of course they sell AN because AN sells - you'd be crazy to do otherwise. I'm surprised it seels as well as it does at the location due the prices of AN relative to others there. But according to Terry they are the biggest(or near it) AN dealer and probably the only one that can truly demonstrate what the company is about and have enough big name competition in the store to put on the demos. A lot of big high end dealers here only carry a few 3-4 speaker lines - To me that is no help because they usually carry a couple of inexpensive lines and then one mid line and one high end line. Hi-Fi Center downtown Vancouver carries most B&W speakers but they carry little else and they are not set-up to do comparison as a couple of the rooms are set-up as surround sound living rooms where all speakers are fully stagnant and set-up more to show how good they are at customizing(lots of money in that).
So if you have $700.00 they can really only point you to a B&W and maybe somehting from Mordaunt Short and that's it(and at some prices maybe nothing else). At Soundhounds you could listen to about 20 speakers that range between $500.00 and $900.00 from maybe 8 plus brands all in the same room. Most places carry one flagship line - B&W Nautilus and no other speaker at those $8k prices - which forces you to listen to the competing brand say a Martin Logan $8k speaker somewhere else and a Tannoy Flagship somewhere else - and it's not practical to order 12 of them to bring home and do all your comparisons. What I try and do is find the best systems and best speakers each store carries - Luckily Soundhounds carries much of them - ML is arguably the best thing Commercial Electronics carries B&W is the best Hi-Fi center carries within their stores - Soundhounds carries both. There is only so much that can be compared - so one ois then forced to try and listen to say JM Labs in different rooms at COmmercial Electronics and with similar gear that Soundhounds carry and attempt to project an opinion when an A/B comparison is not possible.
I had to do that with Wilson's Sophia - I did not compare that directly to Audio Note - but I'm sure I can conclude that the J and E are better music reproducers for several reasons - I would be less sure of myself however making a clear statement agains something like the N801 however which has some similar problematic traits.
I would not base a comparison of JBL in a bad environment with B&W in a good one - A&B Sound has acceptable auditioning rooms that are away from traffic (at least the one I go to in Vancouver) and it is more than fair to compare the Totems to the JBL's there. It does not require a great room to be able to tell thatthe Rainmaker sounds coinsiderably better than the JBL Northridge standmount - even at the crappy A&B Sound in my town where they'll all lined up - it would be difficult to compare soundstage, imaging but that is barely scratching the surface of what music is about.
-
Wooch
Maybe I'm not being clear - a book and a movie are closer than music is to either. Most Novels, Plays and Films have a story arc which usually begins with soem kind of intro or set-up, rising action to build suspense, a climax, falling action, and some sort of conclusion and denoument. The Novel is read and you the reader place the images and sound in your mind - language is descriptive because it requires the reader to fill in the visuals tastes smells and sounds that are not there. The play is a visual and has sound - it is real live braeathing and engages the audience in a way film can not approach. Films have the advantage of, for the actor, that mistakes can be re-shot it is and always will be exactly the same and it is stamped for all time - spectacle is placed high (which is low on Aristotle's form of good plays) usually higher than everything else. Films also have the best opportunity to manipulate audiences. Spielberg gets blasted for this often in criticl circles by using the rising music to suck out a tear from the audience - I defend him on that because the so called greater directors like Kubrick used camera tricks and colour to induce emotion or other feelings.
I am not trying to say people are stupid if they need home theater to be able to watch a movie - but neither do they need home theater to "get" or enjoy a movie any better. I enjoy the comedy Plains, Trains and Automobiles whether i watch it at the theater on home theater or when it pops up on tv(though I dislike the cutting out of the big F-word scene at the airport and usually has me running for the DVD about 5 minutes before that happens so I get the real version.
I simply go back to the T2 argument - It was better in the theater than it is at home - and it's not because I' not currently running rear channels - it's because the screen isn't as big. AHHNOLd's head isn;t the size of truck on a 27 inch tv - I am presently about 6 feet from my tv watching some Star trek Enterprise thing watching ships fly through space and ain;t no Enterprise on the big screen. I have been to FS and even their big screen tvs - while much better in the big department won't have me avoiding the movie theater(though what look to be bad films are).
I'm picky - If I'm going to get home theater at home or better it as the claims may be that requires me to FEEL that that is the case - there is absolutely nothing about the picture size and or quality of televsion screens and DVD resolution that makes me buy into the picture quality. The picture Quality I don't care too much about but I'd like the size impression(the impression of scale) as for sound how exactly do you know for sure what isthe appropriate time delay and level of a bird chirping should be at the rear channel - I can;t believe all movies are recorded in exactly the same standard and volume level so the bird chirp in the first movie may be louder in the next movie - one reason I disliked Prologic is because I was fiddling with the remote every single film. This moive needs the center turned up and the rears down then the next movie some other issue and then you turn one thing up and some breaks some glass and it blows you out the door.
Again I'm not saying H/T won't enhance the experience if done properly - this is obvious since 2 channel Sugden enhances films over tv speakers.
-
Agree with Woochifer.....The reference point to say...
Hi- end or not, isn't the dealer. Here in Miami, for example, Sound Component is one of the few Hi-End dealers. They carrie Paradigms together with Wilson Audio, Pro-Ac, Thiel, Snell, B&W, etc. The same case is Audio Artisan, another Hi-end dealer here. They carrie PSB and when you want a demo, it is with PS Audio, VTL, Conrad Johnson, and other hi-end staff running PSB. Who understand it? On the other hand, Sound Advise, which is a mass market shop, carries Sonus Faber and Martin Logan together with cheap Polks and others worse than Polk which I don't remember its name. Another case is Kef. It has been selling by mass market shops here in Miami. In spite of RGA has some reason when he says some hi-end dealers are more selectives, the hi-end category isn't given by the dealer who carries the product. This is my opinion.
Sound Advise(now tweeter) has had Krell in the same shelf they have cheap Sony receivers costing less than 250 bucks. Does this mean Krell isn't hi-end? I don't think so.
Jorge.
-
I would just add, with the home theater boom, more people are demanding something better than your entry level Polk, JBL, Paradigm, B&W, Energy, etc, speakers and looking at "middle of the road" or Mid-Fi stuff, and in some cases even more. I think this has as much to do with Totem and other brands moving to larger stores than their inability to sell. Truth is, these stores get much more traffic.
-
Kex
Well I agree if I'm Totem and I get the kind of sales I get at Soundhounds I can;t stay in business - so A&B Sound (alla Future shop without the appliances and computers) comes along - you instantly get into a place where there is high volume people and a tenfold increase in stores.
My reason for suggesting Totem could suffer - and they may not is that one out of the high end stores they will be perceived less so as high end speakers. IMO they really are not a high end speaker though - they cost more and they are beautifully finished but the Model One is grossly overrated and always has been - it's great for the size - but what does that really say?
Take the Arro - was $1500.00Cdn now it's $1100.00 - every Totem they sell has dropped like a stone in price - people who go to these kinds of stores are not going to pay the premium - so A&B sound puts a demand on Totem and the prices drop - Totem now loses money - so maybe they skimp.
After hearing their $4000.00 Hawk - I'm amazed anyone could possibly justify that as a good speaker to buy at that price - I must say the frequency response specs look quite impressive on paper but the sound at $4k :rolleyes:
Then again it' obviously more than JUST sound quality - look at B&O - if Totem is viewed as being sexy people will pay for it - very few "look" as nice as Totem - and unlike B&O Totem makes very good sounding speakers - but I feel you pay about double for the looks
-
Yeah the Hawk wasn't at the top of my list either, but I'm not sure it's fair to say you pay "double for the looks", there's more than a few $4000 speakers out there that are butt-ugly that don't sound as nice as the Hawk. But I will admit, veneer, and woodwork doesn't come cheap.
As for the Arro, I think this price drop is more indicative of 2 factors: 1) the sharp decrease in Totem's cost of acquiring high end Peerless and Vifa-Speak drivers from Denmark with the dollar increase (everybit as good as Dynaudio, though I'm not sure if substituting drivers like Totem did is a great practice)
2) Reconsidering how much mark-up is appropriate on their speakers.
I have a friend back in Maine who runs a small A/V shop, and from what he tells me mark-ups on speakers vary a lot from company to company, with some as low as 20% to others at over 200% markup. He's observed that over the last few years, mark-ups on entry level speakers have decreased substantially, especially for smaller companies, forcing manufacturing to be done overseas for smaller companies, and with the HT boom, the so-called "mid-fi" market has become more competitive. But high mark-ups still exist on speakers in the $1500 USD range and higher because the competition hasn't grown so rediculously fast.
FWIW, since I've come back to Canada, I've observed alot of differences in pricing for not only speakers, but all audio gear. Totem appears a bit more competitive abroad. Harman's stuff is rediculously expensive in Canada. Not sure, but this could have some bearing on Totem's pricing schemes as well.
With Totem, I think you also pay a bit of a premium for the compact size most of their speakers have. And I haven't heard many speakers image better than Totem's bookshelfs, the Rainmaker in particular. Some people do care about looks, size, in addition to speakers. If I was in a small room, that would almost be essential.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Maybe I'm not being clear - a book and a movie are closer than music is to either. Most Novels, Plays and Films have a story arc which usually begins with soem kind of intro or set-up, rising action to build suspense, a climax, falling action, and some sort of conclusion and denoument. The Novel is read and you the reader place the images and sound in your mind - language is descriptive because it requires the reader to fill in the visuals tastes smells and sounds that are not there. The play is a visual and has sound - it is real live braeathing and engages the audience in a way film can not approach. Films have the advantage of, for the actor, that mistakes can be re-shot it is and always will be exactly the same and it is stamped for all time - spectacle is placed high (which is low on Aristotle's form of good plays) usually higher than everything else. Films also have the best opportunity to manipulate audiences. Spielberg gets blasted for this often in criticl circles by using the rising music to suck out a tear from the audience - I defend him on that because the so called greater directors like Kubrick used camera tricks and colour to induce emotion or other feelings.
The experience though with live music and live theater present a more limited range of experiences -- i.e. you're limited to what can be rendered inside whatever room you're in and whatever can be performed in real time. That's why I don't think that music should be limited to recreating a concert hall acoustic performance or movies limited to whatever can be performed in real time on a stage in front of a live audience.
Movies present a broader palatte of what they can do both visually and aurally, and they can move across a broader range of situations and scenery, and render those with more of sense of reality and place. That's why I think the surround sound adds immeasurably to viewing a movie, because it takes you into another reality the same way that the moving pictures do, except that the surround sound can create go outside of the screen area and give you the back side coverage that you would get in a real life situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
I simply go back to the T2 argument - It was better in the theater than it is at home - and it's not because I' not currently running rear channels - it's because the screen isn't as big. AHHNOLd's head isn;t the size of truck on a 27 inch tv - I am presently about 6 feet from my tv watching some Star trek Enterprise thing watching ships fly through space and ain;t no Enterprise on the big screen. I have been to FS and even their big screen tvs - while much better in the big department won't have me avoiding the movie theater(though what look to be bad films are).
Again, you're focusing strictly on the spectacle aspect of action pics to make your point. I've been saying that the surround sound brings you closer to the action, even if it's just a bunch of people standing around chatting about pie recipes. Having a fully appointed surround system is not about making things out of scale with the image, it's about bringing everything about a movie as close to real-life scale as possible, regardless of how big or small the image you're looking at is. The illusion of being a part of the scene is just as applicable, whether that sound is coupled with a portable TV or a full-wall projection system.
And on T2, I will say that the sound portion of the movie was far more involving at home with that great DTS ES soundtrack that came with the Ultimate Edition DVD. My home theater gives better dialog intelligibility, more convincing surround imaging, better tonal balance, better rendering of subtle sounds and ambient cues, etc. Better picture in the theater yes, but soundwise, there are only a few theater sound systems that I would prefer to what I get at home. And besides, what theater close to where you live is currently showing T2? You like it better in the theater sure, but when do you get to see it? If I feel like watching the movie, I simply pull out the DVD and play it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
I'm picky - If I'm going to get home theater at home or better it as the claims may be that requires me to FEEL that that is the case - there is absolutely nothing about the picture size and or quality of televsion screens and DVD resolution that makes me buy into the picture quality. The picture Quality I don't care too much about but I'd like the size impression(the impression of scale) as for sound how exactly do you know for sure what isthe appropriate time delay and level of a bird chirping should be at the rear channel - I can;t believe all movies are recorded in exactly the same standard and volume level so the bird chirp in the first movie may be louder in the next movie - one reason I disliked Prologic is because I was fiddling with the remote every single film. This moive needs the center turned up and the rears down then the next movie some other issue and then you turn one thing up and some breaks some glass and it blows you out the door.
Yeah, but there are many levels of picture quality that far surpass what you currently get with a 27" standard resolution 4:3 TV. Once you start getting into widescreen HDTVs, then it doesn't take much more than about 50" to give you about the same peripheral vision coverage as you would get in a multiplex theater. Again, you sit closer to the screen at home that you would at a movie theater, so it's not about matching the image size one for one. DVDs won't give you the necessary resolution to rival the image quality of film, but true HD resolution comes pretty close, especially when you consider the variability of the projection and print quality at most movie theaters.
Not all movies are recorded the same, the same that not all music is recorded the same. But, movie sound has guidelines in regard to the levels with multichannel soundtracks. There's generally more consistency with how movie soundtracks are recorded and mastered than with music. The levels for individual effects are the discretion of whoever's mixing it, but at least with 5.1 you're getting the intended effect put forth by the filmmakers.
Forget about Pro Logic if you're discussing surround sound. That has zero relevance to what's incorporated into most DVD releases nowadays. Pro Logic is inconsistent because it varies by the stereo separation of source. And with analog devices, it can wildly vary. Different VCRs can produce huge variations in how much information gets directed to the center and surround channels, and broadcast TV stereo is even worse. Discrete 5.1 is just that, discrete. You'll get the same channel balances going through your system, no matter what source equipment you use. Can't say that about Pro Logic.
-
Take a look at Montor Audio
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeti2003
I've heard both of these speakers at two separate local dealers and I liked the sound from both of them. I'm going to see if I can audition both sets in home but I'd also like some thoughts from people out there that have either set of speakers.
1. The studios are ~800 retal and the 602s are ~600. I know price doesn't necessarily mean better quality but why are the studios 200 more?
2. Can anyone recommend a stand for either of these speakers? The girlfriend really likes the Bello stands we saw at a dealer.
I can get them online for a lot cheaper here:
http://www.racksandstands.com/cats/A...tands/0C97.htm
3. I watch movies 80% of the time so the center channel is going to be important. Which brand has a better matching center?
Thanks for any input. Hopefully I'll be able to audition them in house soon.
I was looking at Paradigm also, I own a Paradigm HT system and really like it. Several folks on this Forum suggested looking at Monitor Audio (MA) Bronze 2. After much research, I went with them and have not regretted the decision one bit. Besides saving several hundred on the price, I love the sound. I also needed a front-ported speaker because of location. I ended up buying them from Saturday Auido (Chicago area) via the phone.
Happy hunting,
SF
-
4 -602's with a center to match and a good sub wouldnt be half bad.603's up front would be better.
-
Hi,
I'm new to the forum, but i thought i'd jump in and discuss the original topic. Last night i had a chance to compare studio 20's and 602 s3 directly with each other.
I brought my system (Cambridge Audio C500, P500, and B&W 602 s3) over to my friends home to compare my equipment with his (Krell 300i, NHT ?? full size speakers). Of course it was no comparison, his blew mine right out of the water, but he has studio 20's for his ht, so we compared the studio 20's with my 602's. I think the studio 20's were s2.
Before i get into this, to let you know, we took turns placing the speakers on the speaker stands, and positioned the speakers for their optimal sound. It seemed the studio 20's perferred toe in (to make it more bright) while the 602's did better parallel.
First we hooked up the studio 20's to my cambridge audio system, it was slow, boxy, very lifeless. After switching the studio 20's to the krell, it was a night and day difference... a lot more dynamic and smoother. When we switched my 602's from the cambridge audio's to the krell, there was a definite improvement, but not as big a difference as with the studio 20's. Studio 20's definitely need a bright amp to power them, while the 602's in this limited experiment seem more forgiving.
In my personal opinion, the studio 20's have a warm sound, but seems to have a narrow range, and even on the krell, still sounded boxy, i think this is due to it's unnaturally inflated bass. When listening to the NHT's, it felt like i was listening to a live performance, when listening to the 602's, it felt like i was listening to a wall of sound, but with the studio 20's, i was very aware that the music was emanating from 2 points in front of me.
The 602's are very bright compared to the studio 20's, but have a wider dynamic range, definitely more detail, and a more natural defined bass. Another thing i'd like to point out is that the 602's are very effecient, sounded bigger than they are (definitely not boxy at all), and easily filled the large room we were in with music.
My friend liked the warmth of the studio 20's, but admitted the studio 20's did sound more boxy and had a unnaturally inflated bass.
Before this experiment, i was curious to how my 602's stacked up against the studio 20's. I can tell you that i have no regrets getting the 602's.. i find the studio 20's inflated bass and boxy sound unforgivable.
-
RGA: Just saw this post from way back
I think I partially agree with that...that's why it's important to have some measurement equipment (and reference commercial speakers). I don't design speakers, just assembly, testing, and slight modification of other designs so far...the only thing I've ever designed is 2 cabinets, had tons of help with crossover and driver selection for my vifa/scanspeak monitors...but I'm learnin'...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by sixty9@gmail.com
My friend liked the warmth of the studio 20's, but admitted the studio 20's did sound more boxy and had a unnaturally inflated bass.
Before this experiment, i was curious to how my 602's stacked up against the studio 20's. I can tell you that i have no regrets getting the 602's.. i find the studio 20's inflated bass and boxy sound unforgivable.
You and your friend are the first people I've met that could listen to the 20's compared to the 602's and call them "warm". Mine sizzle. :)
-
I'm a bit surprised by the listening as well - the 602 is usually described as being a bit polite while the 20 to me is pretty hard - the whole series was but given the competition the V2 was a good series. I prefer the sound of the 600 series against the Studios but I certainly understand why people prefer the V2 series paradigms. Incidentally I like the 600 series much more than 700 series which I feel is pretyt pathetic all across the board.
Quite simply the 600 series is less refined but it's more engaging to listen to. Dynamically BAD speakers may have the smoothest tweeters, best imaging impecable soundstage - but none of that is worth beans if the lifeblood of the music is shot before you even start. Some people might call it PRAT. A kind of misnomer term - but it's a guit reaction when listening - the 600 series knows the business better than many others in its price despite a few issues - others have less issues but seem to me to get it wrong.
The DM 302 for example was quite entertaining and involving which is why I bought em - still regret trading them.
-
Thanks for all the input! I tried out both speakers at home with the same equipment and I found that I liked the Studios better (just my personal preference). It's hard for me to describe sound but I thought they were more "detailed". Anyway, now I'm in a bind because the speakers are sitting on my old towers which is probably less than optimal.
The speakers are 15 inches tall and I was told I should get a 29-30 inch stand for them. The Sanus stands seem to be all over the place. I was looking at the Sanus SF30 (30 inches) which is about $150 but I was wondering if there's other "stand" brands I should be looking at. Personally I don't want to spend $300 for the matching J-Premier stands from Paradigm.
Suggestions?
-
I don't blame you for looking at other stands, the Premier's aren't exactly the greatest stands out there and are about 100% over priced in my opinion. Stands don't have to cost you an arm and a leg...the solid MDF stands that Sanus sells, with $2 worth of rubber bumpers you can buy at a hardware store will effecitvely eliminate all vibration issues you might have...steel's even better. Stands are almost as bad as cables when it comes to some of the claims manufacturers make.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by kexodusc
I don't blame you for looking at other stands, the Premier's aren't exactly the greatest stands out there and are about 100% over priced in my opinion. Stands don't have to cost you an arm and a leg...the solid MDF stands that Sanus sells, with $2 worth of rubber bumpers you can buy at a hardware store will effecitvely eliminate all vibration issues you might have...steel's even better. Stands are almost as bad as cables when it comes to some of the claims manufacturers make.
That would depend on which Premier stands you're referring to. The J-series (the ones that get photographed with the Studio and Signature series models) stands are a bit overpriced, but no more than the stands that other manufacturers like B&W, Energy, or Sonus Faber sell. When you get up into that price level, a lot of what you're paying for is the design, although I will say that a lot of those higher priced stands give you added stability and mass as well. The J-series stands are nice and very functional, but if you're willing to go with an uglier stand, then Sound Anchor and Target Audio sell stands that are just as stable as the Premier J-series stands for less.
As far as the other Premier stands go, the S-series stands (which I use with my system) cost $120, which is comparable to the steel stands that Sanus sells, and IMO better constructed than the Sanus Steel Foundation stands. The wooden Premier T-series stands cost even less, and I believe are cost competitive with the Sanus stands.
With stands, I think the cost increases stem from the look of the stands, and how stable and/or heavy they are. The Bell'O stands with the swooping Italian designer frame and cherry wood insets go for over $300, but they are relatively lightweight and have average stability. The adjustable Sound Anchor stands that I use for my surrounds are utilitarian/ugly and cost $350. But, they weigh 65 lbs. each, have a frame welded into one piece with no seams, and they'll bruise you before you can accidentally knock them over or wobble them. B&W also sells a set of $350 stands that look nice, but aren't any heavier or more stable than competitors selling for half the price. The $500 Sonus Faber stands have a polished look with heavy four-post construction, and are solid all around.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
With stands, I think the cost increases stem from the look of the stands, and how stable and/or heavy they are. The Bell'O stands with the swooping Italian designer frame and cherry wood insets go for over $300, but they are relatively lightweight and have average stability. The adjustable Sound Anchor stands that I use for my surrounds are utilitarian/ugly and cost $350. But, they weigh 65 lbs. each, have a frame welded into one piece with no seams, and they'll bruise you before you can accidentally knock them over or wobble them. B&W also sells a set of $350 stands that look nice, but aren't any heavier or more stable than competitors selling for half the price. The $500 Sonus Faber stands have a polished look with heavy four-post construction, and are solid all around.
Well said Wooch...if you factor in a premium for design/looks, a fair price is much harder to determine...obviously people are buying these, I suspect they're happy. Being the frugal-phile that I am I went cheap and built my own out of MDF, loaded with cat litter, and veneered them to match my speakers...simple, but they get the job done...heavy, and really hard on the toes.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeti2003
Thanks for all the input! I tried out both speakers at home with the same equipment and I found that I liked the Studios better (just my personal preference). It's hard for me to describe sound but I thought they were more "detailed". Anyway, now I'm in a bind because the speakers are sitting on my old towers which is probably less than optimal.
The speakers are 15 inches tall and I was told I should get a 29-30 inch stand for them. The Sanus stands seem to be all over the place. I was looking at the Sanus SF30 (30 inches) which is about $150 but I was wondering if there's other "stand" brands I should be looking at. Personally I don't want to spend $300 for the matching J-Premier stands from Paradigm.
Suggestions?
Skylan stands are $200.00 CDN and Noel will custom build them - find out what the speaker recomends as a height - the manufacturer should have calculate the floorbounce of the woofer and should have a specific height within a few inches for the speaker - then provide that info to a company like Skylan - I have found their stands to be better than what is partnered with the speaker makers (who usually like to add profit here). http://www.skylanstands.com/
You could pay significanly more money for something like Sound Anchors which I have now or some of the companies even more expensive adjustable stands - whcih is nice if you change speakers you don;t have to change stands. But you could probably buy 4 sets of custom Skylans for one sound anchors adjustable stand - and if you upgrade your speakers your next set may also be for that height - lots of things to consider. DIY is another option - but the Skylans look nice are solid, sand fillible and good to deal with(which counts IMO).
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by zonik
I've looked at these. Both nice sounding. For $800 ish I would audition the Klipsch RB75s. At $600 the B&W are cheaper mainly because B&W does more volume (units) than Paradigm. Paradigm fans will have other reasons. Both of these speakers are not outsourced to asian fab houses. Many folks would contend that you'd need a sub for either pair HOWEVER the B&W have a larger internal volume and it is likely, a more satifying bass note. You might look at the Klipsch, very nice detailed sound. Made in Arkansas still. I was contemplating all of these but went for something else. I am importing these from Germany.
Canton
I think the B&W will be best for you.
Could anyone describe how's the sound of the Cantons compared to the B&W 602?
|