Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Killyp

macrumors 68040
Jun 14, 2006
3,859
7
Bose is junk. $10 speakers that sell for $100. Listen to speakers from any of the companies I have listed and you'll instantly hear the difference between Bose and a good speaker.

Band and Olufsen is quality, but your paying mostly for design(which is excellent). There is much better available for the price. And their speakers are weak relative to their components.

I don't like Bose myself, but I think we're getting a little bit OTT in this thread. As far as sub/sat packages go, Bose are actually really rather good, but they're definitely not the best, and they are overpriced.

As for B&O, I'll defend them almost to the end of the earth (although there are one or two things stopping me from doing that all the way). Yes, I'd agree with your statement with some of the speakers in the range, but their newer speakers (BeoLab 5, BeoLab 9) truly are phenominal speakers. In fact, I haven't heard anything that images as well as their BeoLab 5, or reaches anywhere near the same dynamics and overall power (good dynamic music on these will have you jumping out of your seat). Their new BeoLab 9s are also amazingly good speakers, and both models pitch very very very well against other models, and often outperform speakers costing many times more (BeoLab 5s outperform a pair of B&W 800Ds, despite the fact that the B&Ws cost £13k a pop without amplifiers, and the BeoLab 5s are ~£12k a pair with amplifiers (and very good ones at that).

I'd agree with you in some respects though, their column speakers are beautifully built, but the components are not up to it and as a result, they're outperformed by speakers costing much less. Still nice bits of kit though, some people love them, I don't.
 

macidiot

macrumors 6502a
Aug 13, 2002
815
0
Bose actually uses a specific kind of paper and paper treatment in their drivers, treated (I've dismantled down to the driver, though this was one of the Jewel Cube configured enclosures) and it is a very stiff, quality paper.

The magnet is actually quite large. Larger than the height of the basket enclosing the voice-coil and spider and driver added up. The "cheap plastic" is actually of a definite higher grade than you would find on Panasonic HTiB systems, or the like.

The wire is actually a custom gauge wire that's thicker than sixteen gauge, but not quite fourteen gauge. The internal wire is either the same or thicker gauge, and the wires themselves are covered with a porous plastic/foam sleeve (the ones used in quality audio equipment containing air moving components in the same space as wire as to not cause any vibration and/or turbulence).


Bose products actually carry quite a bit of quality - overpriced- but great quality in the right places.



Peace

Well, I'm not going to argue too much on the details. However, my point is that Bose uses cheap materials.

Paper is still paper. Whether or not it has been treated, it is less rigid and far weaker than other materials, like kevlar, titanium, aluminum, etc. Even silk is superior. And paper is far cheaper than any of the materials I mentioned.

As for plastic, I'd say it is one of the poorer choices, if not the poorest choice, for an enclosure. It is is not dense, inert material. It resonates and introduces distortion. I'm not an expert or sound engineer, so I might be poor at explaining this, but the enclosure should generally be acoustically inert. The plastic enclosures of Bose aren't.

As I said, Bose is what it is. Cheap speakers that masquerade as high quality ones. For the price of a Bose Acoustimass system, you could get speakers from Energy, Paradigm, PSB, Mirage, NHT, KEF or many others that are higher quality and more importantly, sound better. And for the price of a Lifestyle system, you could get into some seriously good quality, that would blow the doors off of the Bose. Hell, for 4k(price of a Lifestyle), you could do a very good Integra or Denon receiver, Oppo dvd player, and still have over 2500 for speakers. For that much, you could even get into NAD or Rotel.

I don't like Bose myself, but I think we're getting a little bit OTT in this thread. As far as sub/sat packages go, Bose are actually really rather good, but they're definitely not the best, and they are overpriced.

As for B&O, I'll defend them almost to the end of the earth (although there are one or two things stopping me from doing that all the way). Yes, I'd agree with your statement with some of the speakers in the range, but their newer speakers (BeoLab 5, BeoLab 9) truly are phenominal speakers. In fact, I haven't heard anything that images as well as their BeoLab 5, or reaches anywhere near the same dynamics and overall power (good dynamic music on these will have you jumping out of your seat). Their new BeoLab 9s are also amazingly good speakers, and both models pitch very very very well against other models, and often outperform speakers costing many times more (BeoLab 5s outperform a pair of B&W 800Ds, despite the fact that the B&Ws cost £13k a pop without amplifiers, and the BeoLab 5s are ~£12k a pair with amplifiers (and very good ones at that).

I'd agree with you in some respects though, their column speakers are beautifully built, but the components are not up to it and as a result, they're outperformed by speakers costing much less. Still nice bits of kit though, some people love them, I don't.

I actually like B&O. I love their design and integration. I would definitely consider them a high end company. Their prices certainly are. Which is the problem... you can usually find much better value from other brands. Leading to the question; how much is style worth? I haven't heard the new Beolabs, but my past experience is that B&O speakers sound very clean and precise, but lack punch and low end. Very much suited for classical music. Similar to Canton speakers.

As for B&W speakers, I used to love them. LOVE them. However as they went big, I feel they have lost some of the magic they once had. Their speakers seem a lot brighter now. I prefer the warmth and balance of the older models. They still make some great speakers, but they also make some very mediocre ones. When I did some direct comparisons, I thought that Dynaudios sounded better across the board. The honor of the best imaging speakers I've ever heard goes to Magnepan. Sadly, I don't have the space for them.

And getting back to the original post, I'm guessing that the poster is not in the market for a $25k system. Though a 25k B&O system (or any other brand really) will sound like angels in heaven compared to a Bose. And really, when your getting into that price range, all the speakers sound pretty damn good, as they should.
 

Tucom

Cancelled
Jul 29, 2006
1,252
310
Well, I'm not going to argue too much on the details. However, my point is that Bose uses cheap materials.

Paper is still paper. Whether or not it has been treated, it is less rigid and far weaker than other materials, like kevlar, titanium, aluminum, etc. Even silk is superior. And paper is far cheaper than any of the materials I mentioned.

As for plastic, I'd say it is one of the poorer choices, if not the poorest choice, for an enclosure. It is is not dense, inert material. It resonates and introduces distortion. I'm not an expert or sound engineer, so I might be poor at explaining this, but the enclosure should generally be acoustically inert. The plastic enclosures of Bose aren't.

As I said, Bose is what it is. Cheap speakers that masquerade as high quality ones. For the price of a Bose Acoustimass system, you could get speakers from Energy, Paradigm, PSB, Mirage, NHT, KEF or many others that are higher quality and more importantly, sound better. And for the price of a Lifestyle system, you could get into some seriously good quality, that would blow the doors off of the Bose. Hell, for 4k(price of a Lifestyle), you could do a very good Integra or Denon receiver, Oppo dvd player, and still have over 2500 for speakers. For that much, you could even get into NAD or Rotel.

Treated paper can actually be one of the best materials to use in a speaker, granted it's constructed and treated properly. The paper Bose uses in their Jewel Cube systems is plenty stiff for its purpose.

You have to realize that Bose uses EQ (which is loathed by audiophiles) to counteract the speakers deficiencies. The plastic used, again for the cubes, is dense enough to not cause any serious distortion. Bose also uses fiberglass filling in the cubes - at least the bigger ones - to cancel unwanted vibrations. Ironically I found this out by looking inside a cracked one that looked as if some idiot (not referring to you or your name in any way) threw it down down the concrete floor at Fry's Electronics.

I'm not fully denying Bose uses cheap(er) products than they could in their construction, but they are of a definite better quality than the cheap HTiB systems.


Yes, you can easily get better sound for the money - but you still get great sound with Bose, and the features and style win many people over.


Peace
 

Naimfan

Suspended
Jan 15, 2003
4,669
2,017
You know, I'm really curious as to what makes you such a virulent defender of a speaker company that has never been about quality sound? Oh, wait--no, I'm not. :D The only people I've met with similar fervor have all worked for the company.
 

amik

macrumors regular
Dec 11, 2007
162
0
Treated paper can actually be one of the best materials to use in a speaker, granted it's constructed and treated properly. The paper Bose uses in their Jewel Cube systems is plenty stiff for its purpose.

Agreed. Paper can be a fantastic material, look at Fostex drivers as an example. However, there is far more to driver design than material stiffness. I defy you to find published specifications for the actual bose drivers. They publish speaker specs, but never driver specs. The reason...the drivers have terrible response curves. They are able to overcome this using a few tricks. The first is EQ which you mentioned, they cut and boost by up to 12db in order to smooth out the response and eliminate the harsh breakup frequencies. They also use their "direct reflecting" oxymoronic technique which muddies up the signal by bouncing it off in different directions which is in direct contradiction to many of the established principles of high fidelity audio (just physics and a little physiology/psychoacoustics).

You have to realize that Bose uses EQ (which is loathed by audiophiles) to counteract the speakers deficiencies. The plastic used, again for the cubes, is dense enough to not cause any serious distortion. Bose also uses fiberglass filling in the cubes - at least the bigger ones - to cancel unwanted vibrations. Ironically I found this out by looking inside a cracked one that looked as if some idiot (not referring to you or your name in any way) threw it down down the concrete floor at Fry's Electronics.

EQ is not loathed by all audiophiles. I consider myself an audiophile and I have some substantial processing available to me in nearly all of my systems. The fundamental difference is that I use EQ largely to smooth out in-room response, using mics at the listening positions and a variety of test tracks. EQ is particularly useful in multi-amp "active" speaker setups where each driver is independently amplified in order to put the crossover ahead of amplification and allow custom tuning.

The fiber filling is to dampen unwanted reflections from poor driver installation/positioning. Look at a 301, they actually just hang a midrange out in open space rather than giving it a proper enclosure, and they didn't even bother with polyfill. http://www.randallareed.com/photogallery/Bose_301_1.JPG it'll make you cringe

Plastic sucks for making speakers, end of story. Density is not the only parameter of concern for a cabinet. In fact, I would bet I can make a speaker that sounds a lot better than a bose acoustimass unit, using closed cell foam as the enclosure. Look at the most popular material for DIY speakers, MDF. MDF is dense, and many hardwoods are even more dense, but they often lack the dampening capacity of MDF.

Yes, you can easily get better sound for the money - but you still get great sound with Bose, and the features and style win many people over.

You are correct that you can get better sound for the money. Much, much better sound, for much less money. There are certainly a number of consumers who lack the desire (or maybe intelligence) to do a little research and choose a better alternative. Those victims of mass marketing are exactly the type of customer Bose wants.


FWIW, most of my equipment is used, or better yet, DIY. I've spent a decent amount but I have a lot to show for it. Rotel, McCormack, Nad, B&W, MIT, Theil, Tara Labs, Cardas, plus a bunch of DIY stuff with SEAS, Scan Speak, Fostex, HiVi, etc..
 

louielui

macrumors newbie
Aug 26, 2006
19
2
RHE
Martin Logans

There are many excellent audio equipment manufactures that address many markets and price points.

My personal favorite speakers are Martin Logans.
 

jeffreyk

macrumors regular
Nov 28, 2007
192
25
Highlands Ranch, CO, USA
Guys,

Can anyone tell me wich is the best brand on Audio? I own a set of Bose speakers and acoustimas... I remember another brand I saw in a post but forgot its name... "averion....?" dont know... any other that is not bang olufsen??

Thanks

Unfortunately, I cannot tell you what is "the best brand of Audio" components to buy as every ear is different; and what "your" ear hears in regards to the audio qualities of components (i.e. speakers, preamps, amps, speaker wire, etc.) will always be different from one person to another.

The best way to narrow down what sounds good to you is to do your research on the EQ out there and then take 3-5 CDs you're intimately familiar with and demo them in the EQ you might be interested in buying. Prices range from a few hundred bucks on something basic you'd get at Best Buy to speakers costing in excess of $100,000 per pair.

What I've found to be true in regards to audio and home theater equipment is you usually get what you pay for. There may be some components out there that perform like they cost 2-3x what you paid for but those examples are few and far between. Usually the more money you spend and invest on quality components, you'll get performance that's commensurate with the price tag.

As far as researching what is "out there," I suggest the following websites/forums that will help you out:

http://www.avsforum.com
http://www.audioholics.com
http://www.hometheaterforum.com

Magazines and their websites worth reading are:

http://www.hometheatermag.com
http://www.avrev.com/
http://www.sdinfo.com/main.html

Happy hunting!
 

Tucom

Cancelled
Jul 29, 2006
1,252
310
You know, I'm really curious as to what makes you such a virulent defender of a speaker company that has never been about quality sound? Oh, wait--no, I'm not. :D The only people I've met with similar fervor have all worked for the company.

Don't start assuming, that never works out well ;)

Here are two main reasons I'm more positive about Bose than most audiophiles -

1.) I've personally have had great experience with them; Their customer service, their products (Companion 3), and their reliability and experience of the product itself - again, this is only their Companion 3.

2.) There's a lot of utterly untrue trash spoken about them. You read reviews of people who go out of their way to give it a negative ten star review, when laughably they say really moronic things such as their cell phone sounding better or the like.


While I do think Bose makes some awesome products (Companion series and Professional products), I wouldn't recommend a Bose home theater system to anyone unless they were looking for features found on their Lifestyle systems, and sound quality was second priority.


I think the Bose topic is about depleted in discussion. The back and forth of it will last for ages to come. We each have our different views, knowledge, and opinions on Bose, and no one's breaking the law by thinking what they want.


Here's a really cool video of someone showing the excursion of their subwoofer in different sound frequency ranges: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SQVzU8Xelk&feature=user

Anyone know what brand the subwoofers are?



Peace
 

Victor ch

macrumors 6502a
Jun 19, 2007
718
1
San José, Costa Rica
As I said, Bose is what it is. Cheap speakers that masquerade as high quality ones.

I beg to differ. Yes Bose is severely overpriced in certain products (look at the LifeStyle systems, holy ****, 4k for a really mediocre sound and the 901's; like 36 4.5" speakers in a box? not good sounding at all and 1K+) In other they are "reasonably" priced (QC Headphones and computer speakers) and in others they are well priced (Bookshelf speakers) I went to a Bose retailer to test such theory (That Bose=Crap) and had mixed results. The store started as a musical instrument only store, broadening within the years. Now they are retailers for several audio brands. I tested ALL of their lineup except the 901 (which an uncle of mine has, so I've heard them) All home theaters were loud but mediocre, not so 'vivid'. The AcousticMass speakers were just plain **** and the bookshelf speakers surprised me (201 & 301). I took a 'test cd' to the store as a I intended to buy speakers. The 201 were OK at sound but they just couldn't handle bass well enough (@ high volumes); the 301's actually made the room shake and (to me) they sound awesome. The 901's are just "bass in a box", they're loud but far from being 'accurate' and all the sounds 'ate' each other out; something not present in 201 & 301.

I've heard A LOT of audio brands. Sennheiser, AKG, Audio-Technica, Koss, JBL, B&O, PolkAudio, Russound, Altec Lansing, Yamaha; amongst others. In headphones Bose is great (have the QC2 myself) and even though they don't match the Senn's (HD's ones) they are far better in what I need (noise canceling and a more than fair audio reproduction) In speakers they were left behind by a big gap, but that gap was left by relatively more expensive (and power hungry) speakers.

Im getting a NAD amp to go with my PolkAudio speakers... Eventually those Polk will be replaced by some B&W speakers but I don't have the $$ right now. (Im 16 BTW) Im not getting the 301's anymore, I figured out that since I got and audiophile-grade NAD amp I might as well get some hi-fi speakers from Polk.

Victor
 

thegoldenmackid

macrumors 604
Dec 29, 2006
7,770
6
dallas, texas
I've heard A LOT of audio brands. Sennheiser, AKG, Audio-Technica, Koss, JBL, B&O, PolkAudio, Russound, Altec Lansing, Yamaha; amongst others. In headphones Bose is great (have the QC2 myself) and even though they don't match the Senn's (HD's ones) they are far better in what I need (noise canceling and a more than fair audio reproduction) In speakers they were left behind by a big gap, but that gap was left by relatively more expensive (and power hungry) speakers.

Victor

gawd...not this debate again

Bose is not the same quality as Sennheiser. Noise-cancelling is for the people that want to fall asleep on the airplane, not for audiophiles. The Bose headphones distort sound by sending out generic sound waves to cancel out common background sounds, distorting the overall sound. Bose makes quality stuff, in terms of lasting, but a lot of their products are severely overpriced. But the common consumer will spend the money, any audiophile that cares about the quality that much will already know to look somewherelse.
 

Victor ch

macrumors 6502a
Jun 19, 2007
718
1
San José, Costa Rica
gawd...not this debate again

Bose is not the same quality as Sennheiser. Noise-cancelling is for the people that want to fall asleep on the airplane, not for audiophiles. The Bose headphones distort sound by sending out generic sound waves to cancel out common background sounds, distorting the overall sound. Bose makes quality stuff, in terms of lasting, but a lot of their products are severely overpriced. But the common consumer will spend the money, any audiophile that cares about the quality that much will already know to look somewherelse.

Im not debating... :rolleyes:

I know how active noise-canceling works and that Senn's are better than the Bose (I said so in my previous post). Sennheiser has a pair of cans that do just that... for 150$ more than the Bose. Both cans have mics that monitor the outside noise, sending a frequency of reverse polarity thus canceling the sound. For me they work awesome. I know Bose is FAR from being on the high-end brands and that is a tad overpriced; all Im saying you can't go bashing a company for some of their products when others are not as bad. If so then I could say B&O is a piece o' s*** because of the poor sound in their Form 2 headphones but I won't since I've heard the A8's that are awesome and the BeoLab 5's that are just superb. Bose doesn't deserve to be called one of the best audio brands and neither they should be called the worst audio company out there; they should just be called a good audio company or at least innovating(?). I have Bose products I wish I wouldn't have bought (In-Ears, Companion 3's) and some that Im just more than happy with (QC2's)

Victor
 

lost eden

macrumors 6502a
Mar 18, 2007
651
0
UK
At the end of the day, if you're happy with your speakers/headphones/whatever, then that's all that matters & we can all stop bickering.
 

DJJONES

macrumors 6502
Mar 9, 2008
315
0
Newengland usa!
Thank you very much. Bose does one thing excellent ......


MARKETING..

I can't fault them for that but I wouldnt' buy any of their stuff for true sound quality.

i agree. there headphones are garbage compared to etymotic or shures.
why wear those gigantic muffins around your ears when you can cancel more noise with in ear headphones. and they are not uncofortabale at all. i find muffin headphones more uncofortable.
 

Victor ch

macrumors 6502a
Jun 19, 2007
718
1
San José, Costa Rica
i agree. there headphones are garbage compared to etymotic or shures.
why wear those gigantic muffins around your ears when you can cancel more noise with in ear headphones. and they are not uncofortabale at all. i find muffin headphones more uncofortable.

Hmm might be in terms of sound reproduction but definitely not in terms of build quality. My cousin had his very very expensive Shure headphones die on him twice, he now wouldn't buy another pair. In ears are too uncomfortable, even the custom moulded ones. And FYI in ears isolate noise, they aren't active noise-canceling (they work better than the active though, but you sacrifice comfort) Here I come again in the headphone debate... Grado's and Senn's HD are incredibly 'accurate' and kicks Bose ass, but, they are open backed, mainly for in-home listening (lost eden, don't even bother posting on this again) Sure those Etymotics, Shures and Beyerdynamics are better than Bose, but Bose has a good sound (inferior to those though) awesome comfort, aesthetics, and a reasonable price.

Victor
 

thegoldenmackid

macrumors 604
Dec 29, 2006
7,770
6
dallas, texas
Hmm might be in terms of sound reproduction but definitely not in terms of build quality. My cousin had his very very expensive Shure headphones die on him twice, he now wouldn't buy another pair. In ears are too uncomfortable, even the custom moulded ones. And FYI in ears isolate noise, they aren't active noise-canceling (they work better than the active though, but you sacrifice comfort) Here I come again in the headphone debate... Grado's and Senn's HD are incredibly 'accurate' and kicks Bose ass, but, they are open backed, mainly for in-home listening (lost eden, don't even bother posting on this again) Sure those Etymotics, Shures and Beyerdynamics are better than Bose, but Bose has a good sound (inferior to those though) awesome comfort, aesthetics, and a reasonable price.

Victor


My Shures are much more comfortable then my Dad's QC2's. Have you ever tried having QC2's on for more then 2 hours straight. My Shure's I've kept in for four hours straight and I can run down the street and not worrying about them falling off. Although, I do love my Grado's...
 

Victor ch

macrumors 6502a
Jun 19, 2007
718
1
San José, Costa Rica
My Shures are much more comfortable then my Dad's QC2's. Have you ever tried having QC2's on for more then 2 hours straight. My Shure's I've kept in for four hours straight and I can run down the street and not worrying about them falling off. Although, I do love my Grado's...

8hours straight and not once they made me uncomfortable. Im more than happy with them, I won't purchase any more Bose products but I won't bash them either...

Victor
 

Victor ch

macrumors 6502a
Jun 19, 2007
718
1
San José, Costa Rica
I've been on a long quest finding a proper set of high fidelity speakers and went to a local retailer for top-of-the-line AV products; I can now recommend some brands. I took my time and tested KEF, Klipsch, Scandina and Jamo.

KEFs are very reliable and precise, wouldn't recommend them for electronic music though (they aren't that "bassy") they're awesome for classical and "soft" music. Klipsch has two lines of high-end speakers, the Synergy lineup and the Reference ones; the Synergy ones are bassy but aren't so "precise" as some people would like, the Reference ones have this weird Cerametallic material that make them good at reproducing very low notes and have a better tweeter than the consumer-grade ones. They were awesome playing my lossless electronic music yet they were a little behind the KEFs regarding "fidelity" (Im still getting their Reference 52s). Scandina, well, they look funny yet the sound is very good, they don't quite match the other ones in terms of fidelity but they're awesome (wouldn't buy them cause they look to childish and hideous IMO). Last, Jamo, well I tested a $15000 model so what can I say besides that they are fantastic. Im still craving to hear B&W and B&O, hopefully in the next couple of months when Im the US I can check them out and post my thoughts.

Victor
 

Evangelion

macrumors 68040
Jan 10, 2005
3,374
147
If you ask 10 people "who makes the best audio-equipment", you will probably get 10 different answers. I don't think that you could really say who makes best equipment, what you could do is to mention companies that make hi-quality equipment.

I personally like Genelecs. Well, to be precise, they do not make traditional speakers, but active monitors, but they work really well as a excellent speakers as well. Besides, their 6010A's look really Apple-esque in white :).

In the passive-side I like Amphions.

But everyone has personal taste that needs to be accounted for. Every speaker is different and with different philosophy. I might like those two, but someone else might dislike them.
 

aazay

macrumors newbie
Feb 12, 2011
1
0
my system any comments? clove i'd like one from you

towers jbl es80
surrounds wharfedale dfs dipole
centre wharfedale diamond
subwoofer - polk audio dsw pro 440 wi
avr - denon 2309
interconnect - monster
 

TOMIMOT

macrumors 6502
Jul 16, 2011
335
27
Canada
bose is not high end. Bose might be mainstream consumer high end but it really is junk. There is a famous saying that sticks..."no highs...no lows? must be a bose". Bose might have some nice modern looking speakers but as to quality, they fall short IMO. You want high end? mind you these aren't really high end but to my budget they are...take a look at Monitor audio or Totem. I currently own a pair of Monitor RS6' floor standing speakers. They're pretty old and broken into and sound just perfect for my liking. At the end of the day though, if you like Bose then you like Bose. Just because they sound like crap to someone doesn't mean it should cloud your already judgment on certain product.
 

ChrisA

macrumors G5
Jan 5, 2006
12,578
1,694
Redondo Beach, California
It does not impress me that someone with lots of cash to spend can have a very high end audio system. Given enough money it is trivial. Hire a trusted consultant to set it up write a check and that's it.

What impresses me is the person who can have a very high-end system for very little money. It can be done. I've been trying to do this for some time. I think the trick is to find some vintage speakers. For many decades the Infinity "line source" speakers where the best I knew of. I could not afford them when they were new and today I don't have the space to set them up. But I do own the next model down the line the "Quantum I".

The line source sold for about $3,000 a pair back in 1976 and you can find them now and then on-line today but they are rare and you pay almost the new price (although $3K is a lot less now than it was in '76) But still you can do what I did and buy one or two models down and still get very good speakers for under $1K or even under $500 a pair.

Here is a photo of the line source (they really are not that big, the model is very small)
http://www.infinity-classics.de/models/Quantum-series-1976/Quantum-Line-Source-QLS-1/QLS_1_7_1a.jpg

Here is the Quantum 2 that is very affordable and suitable for a normal sized living room. The Q2 does have a LOT of power below 40Hz and is best described as "very accurate"
http://www.bobbyshred.com/infinity/Q2.html
(see the specs on page two of the above: 24Hz to 32KHz 3db)
The sound of this speaker is very much like the AKG K240 studio headphones. (The K240 is a standard seen in many recording studios and another bargain. High end sound for about $100. The down side of the K240 is they are open back so sound spills in both directions, They work only in a quiet environment, like the control room in a studio.)

Look for the right vintage gear and you can really do well for a lot less money. These speakers were build in California before Infinity was sold to Harmond in Japan. I think Infinity had only about two dozen employees in the 70's.

OK the down side of the old Infinity speakers is their power requirements, you need a couple hundred watts per side for the larger speakers.

As for "high-end" amps. I've taken to building tube amplifiers. It's not a hobby for everyone but you CAN get exactly what you like. I build then test and tweak and keep going until it's what I like. One could do the same with solid state amps.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.