I answered your other post too, classical and jazz are my main listening. Have you bought anything yet? |
They are both great speakers, for sure.
I'm curious what speakers you have hard and which ones you liked most, and why. What size is your room, what is the rest of your system? What speakers do you have and what don't you like about them? What do you like about them? Then I can do a compare/contrast for you. |
Hi, I sent you a personal message a while back, check your inbox. I can give you a lot of input on Everests. |
Both speakers represent some of the best of their types. In fact, I believe both are in a fairly small group of best speakers available.
The Everests have more power. Some would say that is obvious given that they are big horns with 2 big woofers. They move serious air. But it's not only the big dynamic stuff that they excel at, it's also the smaller dynamic contrasts, the low level stuff. Sometimes just a single piano note can be startling in its sudden attack, yet it's not just the attack. The realism in tone and structure are also very convincing.
They are also extremely high resolution with a lot of finesse. Lots of folks might not believe the finesse that a big JBL horn can have, but all who hear them walk away making comparisons to planar speakers in the area of detail and refinement.
Now to the Revel. A wonderful speaker with very even tone, low distortion, even having very deep bass for its size. But, comparing to the Everest, it has few advantages. One would be its ability to be gentler on hard driving sounds like loud brass or human voice at loud levels. In these cases the Everest can sound more harsh.
I need to put that "harsh" statement in context. They do not have a horn sound, they do not shout, ever, they don't honk, they don't quack. I would say Wilsons, all Magicos except the 7, and many other very well accepted speakers are harsher to my ears than the Everests. The Revel is also less prominent in the high frequencies.
After hearing the Everests, when I go to the Revels they sound much smaller, and, as integrated as they are, they sound more like a box of separate drivers to me.
It's only the prejudice against horn speakers, especially with much of the press (and maybe against JBL too) that keep the Everests from being much more popular in North America. They are adored in Japan and much of the Far East, for good reason.
Having both speakers optimized in my system (I use different amps with them, different positioning) I will say that every visitor, audiophiles and non-audiophiles, women and me, prefer the Everests. It is especially interesting to note how women and non-audiophile men immediately seize upon the sound of the Everests and remark about how much like music they sound. |
Thank you Dave_72. Nice of you to comment.
So much misinformation in audio, I often think that it is the most baloney-ridden, charlatan-filled hobby I've ever had. I just want to get some realistic info out there. Truth be told, I'm a long time veteran of the industry, so it is not just a hobby. |
I've heard them 10 feet apart center to center in a room quite a bit narrower than 20 (guessing 14) and they sounded fantastic, smooth, clean, no bass boom or excess bass at all. They do not need a giant room and in fact were designed to be a able to work in Japanese rooms which are not big. |
As for the 67000 Everest, that is what I have. Yes, it is better than 66000. Cleaner, tighter, deeper, lower distortion bass. Clearer lower mids, greater transparency and ability to unravel multiple sounds/instruments in the midrange. Smoother in the brightness range.
Being in the industry, going to many shows, and havig had many many speakers, electronics, turtnables, etc., I stay away from statements like "this single thing is BEST", as often that is not clear and often there are several that could be called "best available" in any category.
I wish I could tell you how many customers, without hearing my system, say "you should hear your product in my system, I guarantee you have NEVER heard what it can do..."
Invariably, if they get the chance to visit they are humbled, and end up often changing to what I am using. The moral: nobody can ever imagine hearing something something better than the best they have heard UNTIL they hear it!
So, while I will not crow "the Everest 67000 is the best speaker in the world," I will say that it is one of the greats, and that is a very small group indeed. |
Thanks for the nice comments above, guys.
Herd mentality is interesting, how markets can be swayed by one or two men can be amazing. Look at Parker in the wine world.
In the West, just a couple of magazines slamming horn speakers over and over and over resulted in compression driver/horn technology to be almost universally rejected. In light of this, I am surprised to see such JBL support in this thread.
Sure, there are some JBL bummers over the years, hurtfully harsh speakers. But there are nasty sounding cones too. Are cones black-balled?
Again, surprised to see the support here. One irony is that though horns are maligned in the West, many folks think Tannoys sound smooty....in fact, many folks would like more forwardness than Tannoys offer, without realizing they are compression drivers with horns. I've had folks tell me horns are awful, yet talk about the prettiness of Tannoy sound when I bring them up.
Another irony, I have some friends who trust my expertise greatly, but when I fell in love with Everests I heard over and over "but are you sure they are not bright? Are you sure they don't honk?" Every one of them, upon hearing, commented on the ease and sweetness of the speakers.
As for me, I don't care what technology something is. If it seems professionally executed I'll listen without prejudice. You have to. Every design is different. I never had heard a ceramic drivered speaker that did not drive me out of the room with harshness. But when I saw the Estalons 2 years ago I went into the room with interest, and was treated to some of the most natural, easy music I could have wished for. There they were, ceramic driver speakers with gorgeous tone. Dogma is unproductive. Unfortunately, forums here are full of it, much of it spouted by guys without much experience. So glad to see the posters on this thread are more open minded. |
To: Sakesan, I am very curious about the ATC actives. How would you compare them to the Everests that you have heard?
Which model of ATC do you have? |
Hey Dave,
I have heard them in an immense ballroom and a smaller room. They went deeper in the smaller room, that's an advantage. They were more open with more even bass in the huge room.
To a degree they benefit from a large room. But, my point was that they work remarkably well in a small room....and the designer had that in mind since he knew his biggest market was Japan (small rooms).
They are surprisingly versatile, the 67000 even more so. |
I don't want misinformation out there. To further clarify, 66000 are great and I would not try to dampen enthusiasm over them. However, having had 66000 and 67000 same place, same equipment, A then B, it is a fact 67000 is not one of those small refinement upgrades. Room treatment would not make this difference. Direct sound is direct sound no matter what treatment you do.
One thing to keep in mind is that the 66000 can be forward, and depending on the amp, can be VERY forward and prominent in the highs. Some solid state amps will drive you out of the room. I found tubes worked much better.
The 67000 are a lot more forgiving, and solid state amps work much better now. And tubes still work great.
So, if you go 66000 be prepared to possibly need to find the amp that pleases you. Luckily, a stiff 50 to 100 watt tube amp can do the trick. As for the highish looking efficiency, don't let that fool you, no 5w or 10w SET is going to get the woofers going to the depths of what the speaker is capable of. |
Dave says "I take it the S4700s would probably be better in a medium to smaller size room too, true?"
Kidd says: Do you mean better than the Everest in small rooms? I doubt anything they make will have the mids, highs, dynamics of Everest.
If you mean that the 4700 would work better in a small and mid room than the 4700 would in a large room, don't know, have not heard them. |
People put up with a lot more driving highs with certain speakers, but I want you to be aware that 66000 can be too much for me with the wrong amp. All Avalons with the ceramic or diamond tweeter, for instance, are more aggressive to my ear than the 66000. Kharma with the ceramics throughout. Thiels, which bother a lot of people, not just me.
67000, much easier even with the same amps. |
I must say I am impressed with the posters of this thread. Nobody has chimed in saying how much horns suck, how bad horns honk, quack, bite, and shout. Nobody saying JBL makes garbage. This, in the face of the high end magazines have mostly black-balled horns in the American market.
I myself have been chastised for using horns, from other manufacturers and customers. So why no negative talk here?
One mention of Magico or Wilson brings out the haters of those saying how bad they are, yet not a nasty word here about horns.
This thread has some good listeners I guess, and open minded people, which is great. |
If you want compression driver dynamics but can't spend for some big JBLs some Tannoys can do the trick, or Altec 80x drivers. |
I think they are great speakers. Like getting out of the restrained, restricted audiophile box of mostly sleepy speakers. Dynamic, very tonally correct relative to most audiophile speakers, a clear window into the recording, beyond that, into the performers.
Not rough on the highs, but not rolled off at all.....like a studio monitor. So if you have sensitivity to HF you may want to tailor the system to them, especially amp. On the other hand, if Wilsons and Magicos don't hurt your ears you'll likely be fine.
Certainly one of the world's great speakers.
As for used, I would not worry about damage, these are their real pro drivers and nobody's ears I can imagine would put up with what it would take to hurt those drivers. Not kidding, they are essentially limitless in loud playing ability inside a room for anyone except a truly deaf person. I don't play loud, so their appeal to me is not their head banging ability - which they have in spades - but their refinement, ease, flow, dynamics, clarity, beauty of tone.
They are specified in anechoic conditions, and are honest in specs (unlike any auidiophile speaker I can think of) so they have way more bass capability than their specifications would have you believe.
They can be a gentle giant or the most vicious beast you ever dreamed of or anywhere in between. It depends on the source material and how hard you dare to push them. |
Nicely written Phusus.
Most folks in high end audio listen to equipment to impress themselves with their equipment. Decades in the industry have shown me that must audio guys will spend huge amounts of time trying to educate themselves about equipment but almost no time actually going to concerts or learning about music, its structure, and any other musical details. If they loved music as a first priority I believe they would know more about it, know more about who the greats were, at least know something!
It's really about the equipment and not about real music. The mantra of HP is repeated over and over "...real live unamplified instruments......" but that's lip service.
Most philes who listen to jazz know the sound of a sax from their recordings, and would not know a baritone from a tenor from an alto from a soprano sax....they know what they like coming from their speakers, which has little to do with how close it is to the real thing. And that's OK, if it floats their boats.
But, they have to have strong opinions about what sounds RIGHT, and preach to others,which is where it goes wrong. They don't know much about the sound of music, and don't put much if any effort into learning it. This allows heavily colored equipment to prosper, and dynamically flat equipment to do fine. It allows turntables with horrible speed stability to be declared as reference. Such is the industry.
The 66000 or 67000 is not for everyone, that's fine. Unfortunately, most audiophiles won't notice much of what the JBLs do right, unless a reviewer tells them first. This is what allows the flat, monotonous, strained gear to push better gear to the side. That bothers me because it means that there will be less choice for those of us who really do want the sound of music.
I am glad to see some musicphiles on this thread. Unfortunately, Audiogon is mostly guys who know little preaching to other guys who know little. I'm going to semi-retire from here and go back to music forums. Too frustrating trying to get through to closed minds, this thread and its posters excepted from that comment. |
Well, I own them, and many others, but I cannot say they are the single best. For me they are one of a small group of best as they have so many very positive traits.
When I go hear direct live music away from any PA my brain spontaneously keeps jumping to thoughts of the Everest. The stick on cymbal, the crack of a snare, the tone, directness, clarity, jump of a sax or trumpet, there are so many things, subtle and not subtle, that the Everest do like live music. And, again, that's live music without PA, so it is not that the PA reminds me of Everest.
Even when I'm in a period of several weeks or months where I'm using another speaker I really enjoy, I have to be honest when I next sit in the listening chair after a concert, and say "I really enjoy this speaker, it's a different flavor, but the Everest is more like what I just heard".
That may not be everyone's goal at home, but I'd say that at the very least it is the mark of a really good speaker. |
