Discussion in 'Speakers' started by Mark Davis, Jun 16, 2018.
Well, if you want an adventure bike. There's lots faster and lots more comfortable for touring.
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?
(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.
You've already gone OT.
The rider makes the biggest difference. Make a RCV213v-s look silly? Bwahahahaha.
As I understand it a blind test is not to determine which is better, but rather can you distinguish a difference which usually needs to proved statistically that there is a significant difference.
Anyone left who has any inkling what a RCV213v-s is would understand how absurd a comparison you've drawn!
But we can blame Ramseybella for taking this OT!
While I can't argue with beauty because it's all about taste, there are several incorrect statements in your post. Let me start with the assertion that modern speakers are made of particle board. I'm currently listening to Infinity Primus 150 which certainly qualifies as a budget speaker. It is made of MDF as are most modern speakers and horror of horrors it doesn't use wood veneer. Instead it has a black vinyl veneer which looks reasonably close to the real thing. If a budget speaker like mine is made of MDF you can assume the more expensive ones are and they're all braced to a greater or lesser degree, something that didn't occur to most designers until the 80's.
Go ahead blame me?
Just used it as an example especially when it come to motor vehicles.
Don't want to get off the subject on what's better, we are talking speakers.
Modern speakers (assuming we're talking about quality products and not the modern equivalent of boom boxes) definitely do not produce sound like vintage speakers. They will in almost all cases have flatter frequency response and be more "accurate."
Whether you will like the sound is a completely different question.
Despite the limitations of the Internet "conversations", I hope everyone realizes we're all tongue-in-cheek on this OT tangent! Magazine reviewers are paid to sell magazines. The truth is where you find it, which is very seldom in the words of those paid to be "experts". Listen and evaluate speakers with your ears, not your eyes.
Your situation is different in that you are not trying to establish that you're an export and that Magnavox is the wonder of all amplifiers nor are you trying to influence people into buying it. You admit to its weaknesses and subjectively like it. That's OK with me and I have no issues with that at all. However, when a vendor claiming to be an SME set's up an experiment where the cables appear to magically amplify audio signals, then that is fraud. Cables conduct but they DO NOT AMPLIFY. There in lies the fraud. Its false advertising design to dupe the unknowing.
Absolutely! What was proferred as *best* isn't remotely in the same performance class for the street.
You completely changed the context of my comment here.
You stated that giving favorable subjective reviews to gear while ignoring technical flaws is fraudulent. I submit that it is not.
I said "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."
You are the one that is changing context here by taking the one line of my paragraph out of context from the rest of the parargraph and even then managing to get that wrong. I maintain my point of view whether you agree or disagree. If reviewers spout on and on and on about the virtues of product X in order to keep advertising dollars into the magazine, then there is an inherent conflict of interest which is fraudulent.
"If reviewers spout on and on and on about the virtues of product X in order to keep advertising dollars into the magazine, then there is an inherent conflict of interest which is fraudulent." On this we can agree. Of course this is making assumptions about the motivation of the reviewers who give positive subjective reviews to technically flawed product. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe the stuff just sounds good, as crazy as that seems.
In my experience the 'subjective' press has been more useful in gear selection process than the ones based purely upon technical information, within the shallow pool of the high end that I play in.
I passed on that statement to avoid getting flamed.
But agree, what sounds great to one may sound like Poo to another.
We all have had friends who you didn't want to impose on the sound of their system being not good just out of manners.
But i have listened to some sad set ups and good, that someone else would think it was bad.
My friend visiting says my setup lacks bass, i don't like bottom dwelling bass i stay in the middle with it.
That's my taste on most music.
I have listened to some mind blowing systems but cost more than a house, not in this lifetime could i afford or would i consider the thought.
The original post essentially asked if today's speakers have made older speakers and their technology obsolete..
My answer is emphatically "No." ... not even close.
This board and other boards are full of people who are passionate about their gear. Among those folks who care about audio, better than half are actively seeking out older speakers, not selling them off to buy the latest, greatest, whizz bang .. The high end continues to be dominated by planar speakers (improved over the years, but old technology.)... Some old speakers have become absurdly expensive, but that reflects their desirability (and rarity) ..
I'm standing with the guy that said "There's only so many ways to move air in a room".. If it sounds good, buy it !!
OHM has a speaker in Beta testing for $3000 that go 20-20k+/- 3 dB where the top is a WALSH radiator with a wide dispersion tweeter and the bottom cabinet is a powered sub (I know only the OHM A &F's were true WALSH radiators ) their current offerings still image better and have a much wider sweet spot and sound stage than anything near their price.Thought it's worth mentioning HHR Exotics can repair the old A & F's and make vastly improved versions ,for a true 20-20khz the TLS-2 (OHM A) may once again be rated best speaker at any price and the TLS-1 is an updated F. Also all WALSH type speakers have proper time/phase coherence of all frequencies something only MUCH more expensive speakers do.
Thanks for all of the input great comments.
The High End continues to be dominated by planar speakers? Really? What is that observation based upon - other than wishful thinking that is. Maggies - which I call Magoos - are all DOA - no life, highly colored, homogenize all signal to sound the same, no bass, and NO dynamics. The darn things cannot image - no matter how they are setup - a really cheap speaker that sounds really cheap.
Electrostatic speakers? Can be quite nice - but again they struggle with producing bass - unless one uses a hybrid approach such as Martin Logan - and while the BIG SOUND LABS can produce bass they darn things are as large as a barn door - and really visually are over powering. Hardly worth having - unless you live in a barn of a room. Then when you consider the rising impedance of a 'stat you have a situation that can end up with highly colored sound - as though the tweeter is at times dead - and at other times somewhat working. Good midrange, acceptable imaging, nice soundstage - but the rest? Missing in Action.
For the record - planar speakers don't dominate anything - they are niche product at best and their adherents are all zealots with very selective hearing.
Separate names with a comma.