A friend of mine just bought the JBL PRX635 stage speakers and they sound just great! These are not the typical high end speakers that are in demand among audiophiles and they cost far less than their high end siblings. Sometimes I wonder if all the money is well spent, because for far less $$ someone can become an owner of a pair of these JBL's and be happy for the rest of his life. Are those high end (and very expensive) speakers really better than the JBL's?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. :)
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.
"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.
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.
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).
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.
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!! :)
When a person moves into a hobby and the primary goal is preservation of their money - that is, they will not "invest" into the development of the hobby in their life in any serious way through travel, expense for education, equipment, etc. - the result is an under-developed hobbyist. For them beginner to Novice level is all they will attain, regardless of how advanced they think they are.
Anyone who has been in audio or any other itensive hobby knows that IT is a lot more involved, costs more time, and is FAR more gratifying than a beginning effort.
An example... I used to visit a lady who as crazy for African Violets. She was quite involved in the African Violet Society! Her entire basement was converted into a greenhouse, with shop lights hung from the floor joists above and table after table of potted flowers - all African Violets. She manned booths at shows, sold them, and had them all over her house. She had variegated types and had come up with a couple of her own hybrids, I believe. She was REALLY into African Violets.
You, Rok2id, are not like that woman. You are like a person who goes to a gardening store, buys an African Violet and thinks they have a lot of experience with African Violets. :(
If I am badly mistaken with the following assessment, please forgive me. I am guessing that your audio system is your first serious effort (or very close) at making a high end rig. It would explain why you are so dogmatic about defending inexpensive gear. When I was younger with no disposable income to speak of, no experience, and a firmly established ceiling on component cost, I was just like you. I wanted desperately for it to be true that the inexpensive stuff was every bit as good, and if it wasn't every bit as good, it was close enough that I could laugh at those who spent so much...
It wasn't.
Thankfully, opinions change with experience and maturity. :)
Now, maybe you have spent twenty years flipping $500-1,000 gear. In that case you are not much further ahead than the other scenario. :(
This is to say nothing of the value of enjoyment of the music. It is a legitimate decision for lifestyle to preserve ones financial picture as opposed to injuring it with extravagant expenditures such as audio gear. If you have not the means to "go big" then it is great blessing to be content with whatever level you can achieve in your hobby!
But that in no way means it is the same experience as more serious enthusiasts have. :)
You don't have to spend lots of money to enjoy music. You are obviously curious about quality sound production or you would not be here. I'm just saying the only way to satisfy that curiosity is to experience it for yourself. Then you can make your own value judgement's.
'If you still don't think it's worth seeking out higher performance equipment after that then at least you will not have to waste time with this hobby anymore.'
Thats good advice, but my hobby is the music. I'm not wasting my time, jusr trying not to waste money. Music has always played a big part in my life.
Rok2id, Why don't you just travel and hear some more systems. This will tell you what you want to know. No one can explain it to you. You must listen for yourself. Go to RMAF or some other audio show. If you live near an audiophile society go check them out.
If you still don't think it's worth seeking out higher performance equipment after that then at least you will not have to waste time with this hobby anymore.
Chris compared to the 2 speakers you mention;what is the JBL lacking in your opinion that would make them equal to a soundlab or dunlavy;I presently own Soundlab m2;'s and had dunlavy sc III's.If I had to guess it would probally be what Ralph mentioned.
The analogy between autos and stereo equipment continues on this site, and it's like apples and oranges. Not the best analogy. We are talking of how something is preceived by ONE of our senses. The sense of sound. A car affects almost ALL of our senses.
But I will say this about autos. Engineers thru the years have conceeded that Ford got it right with the models T/A. The lastest top of the line Lexus has the same lay out, plus a lot more. A blind man could see the difference. Now my speakers (polk) are the model T and yours are the Lexus(fill in a name). Now tell me why yours cost $100,000 dollars more. BTW, I do not have a opinion against high end speakers. What I feel towards the high end stuff is envy!! And if I thought the sound justified the price, I would have a pair. Cheers
One loudspeaker can cost significantly more than another for the same reason a Porsche cost more than a Subaru. Both have four wheels, the same style engine, disc brakes, etc. The Subaru even has 4WD, something only the more expensive Porsches feature. While there definitely is an element of luxury goods present, there also are engineering differences between the two cars that could easily justify a large price differential. It's in the details.
If you've never heard better quality loudspeakers, then why such a strongly held opinion against them? Also, we're not talking about state of the art, we're talking about great loudspeakers. I'm thinking along the lines of Totem Model One, ProAc 2, Vandersteen 5, Magnepan 1.6, Quad 63, Gallo 3.5, Harbeth 40 or Sonus Faber Cremona.
Gregm Your comparison of the polk and vandy was very interesting. Having never heard the vandy or the polk 9, I cannot comment further.
I used the Vandy and Polk in my example just because they are two well known speaker brands. One highly thought of on audiogon and one not. Many other speakers could be subsituted in their place.
The point I was trying to make is this: 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? I used the price thing to show the wide differences in price and wondered what was the cause of this. I implied that surely crossover networks and drivers cannot account for this difference.
I used the mature thingy to say that are some down right weird designs out there in the market. What accounts for that? After all this time, don't the engineers have it down pat?
I get the 'price point' marketing thingy. And of course, speakers should be judged and priced based on how they sound.
For instance, why does a Vandersteen, which I am sure is a fine speaker, cost tens times what my Polks cost?
I can't answer on the price differential you mention & I have no idea which Polks you use & which Vander you are referring to, BUT, between a floorstanding Polk (9? It has 6 drivers, reflex loaded) & a Van 5, I must admit the Vand was much-much better for music.
* better high frequency, the V seemed to go much higher; * better timbre, the Polk sounding shrill on a specific FR (upper violin notes); * Van had bass extension and resolution vs the Polk stopping at midbass; * far better resolution overall; * the fee of dynamic impact was quite good on the Polks; * Generally speaking, with the Vand I had musical coherency that I didn't have with the Polk. The Vand reproduced a coherent simulation of an orchestra, the Polk sounded small & tinny by comparison; * Note, I listen to classical i.e. natural un-amplified instruments, so results could differ with other music.
AFAIK Polk is a very serious company, so the speakers I heard were probably designed for HT use rather than to play Mahler.
(The thing is, I'm one of the few people in the world who don't actually like the Vandy. Admittedly, they produce good speakers & value for money as these things go.)
Onhwy61 I have read a lot of posts where any number of speakers have a cheering section and loyal fans. They all think their speaker is a great speaker.
My problem is this: This is a mature industry. The design principles that consitute a state of the art speaker should be well known to all engineers. Which to me means, all speakers should look similar and have a lot of common features and design cues. If one speaker costs $1,000 and another cost $20,000, then that difference in price should be readily apparent and obvious to any audiophile. This is not the case. For instance, why does a Vandersteen, which I am sure is a fine speaker, cost tens times what my Polks cost? Do they know something Polk does not know? Do the components cost more on the Vandy? How much can a driver or crossover cost? Do they drive the price up by $12,000 dollars? The Vandys 'sound' better? WHY? It should be a science. Not magic. In spite of all that I would try a lot of them if it wasn't for the high cost. Lastly I live in an Audio desert, so I will never hear the top of the line stuff. BTW, of all the speakers I have owned, I never heard any of them before purchase. No regrets so far. Cheers.
Rok2id, you are a frequent contributor to this site. If you cannot figure out what are commonly considered great speaker, then there is little hope for you ever moving past you preconceptions.
'And my response to that is what I said -- have you ever actually *heard* a great loudspeaker'
That's a impossible question to answer. First, there would have to be widespread agreement on a 'great' speaker, and as I have said on many occasions, I have not detected any widespread agreement about anything, on this site. Please take this oppoutunity and list a few speakers you consider great.
I think my Polk Lsi15's are great speakers. (git that sneer off yo face!) :)
Rok2id, you said, at the beginning of this thread:
"Are those high end (and very expensive) speakers really better than the JBL's?
"All things considered, NO! The media we are playing was not recorded by God. None of it sounds live. So why spend a lot of your hard earned money trying to reproduce imperfections mo better! I am considering JBL myself. I have owned JBLs model: L-150 and 4311 and LX-44. loved them all."
And my response to that is what I said -- have you ever actually *heard* a great loudspeaker? Because I can assure you, what they do isn't just a matter of reproducing imperfections better. And while I could describe in great detail what they do better, it shouldn't be necessary, because it's so obvious to anyone who listens.
"Only if you can see the equipment, will you be able to 'hear' the imagined differences / deficiencies. Put everything out of sight and NO ONE can tell or hear a difference. Not wanting to revisit this 'sensitive' subject, except that there might be new people here who do not know the history of blind testing."
But this isn't at all accurate. Harman in particular has done a lot of controlled blind comparisons of loudspeakers, and not only can panelists hear the differences, all but those with hearing deficiencies rank them in the same relative order, whether they're audiophiles or not. Some other speaker manufacturers, including high end manufacturers, use blind listening tests as well.
I gotta wonder, on the basis of your earlier comment, whether you've actually heard a great speaker.
R2K - For years you've been making these nonsensical comments about audio gear, you DO realize this is a site dedicated to audio, don't you? Obviously the answer is yes, so the question than becomes WHY have you been hanging on this site for so long if you have such a negative view about it all? Here's why:
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion".
So? Are you saying you need familiar surroundings to be able to tell the difference between a $129 dollar receiver and a $20,000 'high-end' amp? Rok2id (Threads | Answers | This Thread)
I wasn't aware that anyone compared a $129 dollar receiver to a $20,000 amp.
So? Are you saying you need familiar surroundings to be able to tell the difference between a $129 dollar receiver and a $20,000 'high-end' amp? Rok2id (Threads | Answers | This Thread)
I wasn't aware that anyone compared a $129 dollar receiver to a $20,000 amp.
It's annoying to see this straw-man debate over and over.
Yes, there is often an audible difference between two pieces of equipment. But, we're all human and therefore our perception is influenced by non-audio factors. These include visual aspects, brand, comments from others, our mood, surroundings, and so on.
Both factors are always present to some degree. That's why "enormous" differences often shrink substantially when the non-audio influences are removed or reduced.
Our ego, however, likes to think our own perception is the penultimate standard. This often leads people to belittle those who don't hear as they do.
The problem with non-audio influences is the subconscious factor that heightens one person's perception may be meaningless or even a negative for another.
So, yes, you should buy what you like and not someone else's preference. Then enjoy it, but don't expect the world to bow before your sublime and sophisticated taste.
I can't taste the difference between a lemon and chicken if I cannot see my food. I guess all our senses don't work if we can't see what we are trying to taste, hear, feel or smell.
Nuts Rok2id.......think about what you are saying.
Let me give you some additional information: I'm an owner of Soundlab A-1 PX speakers. Prior to the Soundlab I had Dunlavy SC-V's. So I'm quite familiar with "high end sound". I know you can't compare apples to pears but I have heard with my own ears how the JBL PA speakers sounded. They sounded unlike the typical PA speakers. Yes, they are capable of sounding loud and dynamic but they also have a natural sounding treble and midrange (although the bass is a bit murky in my ears, but this could be related to room acoustics). I would like to say that even PA speakers can sound excellent today even when audiophile criteria are being used. I feel that the gap between this kind of speakers and the real "high end" ones is closing. What do you think?
'Once you stack them side by side with great stuff though, you can hear the deficiencies.'
Only if you can see the equipment, will you be able to 'hear' the imagined differences / deficiencies. Put everything out of sight and NO ONE can tell or hear a difference. Not wanting to revisit this 'sensitive' subject, except that there might be new people here who do not know the history of blind testing. I am primarily speaking of electronics.
You have to be joking. I don't have to see what amp is hooked up to know what it sounds like. Out of sight, out of mind... LOL.
A lot of blind testing was done with a strange system, and in a strange environment. That "Carver Challenge" years back, would have had totally different results if it was done in their home, and using their own system, in my opinion.
'Once you stack them side by side with great stuff though, you can hear the deficiencies.'
Only if you can see the equipment, will you be able to 'hear' the imagined differences / deficiencies. Put everything out of sight and NO ONE can tell or hear a difference. Not wanting to revisit this 'sensitive' subject, except that there might be new people here who do not know the history of blind testing. I am primarily speaking of electronics.
You have to be joking. I don't have to see what amp is hooked up to know what it sounds like. Out of sight, out of mind... LOL.
A lot of blind testing was done with a strange system, and in a strange environment. That "Carver Challenge" years back, would have had totally different results if it was done in their home, and using their own system, in my opinion.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
