Will there be an audible difference if I upgrade?

[BMWCCA]

Mea culpa. The L110 crosses at 4 kHz, L250T at 5 kHz and the L100/4311 at 6 khz. 4 kHz is still an octave too high for that size midrange.

Never heard of an L250T, but the L250 does cross at 5kHz. The 250Ti crosses at 5.2kHz, but have you listened to them?

Which is why I suggested the OP consider a pair of 308s. I aver that will make a far greater audible difference for the budget than merely changing the amplifier.

But of course that will mean changing amps, since the LSR308 is a self-powered speaker. And I believe someone else has already pointed out that the OP's current system provides no pre-outs.

You can argue basic theory until we're all asleep, but have you heard the systems you're deriding? Do you assume the engineers at JBL weren't aware of these theoretical "truths"? My favorite quote from Greg Timbers at JBL is: ". . . as you have no doubt noticed, no one told the 4345 that it can't work correctly so it does anyway."

There are a lot of products that can be designed using scientific facts and theorems. The basic physical and chemical factors control every internal combustion engine. Basics of physics and geometry dictate how a suspension works. GM has the largest engineering staff in the automotive industry but what they come up with has a totally different feel than those tiny staffs at Porsche and BMW. You might prefer a GMC pickup or a Corvette, I like the feedback and stability that comes from my basic BMW design and its silky smooth inline 6-cylinder. You could even prefer a sideways engine and front-wheel-drive while I'll pass you every time in the winter in my rear-drive BMW with it's perfect 50/50 weight distribution. There are so many ways to throw results in the face of facts and theory. As you said, ". . . to each his own. "

I think I'll go upstairs right now and play the same program material on my LSR 305s and L96s and see if I don't enjoy both sets!

 

[E-Stat]

And I believe someone else has already pointed out that the OP's current system provides no pre-outs.

That would be me. You'll note I commented on that.

Never heard of an L250T, but the L250 does cross at 5kHz. The 250Ti crosses at 5.2kHz, but have you listened to them?

That model, no. I already know, however, how any 5" driver will respond in terms of directivity at 5 kHz with its 2.7" wavelength. Their tweeters are exceptional and offer wide dispersion which ends up being both good and bad news in this application.

You can argue basic theory until we're all asleep, but have you heard the systems you're deriding?

Yes. Also, I have a friend with both Advents and L110s and we compared both. The L110 was more neutral in the midrange and offered more extended top end response. But I immediately noticed the soundstage weirdness. Perhaps I am more aware of that since I've been using full range electrostats for nearly forty years. Once I pointed out the phenomenon, he noticed it, too.

Do you assume the engineers at JBL weren't aware of these theoretical "truths"?

They were balancing compromises based on 1970s tweeter technology. Most of those speakers were designed for near field listening at high levels. Listening from a couple of feet would likely work ok, but most folks don't do that.. Using an ideal xover would have compromised tweeter power handling back then. Not today.

I like the feedback and stability that comes from my basic BMW design and its silky smooth inline 6-cylinder.

Or the flat six of my Porsche. I get it. And the value of mid-engine handling with its lower rotational inertia. All of which is quite predictable.

I think I'll go upstairs right now and play the same program material on my LSR 305s and L96s and see if I don't enjoy both sets!

Or see if you simply hear the anomaly in the upper midrange/lower highs as others do. Instruments and voices that span both drivers exhibit a weird "hourglass" soundfield. Bottom end wide. Top end wide. Upper midrange harmonics pinched.

 

[BMWCCA]

They were balancing compromises based on 1970s tweeter technology. Most of those speakers were designed for near field listening at high levels. Listening from a couple of feet would likely work ok, but most folks don't do that.. Using an ideal xover would have compromised tweeter power handling back then. Not today.

With the exception that the 250Ti was hardly a near-field monitor, and it didn't hit the market until the mid-'80s, and that many still praise its soundstage presentation today.

Don't forget that the OP's original question was would a new amp make a difference in the sound of his system. And we both agree the LSR-series is an amazing accomplishment, especially at its price-point.

 

[E-Stat]

Don't forget that the OP's original question was would a new amp make a difference in the sound of his system.

I am following the spirit of the title: Will there be an audible difference if I upgrade?

Short answer is likely no if all you replace is the amplification. My goal was to suggest a better way to use the indicated budget to indeed provide a useful audible difference (improvement).

No axes to grind. Simply trying to provide advice from one who's been a music lover and audio hobbyist for more than 40 years. And having had the luxury of experiencing some of the very best available through my mentors who were audio reviewers.

I've always been a speaker first guy. Bought Magnepans in '75 when I was 18. Purchased my first full range electrostats, the Acoustat X in '77. Now have my dream speakers. I would replace the old speakers with 308s in a heartbeat for a more natural overall presentation.

 

[BMWCCA]

Or the flat six of my Porsche. I get it. And the value of mid-engine handling with its lower rotational inertia. All of which is quite predictable.

Thanks for your contribution and sharing your experience.

I've driven Porsches since 1971 and formerly sold Porsches for a living for twenty years. The claim for low polar moment of inertia was used for the 928 and 924/944 series with their masses at either end compared to the 914 and 911 of that era.

I own three mid-engined, horizontally opposed cylinder BMW convertibles. I've ridden boxers since 1971. How did Porsche ever let Subaru trademark the term "boxer" for their Quadrazontal engines?

 

[E-Stat]

TThe claim for low polar moment of inertia was used for the 928 and 924/944 series with their masses at either end compared to the 914 and 911 of that era.

We're not talking the same concept as those were front engine-rear wheel drive designs. Weight hanging out at either end. Mine is a mid-engined Boxster. With the mass centralized in the center. Do you understand the distinction?

I own three mid-engined, horizontally opposed cylinder BMW convertibles.

Huh? The M1 was a mid engine design, but the engine was not a boxer configuration. Pray tell the models involved. I'm aware of their horizontally opposed motorcycle designs, but not of any mid-engined BMW convertibles. Do tell.

I've ridden boxers since 1971. How did Porsche ever let Subaru trademark the term "boxer" for their Quadrazontal engines?

Because Porsche never trademarked the term boxer - although their flat 4 and 6 designs go back more than 50 years. Jerry Seinfeld has the oldest version.

 

[Blue Shadow]

Phil is talking beemers with the boxer motors. He has been involved with them and the cars (bimmers) for quite a few decades and then some. He has more than earned his screen name.

 

[BMWCCA]

We're not talking the same concept as those were front engine-rear wheel drive designs. Weight hanging out at either end. Mine is a mid-engined Boxster. With the mass centralized in the center. Do you understand the distinction?

Of course, Porsche trained me on the concept probably the same year I won their USA National Product Knowledge Contest and their highest award for sales qualification. They explained it this way:

Take a barbell with weights on it. Put all the weights in the middle (914). Now try to spin it. Spins pretty easily, doesn't it. Now put equal weight at both ends (944) and try to spin it. The weight position changes the "polar moment of inertia" meaning the bar resists movement, or increases stability with the weights on both ends.

So now do you want to bore everyone here with an arcane discussion of the concept of the Weissach rear axle?

 

[Blue Shadow]

Saw an MR2 spin real quick one day. All the weight in the middle.

Hard to recommend specific components for the op even though that appears to be what is wanted. So much good stuff but not always the items we mention in his area.

 

[E-Stat]

Put all the weights in the middle (914). Now try to spin it. Spins pretty easily, doesn't it. Now put equal weight at both ends (944) and try to spin it. The weight position changes the "polar moment of inertia" meaning the bar resists movement, or increases stability with the weights on both ends.

Sorry, but that's not how it works in the real world . And why they abandoned the front engine-rear drive arrangement for their sports cars, if not with the Panamera sedan and the Audi based SUVs. I had a very lively test drive when I purchased the Boxster - the salesman was a certified SCCA driving instructor! It possesses a level of stability with high speed cornering I had not previously experienced. Entering the interstate from a twisty on ramp at 120 was quite entertaining, yet utterly tranquil. There is no sense of rearward weight wanting to swap ends such that you must dial in countersteer. Which is why all the top performing automobiles all the way up to F1 cars use that configuration. Finally, Zora's sports car will be mid-engine as of next year.

As for Porsche, apparently, they've learned quite a deal since the 1970s. The 928 was indeed a fun tourer to drive in the day - my oldest brother had one. With the 918, however, they share a level of performance found with other mid-engined exotics like Ferrari, Lamborghini, Audi, Bugatti, etc. Recognize any of these current mid-engined Porsches? This summer, I was able to see a LeMans winning 919 up close at the Porsche Experience at Silverstone while at the F1 race.



BTW, while BMW has used horizontally opposed boxer configuration motors in motorcycles since the 1920s, you simply don't find such in their automobiles. As for their two mid-engined cars, the M1 used an I-6 while the I8 uses an I-3. Today, only Porsche and Subaru produce them. The 700 and 700RS were considered rear engine designs - and indeed borrowing the motor from one of their bikes.

 

[musichal]

The weak part of your system IMHO is the speakers. JBL's from Locanthi's day had horribly inconsistent directivity due to crossing the midrange too high. Imaging suffers as compared with modern designs and sounds artificial to these ears.

You might consider a pair of LSR308s in your budget which happen to be powered. All you need then is a preamp stage. Unfortunately, the AX700 doesn't allow for pre-in / main out operation.

Should read pre-out, main-in as almost everyone here realizes, especially E-Stat himself, who merely misspoke. Only mentioned for the very few who are confused by the function of the feature, since it is a question that arises periodically.

 

[E-Stat]

Should read pre-out, main-in as almost everyone here realizes, especially E-Stat himself, who merely misspoke. Only mentioned for the very few who are confused by the function of the feature, since it is a question that arises periodically.

Thanks for the correction - as it certainly warrants!

 

[BMWCCA]

I'm gonna let this whole off-topic discussion rest after one last comment.

BTW, while BMW has used horizontally opposed boxer configuration motors in motorcycles since the 1920s, you simply don't find such in their automobiles. As for their two mid-engined cars, the M1 used an I-6 while the I8 uses an I-3. Today, only Porsche and Subaru produce them. The 700 and 700RS were considered rear engine designs - and indeed borrowing the motor from one of their bikes.

Borrowing is too simplistic. Few parts from the R69S engine are used in the 700S (I own both). I may have stretched the point in the 700s but look at the RS photo and tell me that's not a mid-engined car!

 

[E-Stat]

Few parts from the R69S engine are used in the 700S (I own both). I may have stretched the point in the 700s but look at the RS photo and tell me that's not a mid-engined car

First of all, lets remember that there were only two examples of the 700 RS. Therefore, there were never three of anything that you've ever owned. So you've had three different 700s. Ok.

Why is it that no one else considers this a mid-engined BMW? That would be because they weren't.

The 30 HP engine is clearly sitting atop the suspension. Rear engine.

By all means. provide a pic of your car and of where the engine sits to corroborate your claim. Or, anyone's notion that a dinky 700 convertible was a mid engine design.

 

[BMWCCA]

Okay, "Uncle" already. I said I stretched the point. If Trump can do it, why can't I?
You're right. But I do have all of these, three of which are mid-engined boxers:

 

[E-Stat]

Okay, "Uncle" already. I said I stretched the point. If Trump can do it, why can't I?
You're right. But I do have all of these, three of which are mid-engined boxers:

That's really stretching it to call your bikes "mid engined". Or "convertibles".

But, nice bikes, nevertheless. I enjoy my V-4 Honda ST1300 with Two Brothers exhaust and K&N filter.

 

[asilker]

Yes JVC never made anything of value.
View attachment 829262 View attachment 829263
Of course I kid I kid. However they've made a lot of great gear under the Laboratory moniker.

Yup, that's my impression. The JVC and Victor turntables I've seen look like well constructed gear. If I'm correct JVC also developed the Shabita stylus shape (for those unfamiliar, thats the big selling point of carts like the Ortofon 2m black). I would happily use a JVC table... but my dad had a JVC integrated when I was a kid, and it did not inspire wonder

 

[Audiovet]

Dantay,

To be blunt: As you would have noticed a lot of (conflicting) personal preference with the usual side salad of automotive indulgence. Not trying to be snotty, but it is an indication that only you can judge whether there will be a sonic improvement for you in a change of amplification.

I tried in vain to find a relevant schematic (which is one way of reliably determining whether 'upgrading' might cause an audible difference). It would at least appear that there is no general problem with JVCs despite some subjective opinions, and possibly (probably?) finding suitable components for replacement of aged ones. Point: Don't spend money on what will not make a definite audible difference for you, if there is a practical way of testing this for yourself. Yes, there have been technological advances, but mostly in aid of convenience and armchair control, i.e. 'sideways' in a manner of speaking. (This apart from other good suggestions, but you asked about amplification.)

 

[asilker]

here is my automobile

 

[Ds2000]

You should set up with UBER. ^^