High End Audio Brands

[RaceTripper]

...

As long as I'm at it, I might as well point out that the source really does control, and anyone playing a $150 CD player into a $500 amplifier driving $10,000 speakers is an idiot. You will get FAR better music by reversing the budget, and even better would be to sensibly allocate funds. If the music is not recovered at the source, the very best amplification and speakers cannot restore it. The quality of the music that comes off the CD or hard drive or LP establishes the ceiling of how good it can sound. We used to do blind tests with people, and invariably people--even nutty audiophiles--preferred the system with the superior source.

The suggestion to spend the "majority" of your money on speakers is one of the most common, and wrong, suggestions in all of hifi. Even speaker designers tell people that--you're better off with a great source and amp with a lower-end model from an expensive speaker line. That said, when you can put it ALL together music is simply awesome. ...

Oh I tried to point that out earlier and the "experts" acted like I'm an idiot. People just don't get it. They hold on to the cherished idea that speakers are everything. It's a loosing battle I'm afraid. People will waste money on speakers when they've put nothing into the source, arguing "digital is digital - there is no difference in the source." All they end up with is high resolution speakers that reveal all the flaws of the rest of the system. They convince themselves they have something great with their huge investment, while it really sounds like crap.

I've heard these systems many times and usually can't wait until they turn them off.

 

[Tucom]

Realistically, if you don't want to spend an arm and a leg for speakers, but your really picky about sound, I would go with Klipsch...ESPECIALLY (yes, I'm saying this loud and not just using caps for the heck of it) if you're buying their ProMedia 2.1 or 4.1 systems for computer speakers. If your looking for really good sound for a pre-packaged deal for home theater, the Onkyo HT-SP908 is one of the best all-in-one's you'll find for about $900.

Bose is way too overpriced for what you get, and you're getting the end product more of their cost of over marketing the product then anything else. Honestly, the couple of friend's that do have Bose systems have heard the Klipsch 4.1 computer speakers I have, and admit that they sound better than anything they have heard. When I tell them I only payed $150 for them, there mouth usually drops to the floor when the realize how much they got overcharged for Bose.

And yes, I have a strong dislike for Bose products.

This is why and a really good read!

http://www.intellexual.net/bose.html

Excerpts from link above:

"The $1300 Bose Acoustimass system implements five dual-cubed, 2.5-inch, paper-cone satellite speakers. Incidentally, you can buy these exact same drivers for $35 a pair here.

Unlike any other speaker or amplifier manufacturer, Bose refuses to publish any frequency response charts or distortion data on their products (and with good reason). And thus a few independent audiophiles, industry professionals, and newsgroups have taken it upon themselves to benchmark test the much debated Acoustimass system. The resulting numbers are always consistent. Here is a pretty credible one sourced from the August 1999 issue of Sound and Vision magazine...

To reiterate the above, the Acoustimass's bass module responds to 46 Hz to 202 Hz at ±2.3 dB, while the satellites respond to 280 Hz to 13.3 KHz at ±10.5 dB. This is, by the way, the only speaker that I have ever seen tested with a ±10.5 db allowance. Still, this leaves a frequency gap between the satellites and bass module of about 80 Hz! That is 80 hertz of sound that is completely erased within the system's internal crossovers! I wonder how Bose figured out which 80 hertz matters least in the audible spectrum? I will tell you though that that gap accounts for a HUGE loss in midrange sound, which is responsible for the majority contralto, baritone, and tenor vocals in music, and many sound effects in home theater."

This is vastly incorrect. Aside from many other things being wrong with that link you posted that many audiophiles love to post - myself being an audiophile - is that the Acoustimass module goes down to roughly 30-35Hz, and the cubes easily reach 18Khz.

I personally don't own Bose, and I doubt I will ever purchase their home-theater products - new at least, but they aren't nearly as bad as what's written in that link. I've personally went into a Bose store, bass stressing and treble stressing tacks on an iPod in hand, and they were obliged to let me hook it up and test their speakers frequency response. I was a little surprised myself at how low the Acoustimass module went. I can't remember exactly what it was, but it was a bass song designed to stress woofers, and it was definitely lower than 46HZ - more around 35Hz.

Bose products are definitely overpriced, in some areas more so than others, but they're not nearly as terrible as much of this talk makes them out to be.

They're Companion series, as I've said many times before, are in a league of their own. They're much better quality than their Acoustimass home-theater line up - and deliver great sound quality, better than many bookshelf speakers that you could buy for around the same money from a retail store - not internet direct.


Personally, I run two KRK studio monitors in a sound proofed room (for the most part, still have some work to do), and soon to be accompanied by their subwoofer. Some of the best sound I've heard.


Peace

 

[Naimfan]

This is vastly incorrect. Aside from many other things being wrong with that link you posted that many audiophiles love to post - myself being an audiophile - is that the Acoustimass module goes down to roughly 30-35Hz, and the cubes easily reach 18Khz.

No, it isn't. The only thing an acoustimass module is doing at 35 Hz is resonating. It is not reproducing a note. Besides which, they simply sound dreadful.

Bose . . . aren't nearly as bad as what's written in that link.

You're right--they're actually far worse.

I've personally went into a Bose store, bass stressing and treble stressing tacks on an iPod in hand, and they were obliged to let me hook it up and test their speakers frequency response. I was a little surprised myself at how low the Acoustimass module went. I can't remember exactly what it was, but it was a bass song designed to stress woofers, and it was definitely lower than 46HZ - more around 35Hz.

So you went in with a frequency sweep recorded on your iPod, and then set up a calibrated microphone to measure the response? Forgive my skepticism, but if you didn't do that you don't have any idea what the low-end frequency response is. Not to mention the presence of all the other speakers in the room (playing or not) and the speakers playing elsewhere.

Bose products are definitely overpriced, in some areas more so than others, but they're not nearly as terrible as much of this talk makes them out to be.

They're [sic] Companion series . . . deliver great sound quality, better than many bookshelf speakers that you could buy for around the same money from a retail store - not internet direct.

Surely you're joking? The next time Bose makes a competent speaker will be the first. A pair of PSB Alphas absolutely devastates them, as do a number of other (much less expensive) speakers from Energy, B&W, etc.

 

[RaceTripper]

So you went in with a frequency sweep recorded on your iPod, and then set up a calibrated microphone to measure the response? Forgive my skepticism, but if you didn't do that you don't have any idea what the low-end frequency response is. Not to mention the presence of all the other speakers in the room (playing or not) and the speakers playing elsewhere.

But isn't that what self-proclaimed "audiophiles" do. They measure (accurately or not, mostly pointless) and tout specifications. The love of music -- listening to it, enjoying it -- is besides the point.

 

[Killyp]

But isn't that what self-proclaimed "audiophiles" do. They measure (accurately or not, mostly pointless) and tout specifications. The love of music -- listening to it, enjoying it -- is besides the point.

When a system sounds technically 'perfect', that means you can listen to the music and enjoy it.

I'm a musician (in a big way) and I find listening on stereos very irritating in many ways as you're listening to the sound of the stereo itself, as well as the sound of the instruments & music. An technically perfect sound from a sound system will mean you can't 'hear' it, and you don't know you're listening to a pair of speakers. It leaves no 'trace' of itself on the music, and you can listen to the music without anything else being introduced over the top.


As far as speakers go, there are a few which I would rate much higher than anything else.


High-end
Rogers (BBC) LS3/5A monitor speakers
Quad ESLs (pretty much any of them, they were all fantastic)
B&W 800D
B&W 801D
B&W 805D (although everything in the 800 series is fantastic, these are the highlights)
B&W Nautilus Prestige
JMLab Utopia
B&O BeoLab 5
B&O BeoLab 9 (a really surprising speaker, same as it's larger brother)
Rockport Tech Altair
Wilson Watt/Puppy 8s
Wilson Alexandria
Meridian DSP8000

Middle-range
B&W XT4
B&W XT2
B&W 700 series
Focal Chorus 800s
Focal Chorus 700s

On a budget
B&W 680 series (anything, they're all amazingly good speakers for the price)
B&W DM303 (only because they were my first hifi speakers, and I love them They're brilliant for the price)
JM Focal 705V
JM Focal 706V


As for amps, you can't really go wrong with anything from Quad, Arcam or Naim, or on a budget, Rotel or Nad. Some of the speakers above don't need amplifiers at all, as they're active (although these are all in the 'high end' section).

As for sources, a computer with a decent soundcard and say, 224 kbps AAC audio and above will be adequate (and could sound pretty good), or to take it up another level, a decent CD player. Anything from Rotel, NAD, Naim, Philips or Arcam should be pretty good.

If you really want to get the best from the system, vinyl is what you want. A Project Debut deck will set you back around £150 and a good preamp such as the Project PhonoBox will be a good move. Rega are also among the best builders of record decks in the world. In fact I'd still rate my Rega Planar 3 as one of the best record decks money can buy (despite costing a fraction of some of the super-high-end decks you can get).

 

[Naimfan]

But isn't that what self-proclaimed "audiophiles" do. They measure (accurately or not, mostly pointless) and tout specifications. The love of music -- listening to it, enjoying it -- is besides the point.

That's unfortunately true for some people. But it depends on how you define "audiophile." Besides, Tucom is the one who said he went in to a Bose store and estimated the frequency range of a speaker, right?

It's a debate that rages on all of the audio forums I've seen--"audiophile" vs. "music lover" etc. My personal bias is towards gear that can play music. By that I mean gear that makes me want to listen to music and stretches my musical boundaries, making me want to try new types of music. I've heard very very expensive systems that don't come remotely close to doing that, and I've heard very cheap systems play music effortlessly.

I don't particularly care how something measures, because we don't know how to measure everything that matters. That's not to say measurements are irrelevant, but people who insist that everything sounds the same because they can't measure any differences are either delusional or dishonest.

When a system sounds technically 'perfect', that means you can listen to the music and enjoy it.

The only problem is that no such system exists. I've never heard one, and neither have you.

 

[odinsride]

I didn't read the entire thread (and I'm not really an audiophile, just an amateur musician who messes around with recording and mixing), but I have been pleased with my Yamaha studio monitors and Sennheiser headphones. I would definitely buy audio equipment from these companies again....great sound quality.

 

[RaceTripper]

When a system sounds technically 'perfect', that means you can listen to the music and enjoy it.

I'm a musician (in a big way) and I find listening on stereos very irritating in many ways as you're listening to the sound of the stereo itself, as well as the sound of the instruments & music. An technically perfect sound from a sound system will mean you can't 'hear' it, and you don't know you're listening to a pair of speakers. It leaves no 'trace' of itself on the music, and you can listen to the music without anything else being introduced over the top....

Sorry, I don't buy that, and I have a music background too (B.A. cum laude Music + 3 yrs. PH.D. coursework in musicology). You can take two devices (amps, for example) that have identical specs and they can sound very different. I still believe the only way to evaluate equipment is to take music sources (LPs, CDs) you know and spend some time listening to them without distraction. And I'm not talking about music designed to stress stuff. I mean music meant for enjoying as music. I have a variety of classical and acoustic jazz LPs I like to use.

If you really want to get the best from the system, vinyl is what you want. A Project Debut deck will set you back around £150 and a good preamp such as the Project PhonoBox will be a good move. Rega are also among the best builders of record decks in the world. In fact I'd still rate my Rega Planar 3 as one of the best record decks money can buy (despite costing a fraction of some of the super-high-end decks you can get).

I agree that LPs still provide the best musical reproduction with a good turntable (that I've heard anyway). But, while the Planar 3 is an excellent turntable, and great value, it does fall down against the higher end decks. I had a Planar 3, and moved the RB300 tonearm to a Linn LP12 (using a Goldring GL MC cartridge). The LP12 setup is far more musical and detailed, by leaps and bounds. I am talking about 20 yr. old equipment, but the Planar 3 and LP12 designs haven't changed that much. Of course the problem with an LP12 is that it is very finicky and requires much effort to get it setup properly, and can sound really bad if it isn't.

 

[RaceTripper]

That's unfortunately true for some people. But it depends on how you define "audiophile." Besides, Tucom is the one who said he went in to a Bose store and estimated the frequency range of a speaker, right?

It's a debate that rages on all of the audio forums I've seen--"audiophile" vs. "music lover" etc....

You and I are pretty much on the same page I think.

My big regret is that I long ago gave up my NAIM equipment (NAC-32, Hi-CAP, NAP-110). Big mistake on my part.

 

[Killyp]

It's a debate that rages on all of the audio forums I've seen--"audiophile" vs. "music lover" etc. My personal bias is towards gear that can play music. By that I mean gear that makes me want to listen to music and stretches my musical boundaries, making me want to try new types of music. I've heard very very expensive systems that don't come remotely close to doing that, and I've heard very cheap systems play music effortlessly.

Hit the nail on the head. One of the most impressive things about most high-end systems is how they can make what normally seems like dull music through a poor system sound very exciting and dynamic. In fact, one of the most 'powerful' and dynamic speakers which I'd say I know very well is the B&O BeoLab 5 (bring on the comments), which is really amazingly effortless at all volumes (you would not believe the SPLs these can reach). I've played people my age, from my school (who normally listen to Justin Timberlake, 50 Cent etc...) classical music on a pair of these speakers, and they can't believe what they're hearing. It just jumps out and bites you in the face, but seems amazingly calm and subdued when it needs to be. Many other high end systems do the same kinda thing. There are plenty of 'budget' systems which do the same too though.

I don't particularly care how something measures, because we don't know how to measure everything that matters. That's not to say measurements are irrelevant, but people who insist that everything sounds the same because they can't measure any differences are either delusional or dishonest.

I'd agree to an extent, although I don't think there is anything we can't measure which the human ear can detect. Measuring/testing techniques nowadays are amazingly advanced, but what I agree with you about is that there are theories about sound which our ears can hear the results of, but we don't fully understand, or even begin to have an understanding on.

Stereo imaging and depth perception is, I believe, largely a mystery to scientists.

The only problem is that no such system exists. I've never heard one, and neither have you.

True, but some of the latest digital (yes, believe it or not, digital) systems out there are coming damn close. I'd usually say analogue sounds far more 'real' and leaves next to no trace on the sound. However, a 96 KHz 24 bit audio signal is, to my ears, better than vinyl. Played back on a 'fully digital' system (digital crossovers etc...), it sounds stunning. As long as no dithering or jitter occurs anywhere along the way, I've heard a few digital recordings which would wipe any 'analogue' system I've heard off the face of the planet.

90% of the time though, analogue systems sound better.

 

[Naimfan]

I still believe the only way to evaluate equipment is to take music sources (LPs, CDs) you know and spend some time listening to them without distraction. And I'm not talking about music designed to stress stuff. I mean music meant for enjoying as music.

Exactly correct.

I agree that LPs still provide the best musical reproduction with a good turntable (that I've heard anyway). But, while the Planar 3 is an excellent turntable, and great value, it does fall down against the higher end decks. I had a Planar 3, and moved the RB300 tonearm to a Linn LP12 (using a Goldring GL MC cartridge). The LP12 setup is far more musical and detailed, by leaps and bounds. I am talking about 20 yr. old equipment, but the Planar 3 and LP12 designs haven't changed that much. Of course the problem with an LP12 is that it is very finicky and requires much effort to get it setup properly, and can sound really bad if it isn't.

Only thing I've heard that's better is an analog source tape--the original. Of course, those are just a bit hard to come by......

LP12 is interesting (the understatement of the day!), and there are entire forums devoted to it, so I'll be brief. It remains one of the best sounding/most musical turntables available at any price. If you have one that is still finicky, get a new set of springs/grommets/etc., make sure you have the laminated armboard, etc. LP12 really hasn't been finicky since the Nirvana kit and the glued (not spot-welded) subchassis came out--which was, IIRC, around 1983 or so. Once set up properly it should remain so for a long time absent any outside influences. And I agree it greatly surpasses a Rega P3 (or P5, or P7 or P9), as good as the Rega is.

Also, although the plinth hasn't changed much (smooth to grooved to smooth, added corner fillets), and the basic design is the same (three point suspended subchassis, AC motor), I don't think there is a single part that has not been improved--in some cases radically--over the years. And the new subchassis does constitute, I think, a fairly dramatic change, though at an amazing price! ($3250 IIRC)

Race--Yep, we certainly are! I've gone up and down the hifi ranges, and my personal favorite system was Naim 72/Hicap/250, with an LP12/Ekos/Troika and either ProAc Response 2.5s or Naim SBLs. But that's a whole other forum!

 

[RaceTripper]

LP12 is interesting (the understatement of the day!), and there are entire forums devoted to it, so I'll be brief. It remains one of the best sounding/most musical turntables available at any price. If you have one that is still finicky, get a new set of springs/grommets/etc., make sure you have the laminated armboard, etc. LP12 really hasn't been finicky since the Nirvana kit and the glued (not spot-welded) subchassis came out--which was, IIRC, around 1983 or so. Once set up properly it should remain so for a long time absent any outside influences. And I agree it greatly surpasses a Rega P3 (or P5, or P7 or P9), as good as the Rega is....

My LP12 was purchased in 1985 (when I worked for the Rega/Goldring importer & local Linn/Naim retailer at the time). It definitely does need new springs and grommets (and belt, etc.). But even new this one proved a bear to setup. Some go easy, some not so much.

I'm using it with an Arcam Alpha 10 and Linn SARAs.

 

[RAS admin]

ie: the B&W 800D is a significantly better speaker than a tower from the affordable 600 series, but is probably not significantly better than its little brother 802D.

I agree. I would be perfectly happy with those 802D's. I used to own a pair of the original Nautilus 802's, but sold 'em along with my HTM2 and 805's. I still plan on getting those 802D's someday....

 

[Naimfan]

I'd agree to an extent, although I don't think there is anything we can't measure which the human ear can detect. Measuring/testing techniques nowadays are amazingly advanced, but what I agree with you about is that there are theories about sound which our ears can hear the results of, but we don't fully understand, or even begin to have an understanding on.

Stereo imaging and depth perception is, I believe, largely a mystery to scientists.

I agree with you completely on the last sentence in the quote above. As an aside, that's probably part of why they dismiss it. I'm inclined to agree that we can measure anything the human ear can hear, although (and I think you're saying the same thing--please correct me if I'm wrong) I don't think we understand how the brain processes/comprehends that information.

True, but some of the latest digital (yes, believe it or not, digital) systems out there are coming damn close. I'd usually say analogue sounds far more 'real' and leaves next to no trace on the sound. However, a 96 KHz 24 bit audio signal is, to my ears, better than vinyl. Played back on a 'fully digital' system (digital crossovers etc...), it sounds stunning. As long as no dithering or jitter occurs anywhere along the way, I've heard a few digital recordings which would wipe any 'analogue' system I've heard off the face of the planet.

90% of the time though, analogue systems sound better.

In the main, I think you're right. I've heard 96K/24 bit systems and been able to compare them to the live event, and they are indeed the best digital I've ever heard, and, in some ways better than any analog system I've heard. But not in all ways. I think the trick is in "As long as no dithering or jitter. . . " part--I don't know if we'll ever achieve the zero jitter part. Fun stuff, though!

Race--Does your LP12 have the corner fillets? Your serial number should be around 60,000 if it's from 1985--I don't think the fillets were introduced until after that, although I think there was some attempt at reinforcing the plinth corners. Mine is S/N 78271 and has them. Who was the Rega importer back then?

 

[alebar14]

I have never had a chance to listen to this High-End Audio quality except normal 2.1 speaker such as Altec Lansing FX6021 or Klipsch ProMedia. How can you describe their very high-definition in term of quality,clarity,depth compare to those ?

 

[dirtleg]

Fascinating thread.
I look at and listen to high end audio equipment, at least like the stuff mentioned here, like gawking at Ferrari's in a show room. I love it, but will never be able to afford it.

That said, I am a vinyl nut. I listen to my records on my Vestax turntable (manual of course), through my Pioneer receiver and Paradigm speakers. For my money, this is high end. Works great for watching movies also.

Anyway, I am quite happy with what I've got, and I think that is the point. I can crank up my music when the family is out of the house and get a great deal of enjoyment out of it.

 

[Killyp]

Yeh that's exactly what I meant, how we perceive things is not entirely understood.

I've heard a few LP12s, and maybe it's just me, but I find my Planar 3 to sound better. It's possible they weren't set up correctly, but it was at a hifi show in Bristol, in multiple demo rooms. All very very impressive, but my Planar 3 just has something more 'solid' about the sound, and particularly the soundstage. I'll agree about the whole musicality thing though, the LP12 does have a certain musical 'sparkle' to it...

 

[Killyp]

I have never had a chance to listen to this High-End Audio quality except normal 2.1 speaker such as Altec Lansing FX6021 or Klipsch ProMedia. How can you describe their very high-definition in term of quality,clarity,depth compare to those ?

No offense in any way meant, but comparing those with most of the kit mentioned in this thread is like comparing a cardboard box with a beautiful mansion.

The only way it can be easily explained is by you taking your favourite CD/record (not from compressed sources) to a 'proper' hifi dealer (I usually look for ones that stock either Naim, B&W or possibly both as an indication of a good quality dealer. Shore Hi-Fi seem like the best place near you.


The problem with the hifi world is that it can get a bit carried away at times, scaring people off. A budget system can still produce an absolutely phenomenal sound. My first system was a pair of B&W DM303s (£160 cost to me, £180 retail), Nad C300 (£46 to me, £150 retail) and my Rega Planar 3 (inherited, a lot more retail).

For £450 now, you can put together a very, very nice sounding hifi, compromising of a decent pair of bookshelves (such as B&Ws, or JM Focals), simple but decent amplifier (such as a NAD or Rotel) and a decent turntable or CD player (such as a Project or Nad/Rotel).

 

[Naimfan]

Fascinating thread.

Anyway, I am quite happy with what I've got, and I think that is the point. I can crank up my music when the family is out of the house and get a great deal of enjoyment out of it.

You got it! That's the whole point!

 

[snickelfritz]

I have never had a chance to listen to this High-End Audio quality except normal 2.1 speaker such as Altec Lansing FX6021 or Klipsch ProMedia. How can you describe their very high-definition in term of quality,clarity,depth compare to those ?

It's all about creating a transparent window into the recorded space, completely detached from the actual speaker locations.
Many high-end speakers do this exceedingly well.
Most cheap speakers do not do this at all.
The difference is not subtle (or pleasant) for those accustomed to accurate sound reproduction, and completely innocuous or unidentifiable to those that are not.

One of the best demonstrations of this disappearing act was with a pair of B&W 805N speakers, playing Cat Stevens "Tea for the Tillerman."
The image was razor-sharp and aurally three-dimensional from top to bottom.
These little speakers are worth the steep price if you can appreciate their special qualities. (and don't require them to perform like a pair of JBL K2's in terms of sheer SPL)

 

[rezenclowd3]

I am duly impressed with my Genelic 1030a's , however my Infinity SSW-10 sub is quite lacking (in both quality and power). I would prefer to exchange the Genelecs for the 1031a matched with their sub, but honestly, I don't need it. First time I turned on my Genelecs to listen to "Kind of Blue" I cried. A manly tear non-the-less, but I did cry a tear. Now I want to get back home and put those babies on again....

 

[Tucom]

No, it isn't. The only thing an acoustimass module is doing at 35 Hz is resonating. It is not reproducing a note. Besides which, they simply sound dreadful.

This is a prime example of all the idiotic Bose hate that's out there. Again, I'm not a fan of Bose, nor would I buy any of their home-theater stuff (or any of their stuff really, though their PA and Companion series are nice).

The Lifestyles Acoustimass module I tested with the bass song was not resonating, but was indeed producing the note. You're so bloated with Bose hate you start spitting remarks as stupid as that.

So you went in with a frequency sweep recorded on your iPod, and then set up a calibrated microphone to measure the response? Forgive my skepticism, but if you didn't do that you don't have any idea what the low-end frequency response is. Not to mention the presence of all the other speakers in the room (playing or not) and the speakers playing elsewhere.

You're right, I don't know what the exact frequency response that was coming out of the module, but I've heard 35Hz from many a speaker, and this sounded very familiar. Given the characteristics of bass, it could have easily been second or third order harmonic distortion and not the actual sub-forty hertz note itself.

Surely you're joking? The next time Bose makes a competent speaker will be the first. A pair of PSB Alphas absolutely devastates them, as do a number of other (much less expensive) speakers from Energy, B&W, etc.

Bose's multimedia line of products are actually quite decent. Much better quality for the price than their general stereotype.


Peace

 

[Tucom]

I am duly impressed with my Genelic 1030a's , however my Infinity SSW-10 sub is quite lacking (in both quality and power). I would prefer to exchange the Genelecs for the 1031a matched with their sub, but honestly, I don't need it. First time I turned on my Genelecs to listen to "Kind of Blue" I cried. A manly tear non-the-less, but I did cry a tear. Now I want to get back home and put those babies on again....

If you want a sub to match, I highly suggest looking at: http://www.guitarcenter.com/JBL-LSR-4312SP-Subwoofer-103851978-i1174235.gc

Then again, the lowest and Genelec subwoofer is only about $200 more, and if you went with Genelec's in the first place, you may as well get the Genelec subwoofer.

The JBL subwoofer does produce very impressive bass, especially for the money.


Peace

 

[Naimfan]

This is a prime example of all the idiotic Bose hate that's out there.

Ha. "Idiotic Bose hate" indeed. Why, because it is true? A bad hifi company isn't worthy of "hate." Put it this way--if you played someone a Bose system vs. something that cost half of what the Bose system cost, everyone would prefer the non-Bose system. How can I be so sure? Because I've done it. I've never seen or heard of Bose being sold by demonstration against other gear. Brilliant marketers, but from a pure musical standpoint it is quite possibly the worst equipment that's widely available.

The Lifestyles Acoustimass module I tested with the bass song was not resonating, but was indeed producing the note

. . .

You're right, I don't know what the exact frequency response that was coming out of the module

Kindly reconcile those two statements? I'll wait. . . Right, you can't--they are contradictory. If you produce a frequency response graph taken in a controlled environment, I'll be delighted to look at it. But although the module may be vibrating and making noise at a claimed 35 Hz does not mean it's playing music. Try running a 35 Hz test tone through an acoustimass module in a room without any other speakers, and listen to what happens....you'll melt the drivers.

but I've heard 35Hz from many a speaker, and this sounded very familiar.

Ah. Well, there we have it. From what speakers, and in what environments? Forgive me, but I'll take the measurements I've seen, and my and others', personal auditioning over what you did.

It's perfectly OK to have an opinion that differs from someone else. But ad hominem attacks (aside from violating the Forum rules) detract from everything you say. You might, rather, go and listen to some speakers that can produce a real 35 Hz tone..... While I suspect KillyP and I have rather different preferences, I'd certainly agree that the B&W 800 and 801s would be a fine place to start....

 

[IChing]

My 2 cents

I worked on building two studios in Austin way back when, and worked with Sierra Design on setting up their speakers in the studio for the sound engineer. It was a major part of the project for me.

Right now, I have a pair of early 90's, made in USA,
Altec Lansing, speakers that have carried me through tape, CD, 5 receivers, to 7.1 digital technologies.

Right now on my JVC-RX-D702s they have never sounded so good.

Now, the question is, where is my old Pioneer, Sony, Onkyo and other electronic stuff that failed to keep up with technology and the times?

They're dead and gone but the speakers has no real moving parts until you break the cone.

BTW
The old Bose, 901? were good speakers, but Bose sucks now since they sold out to marketing.