In college, a friend did not have much money and listened to Grateful Dead bootlegs on ~ $100 boombox. I thought the sound sucked, but can emphatically state my friend had a very good emotional involvement. You don’t have to have any money to love and enjoy music. It’s one of the things I love most about music!
Is High End Audio Gear Worth the Money?
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
He is an amazing poet grounded in spirituality. The more you listen, the more you will enjoy and understand his brilliance. Given his recent passing, he will be sorely missed. IMHO, he's one of the top five or so songwriters in my lifetime.
Last edited:
I am still struggling to understand what PeterA's "insight" actually is... I thought you could shed some light.
I was not referring to you!
Last edited:
I run mine (4 Ohm, 96db) with 18 Watts. David tells me the M9500 was the last large JBL that could run on lower wattage amps. The large format monitors that Rob mentioned (4344, 4350, etc.) are quite popular. My sense is that JBL is not as prevalent in Europe, but I don't really know -- what do you see?
Unlike in the U.S., houses in Europe are generally smaller, and most people live in apartments within multi-story buildings rather than in detached houses. Large, high-sensitivity JBL monitors are difficult to fit in such spaces and normally lead to complaints from neighbors.
It’s a different story in Japan. I don’t know how or why Japanese audiophiles overcome these challenges, but they have a strong dedication to large speakers in small rooms—where you can adjust the volume control without even leaving your seat.
I have heard a very good 4 way JBL dual FLH in f Germany, based on 4550, and Leif uses JBL woofers under his TAD.
JBL drivers are usually the lowest priced of the 3 (Altec mid and TAD highest, if you get JBL 375 with beryllium it gets same price as some Altecs). JBL tweeters are very popular.
Yet, outside Leif who used a 300b 7 watt on his 2220a Alnico woofers, never saw anyone use those low watts. I never heard the 9500.
100% agree.
Half of the time I don’t even need a cable… I can just thing about the song and the emotional connection is there either positive or negative.
That is why I put the other quote under yours…
The post #372 where it was asked how the cables changed the emotions l connection for @thedudeabides .
Let’s flip this upside down…
.
It maybe be good to listen analytically once in a while to make sure that the system is performing.
Certainly when a system isn’t performing well, to the point something dire is being noticed, then that impedes emotional listening.
In a good system one can choose to listen critically or not.
In a not so good system, it is hard to not be critical of the flaws, and one may be left without a choice.
I heard them, actually auditioned them in order to buy. They’re good.
I completely agree. Of course, one can listen critically to a system. Critical listening helps one select gear and set up a system. It is also used to pass judgment. But that was not the question to which I was responding.
I welcome a new discussion about critical listening if anyone wants to begin such a discussion.
I heard them in two different rooms at DDK’s house with both the 18 W ML2 and the hundred watt M1.x. They are excellent speakers and of course one can listen to Tim’s various videos.
It's also a matter of context and expectations.
Anyway, what PeterA claims (as stated in other posts) is that some systems emphasize the "bits and pieces". This is the point of view that Karen Sumner describes, without beating around the bush, here:
SPACE: THE FINAL FRONTIER
I haven’t been in a rush to discuss the final frontier of space because imaging and soundstage are hot buttons in the hi fi world, and the concept of “space” that I will describe here requires a total recalibration of the concept of space as it is widely accepted in the hi fi world. Before we...
www.whatsbestforum.com
"Hi fi sound does not believably reproduce the sound of acoustic instruments in space because it typically doesn’t capture the body and complex overtonal structure that is embedded on most recordings. Because these systems also do not capture the nuance of dynamic fluctuations in the middle frequencies, they limit our sense of instrumental presence in space because of reduced loud to soft volume boundary reflections. Much of what connects us emotionally with music resides in the mid-band where the essential musical qualities of fundamental tones, instrumental timbre, and harmonic richness reside. This is not news, but those who are looking for hi fi sound seem almost allergic to these “heavier” essential qualities that create a full sense of ambience and presence because they tend to obscure some of the hi fi artifactual details they are seeking. The standard is to seek pin-point holographic imaging and highly articulated higher frequency harmonics without an appropriate measure of fundamental tonal foundation or overtonal richness. The hi fi based imaging construct renders a sense of musicians playing holographically against a “black background”. Hi fi sound advocates want their systems to produce these tightly defined details, but at the expense of the far more abundantly rich, low-level details that are inherent to the live music listening experience."
I have no idea how she came to these conclusions, but that's the rhethoric for some of the criticism about "high end"... The irony, of course, is that she sells 77.000$ speaker cables. I guess there's "high end" and "high end" (just like there's "detail" and "detail" in her above explanations).
All this gives me a headache.
Last edited:
It's also a matter of context and expectations.
Anyway, what PeterA claims (as stated in other posts) is that some systems emphasize the "bits and pieces". This is the point of view that Karen Sumner describes, without beating around the bush, here:
SPACE: THE FINAL FRONTIER
I haven’t been in a rush to discuss the final frontier of space because imaging and soundstage are hot buttons in the hi fi world, and the concept of “space” that I will describe here requires a total recalibration of the concept of space as it is widely accepted in the hi fi world. Before we...
"Hi fi sound does not believably reproduce the sound of acoustic instruments in space because it typically doesn’t capture the body and complex overtonal structure that is embedded on most recordings. Because these systems also do not capture the nuance of dynamic fluctuations in the middle frequencies, they limit our sense of instrumental presence in space because of reduced loud to soft volume boundary reflections. Much of what connects us emotionally with music resides in the mid-band where the essential musical qualities of fundamental tones, instrumental timbre, and harmonic richness reside. This is not news, but those who are looking for hi fi sound seem almost allergic to these “heavier” essential qualities that create a full sense of ambience and presence because they tend to obscure some of the hi fi artifactual details they are seeking. The standard is to seek pin-point holographic imaging and highly articulated higher frequency harmonics without an appropriate measure of fundamental tonal foundation or overtonal richness. The hi fi based imaging construct renders a sense of musicians playing holographically against a “black background”. Hi fi sound advocates want their systems to produce these tightly defined details, but at the expense of the far more abundantly rich, low-level details that are inherent to the live music listening experience."
I have no idea how she came to these conclusions, but that's the rhethoric for some of the criticism about "high end"... The irony, of course, is that she sells 10.000$ cables. I guess there's "high end" and "high end"
All this gives me a headache.
Yes, an excellent article, but must be read entirely, not quoted in parts and best understood when thinking about the Transparent Audio sound characteristics when adequately used in a system.
Please note that she is not putting down pin point imaging or articulated harmonics - she warns us that they must be complemented by "an appropriate measure of fundamental tonal foundation or overtonal richness".
In fact, a very balanced view, as expected nicking a little in the sound characteristics of some other brands ...
Leif uses 1000 W watts class D on his woofers these days, he did use plenty of mustard when he swallowed that camel !
Yes now he does, when I heard it the JBL used 7w 300b. He has changed his set up quite a bit since, does a new thing every day since he retired.Leif uses 1000 W watts class D on his woofers these days, he did use plenty of mustard when he swallowed that camel !
He is very adaptable and willing to try everything without being dogmatic about anything. I really respect his approach to building his system.
Leif uses 1000 W watts class D on his woofers these days, he did use plenty of mustard when he swallowed that camel !
Just put them in a black box with a bulb on it and say its the transformer
Everything is on a spectrum in audio, which likely starts with how much exposure you have.
Once I was at an audio show and someone came into the room to specifically argue with me about tube amps. He had never heard one! It took me a bit off guard.
People get different things out of audio- one person I know seems to get his kicks by horse trading. He's always got something different in his system. There's no accounting for taste and what aspect about the hobby attracts.
That's a perfect description. And methodical.He is very adaptable and willing to try everything without being dogmatic about anything. I really respect his approach to building his system.
At least that was a random hobbyist. At Munich, one of the lead reviewers in the industry whom a lot of people on this forum read, and I was chatting to, did not know of SET amps was totally unfamiliar with the terminology. Shocking.
Similar threads
- Locked
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |