Speaker Hall of Fame

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

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

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

Who have I missed?

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

Dahlquist DQ-10. For very obvious reasons.

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

Good stuff! I forgot to add the Infinity IRS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

Well I suppose it would be an issue of why they're being inducted into a hall of fame.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by topspeed

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

---

The Ohm F was the most popular model with this technology. I owned them for several years. Wonderful soundstage due, I guess, to their true omnidirectional nature. They weren't really the best in other respects. Also, they were really power-hungry: didn't sound like much 'til I got a Phase Linear 400.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corwin99

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by topspeed

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

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

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

Who have I missed?

---

Actually, the original Bose 901 wasn't that a bad speaker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The AR-9 was a very nice speaker.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pat D

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

---

Allison! How could I have missed that one? The Allison 3 was just reviewed in TAS, quite favorably I might add. Looking at the pictures, I'm not quite sure I understand how you place them. Am I missing something or do they actually fire towards the walls? However it works, I'd definitely say these were landmark designs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kfalls

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kfalls

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

---

I agree. Check my original post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rga

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by topspeed

Allison! How could I have missed that one? The Allison 3 was just reviewed in TAS, quite favorably I might add. Looking at the pictures, I'm not quite sure I understand how you place them. Am I missing something or do they actually fire towards the walls? However it works, I'd definitely say these were landmark designs.

---

The Allison Three is a wedge shaped speaker designed for corner placement. The wedge goes into a corner and the drivers face out. As I said, Allison Acoustics is going again and you may wish to look around their web site.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by topspeed

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by topspeed

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

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

---

Although the list is pretty complete, I'll add another.

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

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


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

rw

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

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

Da Worfster :cool:

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kfalls

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

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

---

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

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

BTW, Albert Einstein never used a calculator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

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

---

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

it will stop hurting.

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spacedeckman

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

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

---

Wasn't the M1 a big black monolithic type of speaker that looked like it came straight out of 2001: A Space Odyssey? If it's the same bipolar speaker that I'm thinking it was, I remember hearing Lyle Lovett through that thing with a Theta pre and Forte amp that was just freakin' amazing. I'd never heard a bi-polar speaker before and was blown away by the M1. Late '80's vintage, right? They had them at the shop in Newport Beach that I bought my first separates from: a PS Audio 4.6 mated with a B&K ST-140.