Your post is the most remarkable I have ever read on this entire site. And that's saying something.
First of all, I don't consider my involvement in music to be a hobby. Restoring cars, photography, wood carving and knitting are examples of hobbies. A love of music is not a hobby. Its just something a person either appreciates or not. And since I can't have performers follow me around performing for me, I had to buy equipment.
I looked at your systems on the systems page, and all I could say was wow!! I now understand why you call it a HOBBY. Like collecting guns, stamps or figurines. You collect stereo equipment/systems. I guess you got even for all those years having no money.
Some of the systems pictured on this site say MUSIC!! And some say LOOK AT WHAT I HAVE!!! Well, you know where you are.
BTW, I have the same audio rack as you do! So There!! :) |
Rok2id, ever since I was a child, I went out of my way to hear a stereo system. My parents would drop me off at a couple of dealers. Those dealers seem to have gotten a kick out of me. One even called to tell my parents something new came in, to see if I could go and listen to it.
Then when I started to drive, I've driven over 500, or more miles round trip, to hear something that wasn't in my town. I had to stay overnight in a lot of those curiosity trips.
Years later when traveling for other reasons, the first thing I did after checking into a hotel/motel room, was to check the phone book for the dealers in that town. This was during a family vacation (they knew this routine), or traveling for business. I've even driven long distances to dealers (out of this visited area) with the rental car, if time, and type of trip permitted.
This is just part of my idea, of this being a hobby. Then trying everything I could is another, until I'm happy with my system. |
Anything can be a hobby. Like annoying people on the internet for example.
|
At least Mr. Schroeder has the common courtesy to list his system on-line.
People shouldn't feel sorry for Rok2id. His Polk speakers are very well regarded as a high value/performance item. Polk has the resources to produce very fine quality products and if you believe the reviews, the LSI15 is an excellent product.
BTW, I think Subarus are great cars and I would buy one over a Porsche 6 out of 7 days a week. (Porsche does make a very nice AWD SUV, not that I actually need a luxury SUV). |
'Anything can be a hobby. Like annoying people on the internet for example.'
Careful with that wit, you might cut someone. |
Hifitime
I did the same thing in Europe. I think I visited every audio club in southern Germany. And I was always trading with my friends. At one time I had two Revox rtr's two nakamichics and more amps than I could keep track of. I was out of control. But with the comeing of the CD, I came to the conclusion that speakers were the only things that could be significantly improved upon. I guess I was in the hobby phase then, as it's meant here. But it was always the music for me. It took me many places, and still does to this day. I can't tell you were I was when I heard of the Kennedy assassination, but I know exactly where I was when my lady gave me the OK to get the complete set of Beethoven's syms by Karajan and the Berliners.(lp)(67usd) Sitting at an outdoor cafe in Nurnberg, Germany. Still have it.
Thanks for your story. |
"If great speakers are being made, then the knowledge exist, so why don't all producers make great speakers. What makes a speaker great, and how much does it cost to make one?"
Rok2id, that's a fair question. The answer, I think, isn't any different than the reason why not every composer writes a great symphony, despite the fact that music theory and training are available to all. Speaker design isn't nearly as cut and dry and scientific as you think it is. Yes, it's highly technical -- but then, so is music.
Suppose you were a speaker designer. Assume that you learned everything you could about physics, acoustics, loudspeaker design, and psychoacoustics. You'd be amazed at how much you knew -- and how much you still wouldn't understand, because we don't yet know.
Then, try designing your product. You'll rapidly find yourself coming up against what are known as the engineering trades. The materials you use are imperfect. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses, so when you gain one thing, you give another thing up.
You might for example choose to make an electrostatic speaker. Electrostatics are famous for detail and low distortion. But because of fundamental and practical limitations, they have to be very, very big to play low and loud, and it's hard to get good high frequency dispersion out of them. They're also hard to drive and tend to be unreliable.
A great designer will study what's known, then add some problem-solving innovations of his own, maybe even come up with an entirely new approach. He'll spend years mastering the "black art" aspects of speaker design that aren't in the textbooks, things that you learn only by spending hours in the lab tinkering with prototypes, listening, measuring, and trying to make them better.
So, while you can indeed design a good speaker by the book, using off-the-shelf parts, designing a great one at a practical price point isn't at all cut and dry.
Add to this the fact that the rule in consumer electronics is that a product has to retail for 4-5 times parts and labor cost. As with most things, you can buy a lot of performance. A machined aluminum cabinet costs a lot more than an MDF cabinet, for example, but it has fewer of the resonances that give speakers a boxy, smeared coloration. Exotic diaphragm materials, large multiple woofers for low distortion and high power handling, etc. -- all of these are costly.
Anyway, just trying to give you a sense for why this isn't nearly as trivial as you might think. And it also helps explain (along with what might politely be called commercial considerations) why there isn't a simple relationship between price and greatness in a speaker.
A pair of Quads, for example, will cost only $10,000 and are unquestionably great speakers if they fit your listening needs (limited SPL and bass). There are also great speakers that cost over $100,000. They excel in different areas, because of characteristics in the underlying technology.
Bottom line, I think, is that you should as others have suggested try to listen more. Not because you should become an audio hobbyist, but because you'd be amazed at what they can add to the enjoyment of music. If they take your breath away, then you know. |
Josh358
Thank you. An excellent, informative discussion. I guess I sort of forgot about the 'black art' aspects of speaker design. I thought it would all be math by now.
I guess this reasoning is why no one can build a 3-series, except BMW, no matter how hard they try.
Thanks again. |
Rok2id, everyone makes assumptions, as you have. I will point out two things to put your awe, good or bad, into perspective:
1. It seems you had an "aquisition problem" which you needed to quit, as you say, "I was out of control." You are to be commended for reining in the impulsivity, which would not be easy. This would make perfect sense why you now own a modest rig and do not seek to hear every new/hot item. When one has to practice a forced contentment to combat impulses then an aggressive stance against the demon of desire is good!
But, did your acquisition fever switch to media? How big is your media collection? I find it interesting how some audiophiles have a "media bias," in that they think they are a bit better than gearheads. My media collection is quite small. I have very defined taste/criteria for my listening, as well as for its performance, so I have not spent tens of thousands on media (If the numbers are crunched it is scary how much can be spent in a lifetime on media!). The media I have is dearly loved and used; I don't have hundreds of pieces of media sitting around unused. But the media I play is exquisitely performed, just the way I like.
I'm actually quite pleased by this now that I can get the world online. I feel vindicated that I didn't spend tens of thousands on media but put the money on systems to play it back. I think that was a wise move long term. And look what I have to show for it - a nice audio system with variety to it rather than stacks and stacks of discs collecting dust and only one form of expression of the music. Some people justify spending $20-25 for an album which will sit along with dozens of others. All those $20-25 decisions I chose to put toward systems. I use all the stuff I buy, gear and media, so that could be a difference between us, perhaps.
Yes, I LOVE the equipment, which is why I focus on it rather than stacks of discs. Some people take pictures to proudly show off their media collection, but no one says, "How shallow! What a waste! Look at all the unnecessary money they spent..." Pursuit of variety in systems is every bit as legitimate a hobby in audiophilia as collecting media and having a more modest system. It may be that you have spent as much as I have when media and system is combined.
2. You misconstrue my agenda; I could have one fantastic speaker system, but have learned about myself that is not what brings me more satisfaction. I am trying to broaden the understanding in the community that a variety of technology at whatever level and price point is as compelling - I assert even more compelling - as having "the One," the supposed perfect speaker. A guy with a variety of three good $1K speakers may have far more fun and enjoyment than having one $5K speaker. This is not to be taken as endorsement of poorer quality, but of variety being a compelling element to enjoyment. Even though I point that out generally in my comments on the system, you seemed to have simply looked at the pics and drawn a hasty conclusion.
3. Lastly, I have spent 20 plus years of consistent annual budgeting and controlled spending on audio to attain a very high level. If you want to call that getting even for something, feel free. I call that sensible, successful and blessed long term planning and execution.
I am done with our discussion. Blessings to you. :)
BTW, you have excellent taste in affordable audio racks. :) |
Not sure how this got missed in this discussion, but a major factor in the preference for this speaker over that one goes back to the fact that people differ considerably as to how they prioritize the many sonic variables involved.
On a very simple level, the designer has to juggle dozens upon dozens of variables, making choices along the way. Inevitably some things get sacrificed for others. The cone material and voice coil configuration that handles extreme volume peaks well may not be the perfect choice for another sonic consideration. Super-expensive parts may help to some degree, but alone will never solve all the problems.
Hence, one very expensive "great" speaker rarely sounds like another very expensive "great" speaker.
A good example for me are the Wilson speakers. They are highly regarded, but the times I've heard them they've never impressed me as having a natural sound. I call it the "Kodachrome" effect -- in my book, the designer just couldn't resist the temptation to juice things up a bit compared to live acoustic music.
That said, I recognise that Wilson has a serious following who think they are the penultimate in speaker design. Lots of people think Wilson came up with the perfect balance in speaker design an lots of others don't.
There will never be a universal consensus as to what the perfect speaker should do. There are just too many variables in play and too many differing opinions about priorities. |
Douglas_schroeder,
I could not agree more with your comments about investing in "the hobby". |
Mlsstl, I agree. I tried to touch on the point when I compared the $10,000 Quads to $100,000 behemoths. There are some things the Quads can do that a big pair of Wilsons can't, and vice-versa. I don't think anything will beat the Quads for acoustical music at moderate levels, and that makes them great speakers -- but not for people who want to rock out. And if you do need high SPL's, do you go with the more colored sound of a Wilson (you aren't alone in your observation) or the accuracy of a Magico? Or do you sacrifice a bit of that level and go for the even better accuracy and imaging of a huge electrostatic like the Sound Labs?
At every level, the speaker to get is the one that best fits our needs, and these may occupy very different price points, because some attributes that some people need -- loud deep accurate bass, say -- are costlier to provide than others. |
To Rfleff: hi, in my opinion the JBL's do nothing seriously wrong. Of course the Soundlab give a sense of height with regard to soundstage because they are quite tall.
In my case, I have tried to mimic some of the characteristics of PA speaker systems, like the JBL's by adding two open baffle woofer towers fitted with three 15 inch woofers/channel.
I use a Marchand crossover to be able to drive the Soundlabs and the woofer towers in full active mode.
And yes, I can now get some of the dynamics of a real PA system, which is obvious when listening to Michael Jackson's Liberian Girl or Smooth Criminal on the Bad CD.
One last remark: nowadays high quality PA systems don't sound aggressive any longer, unlike many of yesteryear's PA systems being used in disco clubs.
Chris |
From my limited experience with pro-monitors, they put you inside the recording studio not in row C or H. That means they collapse the soundstage and don't float images in a 3D holographic way as most audiophile speakers do. Maybe mid-field monitors like the JBL-LSR6332 do a better job of creating a 3D soundstage illusion? When I demoed the ATC-SCM 11 soundstaging was their major weakness even though they excelled in many other ways. |
Dayglo, I've noticed the same thing. Some of that has to do with how they're mounted in the studio, and with the very dry acoustics up front. Some I think has to do with the limited dispersion of the typical pro monitor. JBL's may be an exception that last, the Harman research favors good power response, which they found correlates very well with subjective quality. |
I may be a little late to contribute my 2c. My main system is a pair of Harbeth SHL5 driven by naim xs2 and various digital sources. In my basement I have the 4 pis: a 2 way pro system based on the JBL 2226H and horn loaded B&C DE250 powered by 38W tube integrated primaluna PL2. The 4Pis are Wayne Parham's design. I tell you the JBL 2226H midrange comes so close the mighty Harbeth's midrange. Listenable at high volumes for so many hours. Not a hint of hardness. The only issue is that the 4pis need subwoofers to give good bass and integrating them is quite difficult (at least in my basement). This is where the Harbeth's have the upper hand. They don't need subs for music. But then I put together this set of JBL based 4pis with quality stereo Eminence subs powered by a Crown XLS amp for half the price of the Harbeth SHL5. I am a big fan of JBL components if chosen and used in properly designed playback system. That being said I haven't heard the LSR or PRX systems and would be definitely interested in someone's experience with these JBL ranges. |
