Zu
- Thread starter BHamm
- Start date
- Status
I would rather have the JBLs, obviously. I've heard those, they are excellent for their intended purpose. In my home, they would dominate my room and overload it with excessive bass to the point I'd really need an EQ (back to that
). Plus, they're ugly. If I had a basement theater room, sure. They'd be great. But I'd rather have these speakers with that money:
http://www.vanlspeakerworks.com/quartet.html
They have adequate bass for my needs, and the money in them is spent in crossover components and drivers instead of fancy cabinetry. They're pretty much off-the-shelf cabinets filled with the talent of a very inspired speaker designer and genuinely nice guy. And they sound amazing in a way that no similarly sized pro speaker ever has to me. And I like Mackies and Genelac for their purpose, just not listening at home.
I'd probably have to first show I was harmed and I haven't been. Other than that it would up to the State's Attorney and I venture Lisa has bigger fish to fry.
dnewma04
The Healer
I would rather have the JBLs, obviously. I've heard those, they are excellent for their intended purpose. In my home, they would dominate my room and overload it with excessive bass to the point I'd really need an EQ (back to that
I'm not sure I follow this overloading comment, John.
Those are VERY good speakers but man, you should'a heard some of the stuff he was making a few years ago; the highs would peel your ears back.
Jon_Logan
Addicted Member
I don't try to compensate for cancellations. I use a parametric eq to tame peaks and compensate for LF rolloff. My speakers are active and do employ frequency and phase correction performed anechoic ally. I don't veer from those adjustments. I just tweak the sub.
barredowl
Before and after Science
"I don't try to compensate for cancellations. I use a parametric eq to tame peaks and compensate for LF rolloff. My speakers are active and do employ frequency and phase correction performed anechoic ally. I don't veer from those adjustments. I just tweak the sub."
I bet that sounds nice! And for a whole amplified system I am guessing costs as much or less than the Zus. Thank dog for science!
I bet that sounds nice! And for a whole amplified system I am guessing costs as much or less than the Zus. Thank dog for science!
With larger speakers than what I have, I would have to get into room correction software or some serious passive room correction. I have glass walls on two sides and an odd shape that equates to low bass being too loud, a spike or what they call a node I suppose. With speakers about the size of what I have, they just work better here and I don't have to worry about the room problem as much. It's not that I couldn't run the JBLs in this room, but it would create a host of other problems I'd need to tackle before the response was flat. But audiophiles don't worry themselves with that, right? My assumption may be wrong that those JBLs are too big for this room how it is.
I didn't get a chance to hear his earlier speakers, but I really liked these. I'd have to hear them at home, though. His room and gear were very different from what i'd have them on. he had some rare/esoteric vintage amps going with them that sounded very nice, but it's very different than what I'd have them hooked to. They didn't sound like stand-mounts, that's for sure.
That might be how some of these companies get away with it. There are some that make outrageous claims for sure, but there really are laws that can take most false advertising down if the issue is pushed.
There is also a defense based around exaggeration, when a claim is so unbelievably absurd that the 'average person' would not be expected to take it, at all, seriously. They might be able to use this defense with some of their claims, at least in cases like the cable risers and those rocks you put on transformers. You can also put something in quotes in an ad and attribute it to a reviewer, if in fact they reviewed it as such. Which brings into question the honesty of the reviewer, and why they all shouldn't be given the same weight. And why most people trust their friends word of mouth more.
barredowl
Before and after Science
Maybe if these "audiophiles" were called out on their fraudulent claims more (example Zu speakers and frequency response) using science you wouldn't have to go in with the assumption you can only trust your friends?
The audio game wasn't that way in the 70s when you could buy a Marantz amp and JBL L series speakers from an appliance store, why do you suppose that changed John? In those days the zines emphasized specs and audio fraud and unsupported hype was MUCH less rampant. Is that only a coincidence? I don't think so...
I only remember that as a kid growing up but I feel I got robbed of a great thing by the rise of the high end audiophile.
The audio game wasn't that way in the 70s when you could buy a Marantz amp and JBL L series speakers from an appliance store, why do you suppose that changed John? In those days the zines emphasized specs and audio fraud and unsupported hype was MUCH less rampant. Is that only a coincidence? I don't think so...
I only remember that as a kid growing up but I feel I got robbed of a great thing by the rise of the high end audiophile.
It's as much do to the fact that many people, myself included, have become equally disillusioned with specs trying to tell the whole story. But specs are very much a part of many transactions in the high end. I look them up before most purchases, though I double check with my ears. And those JBL L-series speakers you speak of don't sound very good in comparison to even many of their contemporaries, and don't measure all that flatly either so I'm not sure what has changed. I've owned this stuff. Marantz 2275, L-100s...I've come to my own conclusions on them, and they probably wouldn't be the ones you'd like to hear. I like the L-100t3s though, as long as I can stand the high end (about an hour).
barredowl
Before and after Science
Yes the JBL speakers got better in the 80s through following a rigorous science based research program at Harman.
The point was though that when equipment was sold on it's merits was an audio golden age of relatively high quality audio available to the masses, and now that it's sold like wine?
Not so much...
Here is a thought experiment imagine if computers were sold not based on processor power, memory, HD, etc, but on WAF and s fuzzy subjectivist vocabulary, would we want to go that way?
The point was though that when equipment was sold on it's merits was an audio golden age of relatively high quality audio available to the masses, and now that it's sold like wine?
Not so much...
Here is a thought experiment imagine if computers were sold not based on processor power, memory, HD, etc, but on WAF and s fuzzy subjectivist vocabulary, would we want to go that way?
It is only sold like wine if you want to buy it like wine. It is entirely possible to purchase and research high end gear by logical means. I could explain how I ended up with my 'high end' system but it would take several pages. Suffice it to say that there was no wine involved, and the words inky-black were not uttered. Maybe 'jet black" once to describe how quiet my amp/preamp combo are.
Computers are tools. Music is subjective. You can't argue processor speed but you can in fact argue what sounds better to you. We have this 'absolute sound' but it really is not, at all, absolute and that this stuff all sounds different (even pro gear), means that none of it is perfect. We are all simply finding where we want the compromises to be.
I get where you are coming from, but it really isn't as bad as you imagine it to be. You have in your head one small part of high end audio.
barredowl
Before and after Science
Actually I can use a computer to view art and movies, and listen to music and I want the best speced engineered equipment to do so. Yet it seems like when it comes to music hardware that does the same thing many people get soft headed to their own peril, thus a company like Zu being viable for years on end. 
Thank dog the wives and girlfriends aren't demanding computes in fancy veneered boxes yet. 1/2
Thank dog the wives and girlfriends aren't demanding computes in fancy veneered boxes yet. 1/2
Actually I can use a computer to view art and movies, and listen to music and I want the best speced engineered equipment to do so. Yet it seems like when it comes to music hardware that does the same thing many people get soft headed to their own peril, thus a company like Zu being viable for years on end.
Thank dog the wives and girlfriends aren't demanding computes in fancy veneered boxes yet. 1/2
It's a bit different than that. The audio gear we have essentially recreates the performance. If our computers rendered art and photography with subtle changes while we looked at it, they would become the object of subjective debate, too. Plus I bet if you went back in time to the '70s there would be the same debates going on. The Sansui Sound vs Pioneer, etc. The high end began back then, too.
The subjective review, started I guess by Holt at Stereophile (I wasn't around...), was embraced and became popular because it expressed what people wanted. It wasn't driven by some industry conspiracy. From what I can gather, people were sick of great-measuring gear sounding like ass, and measurements being the only yardstick. But I wasn't there, and my take could be off.
I was around John when high fidelity was turned into "high end". I have theories based around the self indulgent and delusional notions of the drug addled Baby Boomers; you know, like thinking an accountant who drives an Audi is different in some fundamental way from an accountant who drives a Buick. But it's a long story.
Don't even get me started on people who wear ballcaps in restaurants. Or flip-flops.
barredowl
Before and after Science
Great measuring gear equalized to a room doesn't sound like ass, that is factually incorrect, really. In the pro sound field where there is no room for b.s. they know better. If set tube amps, no tone controls or EQ, full range single driver speakers or small bookshelf speakers with no subs and other "high end" shibboleths, *really* deliver the goods how come you don't see them in either live venues or recording situations? When it comes to pro equipment bullshit walks. Home equipment could be manufactured to be MUCH more like pro equipment probably cheaper and people could be informed about the physics of sound propagation in home audio magazines instead of verbal wankery and we'd all be better off.
- Status