Todays Speakers vs Vintage Speakers

Because Atkinson's knowledge of physics is worse than that of a medieval alchemist.

If even 1% of the things for which he writes glowing reviews were actually true, it would be a revolution in physics and materials science.

Reading through this thread...Atkinson gave my KEF 107's a glowing review, that's one thing we can agree on, anyway! :) Of course, most of the gear in Stereophile DOES get glowing reviews...

I still say good is good, old or new. My 107's are long in the tooth and if I don't put them right next to some newer, high end speakers, I'd say they sound "perfect!" "How could it get any better?!" Well, obviously it can, but if I didn't know any better...well, I wouldn't know any better. And I couldn't afford to do "much better," anyway. But if I had the money, yeah I'd be looking to do better! Modern high end, I've just barely tasted it, but it's pretty darn good. And the trickle-down to the more affordable products seems to be a real thing (unlike trickle-down economics, which I shouldn't even bring up and please let's not get into that, LOL!). Vintage high end is pretty darn good too though! We are blessed in this hobby with so many choices.
 
Reading through this thread...Atkinson gave my KEF 107's a glowing review, that's one thing we can agree on, anyway! :) Of course, most of the gear in Stereophile DOES get glowing reviews...

I've always wondered why so many have a problem with the generally good reviews in the high end magazines. Given the choice, how many posters here would review "crap" they don't like? Even sites and magazines that claim to be objective only post/publish good reviews.

How much can you say about todays Yorx equivalent (Crosley?)? How many people would want to read about such gear? Certainly not the ones who read magazines aimed at the high(er) end.

The same people who complain about high end reviews seem to have no problem with Julian Hirsch's reviews which were also always good. I suspect a lot of the animosity has a lot to do with the items reviewed. No receivers and only higher end gear and speakers reviewed goes against what many posters here think is the "shit".:cool:
 
Last edited:
I've always wondered why so many have a problem with the generally good reviews in the high end magazines. Given the choice, how many posters here would review "crap" they don't like? Even sites and magazines that claim to be objective only post/publish good reviews.

How much can you say about todays Yorx equivalent (Crosley?)? How many people would want to read about such gear? Certainly not the ones who read magazines aimed at the high(er) end.

The same people who complain about high end reviews seem to have no problem with Julian Hirsch's reviews which were also always good. I suspect a lot of the animosity has a lot to do with the items reviewed. No receivers and only higher end gear and speakers reviewed goes against what many posters here think is the "shit".:cool:
I don't read the magazines or the reviews. I don't care much either way about either of them.

But, I can see why those that are into that kind of thing would have a degree of distaste for them. Magazines get paid to publish what they publish, either directly or indirectly. They have ulterior motive to make certain companies look good. The reviews are set up to make those companies look good.
 
I don't read the magazines or the reviews. I don't care much either way about either of them.

But, I can see why those that are into that kind of thing would have a degree of distaste for them. Magazines get paid to publish what they publish, either directly or indirectly. They have ulterior motive to make certain companies look good. The reviews are set up to make those companies look good.

Sadly that seems to be the name of the game with every thing reviewed.
Motor cycle and automobile mag's are some of the worst.
Even if the BMW GS 1200 catches fire at a stop light periodically it's still the best motorcycle on the planet.
 
Well they won't review your stuff if you don't buy advertising. They gonna bash an advertiser?
 
I’m all in with vintage speakers (pre-1980) based on build quality alone. Not only are the home theater tower speakers ugly as all get out but they depend on a sub, are made of particle board and vinyl, and are laughably expensive. Speakers of the 90s too were essentially fat tower speakers that were again particle board and vinyl.

For a home HiFi setup the build quality and beauty of vintage speakers cannot be beat (except for maybe the legacy Klipsch series which are essentially newly manufactured vintage speakers). Vintage speakers are truly beautiful and can be implemented with your home’s decor. My HPM-100s are heavy thick walnut veneer. They have real grain. It’s wood. It’s thick wood. The drivers have gorgeous silver aluminum borders and again are heavy. Meanwhile B&W and Klipsch think yellow and copper are cool colors respectively (and expect you to agree and pay $2000+ a speaker that’s made of plastic).

For me, style matters. Build quality matters. History and character matter. Very few of us will ever achieve a setup and space that truly rivals a live performance so why compromise on asthetics and charm? (Side Note: live performance are amplified through speakers anyway and have horrible acoustics in every case except a classical music hall so what exactly are we even chasing? The altered and perfected recorded studio sound?) Music to me is a relationship. It’s an experience. Listening to American Beauty on vinyl on an PL-55x with my SX-3900 powering my HPM-100s only adds to the richness of that experience. Using a media streamer connected to a DAC and blah blah blah only detracts from the intimacy of it all.
 
Some Reviewers in magazines with a conscious walk a tight line between stating the truth and giving good reviews. One has to read between the lines and whats being omitted in the review to understand what's being said. There have been instances where products received bad reviews and the company pulled their advertising dollars out of the magazine. The magazines are there to survive and make money so there is definately a conflict of interest between advertising dollars and honest reviews. Then there some reviewers that are just down right fraudulent spewing their subjective opinions giving glowing reviews but somehow ignoring the technical details/theory behind the article reviewed.
 
Then there some reviewers that are just down right fraudulent spewing their subjective opinions giving glowing reviews but somehow ignoring the technical details/theory behind the article reviewed.

Why is this fraudulent?
Should they decide the stuff sounds good based upon technical details and theory?

Based upon specs, my Magnavox 9302 amp should be on a shelf, if not in the garbage can. Low power, bandwidth limited, tubes with a finite life span, high THD and IM compared to anything you can buy at Best Buy today... the list goes on.

And yet, it's in my main system because it sounds good. Isn't that what we're doing here?
 
Last edited:
Well, if you want an adventure bike. There's lots faster and lots more comfortable for touring.
(OT warning!) I just love to watch the GSs make sport bikes look silly as they glide and sashay through Deal's Gap. Most riding is effortless on a GS. Myself, I've always been an RS or S/CS kind of rider even for long "touring" distances. And "naked" bikes are just so much fun! I'd happily take an R100GS and put low/Euro bars on it but then I could just purchase an R100R and be happy, too. Same thing and best of both worlds.
 
Back
Top Bottom