# Speaker reccomedantions



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

My old speakers have finally died out (Bose). I have enjoyed them for over 20 years (I bought them from the PX back in my military days). Any suggestions as to new ones? I will obviously do some on-line research but am wondering as to my fellow members first hand expériences.

Thanks in advance...


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

I have a pair of reasonably sizeable floorstanding Kenwood speakers (which look very similar to the image below) that have been serving me for well over 20 years, without any problems whatsoever. The frequency response is admirably dynamic, the sound sharp and clear and vibrant - given the amount of (and volume of!) music that has been pumped out through them over the years they probably represent the best return on any investment I have ever made. The test, to my mind, of a decent speaker being the ability to adequately discern between the different stringed and/or brass instruments on a classical music recording - although obviously with a hi-fi set up the system is only as good as its weakest component - the best speakers in the world will sound appalling if driven by a sub-standard amp. Before the real expert audiophiles respond they will be wanting to know what your other components are and the acoustics of the room that you will be listening in..........................


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

My knowledge is far too dated to be helpful. You might visit https://www.audiokarma.org/ and ask some questions. Good and very knowledgeable folks there.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

I would recommend Maya Angleou but she dead.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

I bought speakers a couple of months ago Here are the ones I bought:

https://www.monitoraudiousa.com/support/past-products/silver-rx/rx1/

I paid $500 for the pair--they were on closeout, and the two places I shopped no longer have them. I am very happy with them, but speakers of these dimensions really need stands to perform at optimum. Fortunately, I had stands.

The most important speaker component is the one that is often overlooked: The listening room. The dimensions of the room are important in choosing the proper speaker setup, and if speakers aren't properly placed, they will not perform well no matter how much they cost. You also have to consider what type of music you generally prefer as well as your other components. If you are into vinyl, it makes little sense to spend a lot of money on speakers if you don't have a good turntable (and good turntables are not cheap). As Shaver says, the amplifier is also important.

I like my speakers because they work well for the room in which they are located. That said, they are not the best for cranked-up metal, punk or other forms of loud rock--for that, I will have a pair of vintage Polk Audios that do a pretty good job. But for jazz and acoustic and classical, they are very, very fine.

I went into it thinking that I would go with secondhand speakers, but the decision was easy after an audition. Shaver's speakers are OK, but the deeper truth is, technology has come a long way since those speakers were made. Case in point: A friend has had trouble selling a pair of 20-year-old JBL's that cost $900 new. He's down to $60, with no bites. And there is a reason for that. People who aren't audiophiles don't want old, big speakers because they take up too much room. People who are audiophiles don't want old, big speakers because they don't sound as good as modern speakers (big speakers are still fine for audiophiles, it's the old part that's the issue). If the OP doesn't listen to vinyl and, more importantly, doesn't want to invest in upgrading other parts of his system, that's likely very good news. If you aren't going to upgrade the source equipment, it makes little sense, in my opinion, to spend a lot of money on new speakers.

I've gone through a lot of speakers due to amp mismatches and them just wearing out--my newest pair is my first pair bought brand new, everything else has come secondhand. Vintage brands that I like include ADS, Polk and Mission (I particularly liked my Missions but foolishly had an underpowered amp). Boston Acoustics also delivered a lot of speaker for the money. I have no experience with Kenwood. I would, personally, avoid Technics.

Whatever you do, almost every speaker, including Shaver's, will sound better on stands. You don't have to get all fancy--I've done well with milk crates. The idea is, you have to tinker with placement so that the speaker is the proper distance from the wall and at the proper height in relation to your ears, and no two people are going to agree on what sounds best because no two sets of ears are alike. It really does make a world of difference.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^ Wise words.

I am intrigued by the notion of stands 32r&r, are you able to provide a little more detail on the benefits of this arrangement?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Shaver said:


> ^ Wise words.
> 
> I am intrigued by the notion of stands 32r&r, are you able to provide a little more detail on the benefits of this arrangement?


I'll take some pictures of three speaker stands I have used/am using when I get home tonight, but here is what my experience has been.

First, I'm not an audiophile--I can't afford to be an audiophile. I've read a lot of stuff from people who are of that persuasion and used some of what I've read as a guide. From there, I go by what sounds good. And I can unequivocally say that speakers sound better if they are not pointed at your legs. You can see that reflected in speaker design. I did a quick google and came up with this: https://hometheaterreview.com/floorstanding-and-audiophile-loudspeaker-reviews/

Note how many designs in the link feature off-the-ground stuff--there's a reason for that. But don't listen to me. Take those Kenwoods you have and elevate them--even if they're monsters that weigh 50 pounds-plus apiece, find plastic milk crates and use them (it's better than nothing). Even without fiddling with distance from wall and distance to listener and distance apart from each other (also important) the improvement will be obvious. I'm not enough of an audiophile/wonk to be able to explain it, aside from the sound will be clearer and less muddy--crisper--which stands to reason, when you think about it. Speakers should be aimed at your head, not ankles. You want the sound to go directly to your ears without first bouncing off furniture and walls.

A lot of audiophile stuff I find silly, but not speaker stands. You don't have to spend a lot of money--jury-rigged stands (think milk crates) are better than no stands at all.

An aside, I received several new records today, Velvet Underground With Nico, The Psychedelic Sound of the 13th Floor Elevators, Hit it or Quit It (debut album by a Washington state garage band) and Hendrix at Woodstock. I only had time to play two sides. I chose a side from Hit It Or Quit It and a side from the Hendrix album. Hit It Or Quit It was better on my Polks, for the same reason that Never Mind The Bollocks sounds best on the Polks--the recording techniques were crude and that kind of stuff sounds best loud, and my Polks excel at loud. You don't need expensive speakers to draw out the subtleties, because there are no subtleties. Hendrix, however, sounds best on the Audio Monitors. While he was known for playing loud, Hendrix actually sounds better, I think, at moderate volume, especially with audiophile pressings, which this pressing is (they went to some length to re-do the crude original recording, and it shows). I have the same Hendrix at Woodstock recording on CD, and I don't think the CD would sound much different on the Polks than the Audio Monitors--again, source is important (there is no, ahem, substitute). But the main takeaway is, not all speakers are created equal--even cheapies are fine for certain things. I can't afford thousands of dollars on a set of speakers, so my compromise was to buy the Audio Monitors but still keep a set of speakers that can do what the AM's can't.

I'll post photos of my stands when I get a chance.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

In audio buff circles "vintage" usually means pre-1980, or at least pre-1990. The fundamentals of speaker technology have not really changed all that much since the mid-20th century. Some mighty terrific speakers were built back in the day, especially in the 1970s which really was the peak of the hi-fidelity phenonomenon in terms of popularity. But fundamentals notwithstanding, speaker technology has improved in many aspects over the decades. Today's speakers are generally more accurate and almost always more durable than vintage. Smaller speakers in particular cannot compare. That said, larger speakers are a matter of considerable debate in the audiophile community, with some very knowledgeable gents claiming that some of the advances have compromised sound quality for durability while others claiming computer driven accuracy is better than ever. Because much of today's mass market for speakers is geared toward home theater systems as opposed to music listening systems, the attention to detail necessary for musicality may be missing unless one is very careful in knowing what to shop for. One thing is for sure, if you want serious speakers (meaning large), then vintage can often offer a remarkable value for the reason suggested by 32.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

I very much agree with 32 that speakers usually should be on stands or shelves. The reason is very simple -- they are designed that way. Placing speakers on a floor not only diminishes the listening experience for the reason 32 suggests, it also serves to accentuate the bass in a way not intended. Of course there are exceptions in that some speakers are designed to be floor-standing, just as some speakers are actually designed to project sound off of a wall before being heard (think Bose 901s).


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

justonemore said:


> My old speakers have finally died out (Bose). I have enjoyed them for over 20 years (I bought them from the PX back in my military days). Any suggestions as to new ones? I will obviously do some on-line research but am wondering as to my fellow members first hand expériences.
> 
> Thanks in advance...


FWIW, I have a friend who used to work as the electrical engineer at Rockford Fosgate. This was a few years back when US had more factories actually in the US. The "guts" of the speakers all can from the same supplier that supplied other well known audio companies. The companies only manufactured the casing and assembled everything else. Electrically, a speaker is a pretty basic device. He pretty much said you pay for the name and the quality of casing, not the actual speaker itself. From there it comes down to what you want to use the speaker for and buying a speaker to fit your needs.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

immanuelrx said:


> FWIW, I have a friend who used to work as the electrical engineer at Rockford Fosgate. This was a few years back when US had more factories actually in the US. The "guts" of the speakers all can from the same supplier that supplied other well known audio companies. The companies only manufactured the casing and assembled everything else. Electrically, a speaker is a pretty basic device. He pretty much said you pay for the name and the quality of casing, not the actual speaker itself. From there it comes down to what you want to use the speaker for and buying a speaker to fit your needs.


I would be very surprised if this was true, but I have no evidence to refute it. I do know that audiophiles are OCD personified, and while they can be gullible, they are generally not stupid (there is a difference). Now, I can imagine that the components in $400 Boston Acoustics were the same as in $400 JBLs and $400 pick-a-brand--that makes sense. Those weren't particularly top shelf speakers, even back in the day. But you get into high-end Klipsches and the like--speakers that sold for $5,000-plus--and there's no way they had the same guts as the lower tiers. It is possible, I suppose, that some high-end speaker companies may have had contracts with suppliers that made lots of woofers and tweeters for lots of lesser companies, but it doesn't seem possible that the components were the same for all companies. Kind of like bicycles, which I do know something about. Does Schwinn make good bicycles? Well, that depends on whether you are buying a Paramount or a Varsity (I'm dating myself here). Same thing, to a degree, with stereo components.

No photos of stands tonight--I'm afraid I've misplaced my camera. Sorry.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

32rollandrock said:


> I would be very surprised if this was true, but I have no evidence to refute it. I do know that audiophiles are OCD personified, and while they can be gullible, they are generally not stupid (there is a difference). Now, I can imagine that the components in $400 Boston Acoustics were the same as in $400 JBLs and $400 pick-a-brand--that makes sense. Those weren't particularly top shelf speakers, even back in the day. But you get into high-end Klipsches and the like--speakers that sold for $5,000-plus--and there's no way they had the same guts as the lower tiers. It is possible, I suppose, that some high-end speaker companies may have had contracts with suppliers that made lots of woofers and tweeters for lots of lesser companies, but it doesn't seem possible that the components were the same for all companies. Kind of like bicycles, which I do know something about. Does Schwinn make good bicycles? Well, that depends on whether you are buying a Paramount or a Varsity (I'm dating myself here). Same thing, to a degree, with stereo components.
> 
> No photos of stands tonight--I'm afraid I've misplaced my camera. Sorry.


A speaker is a speaker, the price range is usually what you can do with it or how you can use it. You can make a speaker and an Amp yourself if you take a basic electronics class and feel the need to buy equipment to do so.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Thank you gents for all the reponses. I will consider all of your suggestions and decide sooner or later. I am not in the position to have a "high fi room" versus speakers that will be used in a "living room" type of environment. I am a fan of music over other types of Entertainment (i.e. movies, t.v.etc.) and have almost thought of getting a good pair of headphones (ooof. the sacrilege) over spaeakers. Where I live, loud music is thought to be a bit "taboo" and I worry a bit as to my control when listening to the music I enjoy (I am still a teen a heart and enjoy the effects of my music to allow the various instruments to come into the foreground when the composition calls for such).


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

immanuelrx said:


> A speaker is a speaker, the price range is usually what you can do with it or how you can use it. You can make a speaker and an Amp yourself if you take a basic electronics class and feel the need to buy equipment to do so.


You can make a suit out of a gunny sack if you have a gunny sack, scissors, needle and thread.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

32rollandrock said:


> You can make a suit out of a gunny sack if you have a gunny sack, scissors, needle and thread.


Yes, but you would get horrible sound if any from your homemade suit and there is a chance that if you try to plug it into a power source, it might catch fire. I don't suggest it.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

immanuelrx said:


> Yes, but you would get horrible sound if any from your homemade suit and there is a chance that if you try to plug it into a power source, it might catch fire. I don't suggest it.


I would imagine such a suit would generate plenty of volume, even if acoustic.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Mike Petrik said:


> One thing is for sure, if you want serious speakers (meaning large), then vintage can often offer a remarkable value for the reason suggested by 32.


I seldom disagree with Mike Petrik, but will here; the problem with older speakers is that, over time, elements of the drivers (notably the dampening features, but also crossovers, connectors, etc.) degrade through oxidation and other age-related deterioration. I've owned the original Advent loudspeakers and Polk Audio Monitor 10s, all of which I had to discard eventually because they lost their ability to reproduce sound without distortion - exactly because of deteriorated parts.

Speakers are very personal things in a sound system. I personally like Paradigm brand speakers a lot, but recommend considering a number of alternatives including Definitive Technology, NHT, Monitor Audio and KEF. But be sure to listen to them playing the kind of music you favor. Good luck!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

MaxBuck said:


> I seldom disagree with Mike Petrik, but will here; the problem with older speakers is that, over time, elements of the drivers (notably the dampening features, but also crossovers, connectors, etc.) degrade through oxidation and other age-related deterioration. I've owned the original Advent loudspeakers and Polk Audio Monitor 10s, all of which I had to discard eventually because they lost their ability to reproduce sound without distortion - exactly because of deteriorated parts.
> 
> Speakers are very personal things in a sound system. I personally like Paradigm brand speakers a lot, but recommend considering a number of alternatives including Definitive Technology, NHT, Monitor Audio and KEF. But be sure to listen to them playing the kind of music you favor. Good luck!


Speaking from personal experience, I think that this can be true. The saving grace, however, is that such speakers don't cost very much, so when they die, you send them back to the thrift store from which they came. I'm hard on speakers--if I can get nine months out of a pair from Goodwill, where they sell for south of $20, I'm satisfied. Eventually, however, I wanted something nicer and more permanent.

As for a dedicated listening room, I wish that I had one. Still, you can do nicely in a living room environment with attention paid to placement. Most typically, it will be a speaker on either side of the television set, with the sofa on the opposite wall. It sounds simple, and it is--just fiddle a bit with elevation of the speakers and distance from each other and from wall until you find the best sound. There's a lot of information on the web to guide you. You might also consider a surround sound system. I don't know anything about them, but I have been impressed by some that I've heard that don't cost much money. You might need a new amp to accomplish that.

And don't worry about what the neighbors think. If they don't like your music, they can move.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> I'll take some pictures of three speaker stands I have used/am using when I get home tonight, but here is what my experience has been.
> 
> First, I'm not an audiophile--I can't afford to be an audiophile. I've read a lot of stuff from people who are of that persuasion and used some of what I've read as a guide. From there, I go by what sounds good. And I can unequivocally say that speakers sound better if they are not pointed at your legs. You can see that reflected in speaker design. I did a quick google and came up with this: https://hometheaterreview.com/floorstanding-and-audiophile-loudspeaker-reviews/
> 
> ...


The more I consider this, 32rnr, the more obvious it becomes. The 'cone' of sound leaving a speaker is obviously truncated if the speaker is set on the floor. Many moons ago my Kenwoods were mounted on some very heavy duty stands fixed to the wall with masonry screws. A few changes of address later and expediency has led to them being floor standing - set at either corner of the room, equidistant from and angled toward my listening position. However I shall give some serious consideration to obtaining stands.

No milk crates, though, in my swanky bachelor pad - the very idea!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Shaver said:


> The more I consider this, 32rnr, the more obvious it becomes. The 'cone' of sound leaving a speaker is obviously truncated if the speaker is set on the floor. Many moons ago my Kenwoods were mounted on some very heavy duty stands fixed to the wall with masonry screws. A few changes of address later and expediency has led to them being floor standing - set at either corner of the room, equidistant from and angled toward my listening position. However I shall give some serious consideration to obtaining stands.
> 
> No milk crates, though, in my swanky bachelor pad - the very idea!


For your Kenwoods, something like this might be perfect:

https://www.aandmcustomsteelspeakerstands.com/

I bought a pair from these folks in January and am very pleased. I originally had them for my ADS's, but those died and so they are now paired with my Polks. I got the standard model for $100, which included shipping--that's dirt cheap for speaker stands. Big, heavy speakers--floor standers, as they say--don't have to be much more than a foot or so off the ground to reap the benefits of speaker stands. Don't ask me to explain why (Mike Petrik can probably explain it), all I know is that has been my experience. The design I have tilts the speaker slightly so that the sound is "aimed" upward. If you choose to go this route, shipping is probably going to be prohibitive (these stands are fairly heavy, which is a good thing), but you might be able to find something similar closer.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> For your Kenwoods, something like this might be perfect:
> 
> https://www.aandmcustomsteelspeakerstands.com/
> 
> I bought a pair from these folks in January and am very pleased. I originally had them for my ADS's, but those died and so they are now paired with my Polks. I got the standard model for $100, which included shipping--that's dirt cheap for speaker stands. Big, heavy speakers--floor standers, as they say--don't have to be much more than a foot or so off the ground to reap the benefits of speaker stands. Don't ask me to explain why (Mike Petrik can probably explain it), all I know is that has been my experience. The design I have tilts the speaker slightly so that the sound is "aimed" upward. If you choose to go this route, shipping is probably going to be prohibitive (these stands are fairly heavy, which is a good thing), but you might be able to find something similar closer.


Thanks that's very kind of you.

I have been planning on visiting my local Richer Sounds (a reputable UK hi-fi discount store which specialises in end-of-line products at very reasonable prices and who, in my experience, always give solid advice) to see what they have in stock.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

^^

Don't ever call me kind.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

And another thing.

If you go to that store, you will end up buying speakers. Watch. Just watch.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> ^^
> 
> Don't ever call me kind.


Don't be kind then.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Geesh. I absolutely love music and consider it my primary form of entertaiment, but I guess I'm a bit out of my league here. I wasn't aware that a speaker thread would demand the same type of emotional debate as that of throwing children off of a bridge.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

justonemore said:


> Geesh. I absolutely love music and consider it my primary form of entertaiment, but I guess I'm a bit out of my league here. I wasn't aware that a speaker thread would demand the same type of emotional debate as that of throwing children off of a bridge.


This is nothing. You ought to see audiophile websites. Meanwhile, check this out:

https://www.slate.com/blogs/behold/...tors_in_his_book_dust_grooves_adventures.html

The third photo from the bottom is the one most grating--what kind of father is that, letting his kid touch the vinyl?


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

I am not an audiophile, but I like listening to music, generally classical, jazz, blues and other acoustic music. 

I currently listen to music on Snell speakers. I believe these might be classified as moderately high end. I also have added a sub-woofer, which is connected to the "direct out" plugs on a somewhat older McIntosh amplifier. This combination gives clear, distinct and somewhat warm reproduction of chamber music, and well-defined reproduction of orchestral works, at moderate volume. The "warmth" may be a result of the amplifier, as I'm told that McIntosh amps sound warm.

When I was setting up the system in our new (to us) house I used Schubert's Oktett and Beethoven's Ninth to evaluate the placement and adjustment of the speakers. When I'm home alone I listen to Ravi Shankar or Appenzeller Space Schottl, and lots of other stuff that my wife doesn't particularly enjoy. 

Other music types, R&R, rock, pop, folk, country and western, are not so much about accurate reproduction, as about how well they sound in terms of an aesthetic with which I am not familiar, but which takes into account that the music is engineered and modified in post-production. (I am aware that classical music is too, but it is engineered to sound like a live acoustic performance.) 

I hope this is helpful.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^McIntosh is certainly a warm sound and they still use vacuum tubes. I believe they have gone to manufacturing their own as there is very little need for vacuum tubes in this day and age. 

Of course for the prices they charge I wouldn't expect anything else.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> ^McIntosh is certainly a warm sound and they still use vacuum tubes. I believe they have gone to manufacturing their own as there is very little need for vacuum tubes in this day and age.
> 
> Of course for the prices they charge I wouldn't expect anything else.


There are a lot of folks who would disagree with you on the need for vacuum tubes these days. German-made Telefunken tubes, the alleged state of the art, can go for hundreds of dollars. A friends who swears by tube amps says that Chinese-made tubes, the most common, are crap. I can't recall what brand of amp he's running--Jolida, I think--but he says that it was much better when he switched the tubes out.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

32rollandrock said:


> There are a lot of folks who would disagree with you on the need for vacuum tubes these days. German-made Telefunken tubes, the alleged state of the art, can go for hundreds of dollars. A friends who swears by tube amps says that Chinese-made tubes, the most common, are crap. I can't recall what brand of amp he's running--Jolida, I think--but he says that it was much better when he switched the tubes out.


The pros and cons of tube versus solid state amps have been the subject of ceaseless debate since the 1960s. Neither side is likely to be converted -- in the end it is just a matter of opinion and taste. Yes, audiophiles reference specs and such, but specs have never disposed of the debate and likely never will. I've owned both, like both, but limit my affection for dogma to matters of theology.

As for "emotional debate," I've found this thread to be quite measured, and the audiophile forum of which I'm a member very seldom involves a debate I would call heated.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^Mmm, the smell of overheating tubes in my old Marshall stack grants some rather fond memories. *sigh*


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

justonemore said:


> My old speakers have finally died out (Bose). I have enjoyed them for over 20 years (I bought them from the PX back in my military days). Any suggestions as to new ones? I will obviously do some on-line research but am wondering as to my fellow members first hand expériences.
> 
> Thanks in advance...


As indicated above, justonemore started out with Bose and frankly they remain a reasonable performer sound wise, reasonably priced alternative and certainly not a bad option. Admittedly, I am not by anyone's definition an audiophile, but we do like to listen to music playing in the background throughout our home. Similar to justonemore's experience, many, many years ago (mid to late 1960's and early 1970's) I purchased my high end sound system(s) through the military's PX/PX system. Impressive system, took up half a wall in our various living rooms and eventually we replaced it with a Bose Home Theater Sound Surround system for the TV and listening to music, supplemented by Bose's Wave Radios and multi disc changers in several rooms of the house (yes, I know the Wave Radios are not stereophinic systems, but they do sound pretty darn good). When we play music through the surround sound speakers it sounds every bit as good, perhaps even better, than what we enjoyed from that gargantuan system from years ago and the surround sound system takes up surprisingly little space. Don't discount Bose as an option for future speaker needs.

Again, I admit, I am not an audiophile!


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> As indicated above, justonemore started out with Bose and frankly they remain a reasonable performer sound wise, reasonably priced alternative and certainly not a bad option. Admittedly, I am not by anyone's definition an audiophile, but we do like to listen to music playing in the background throughout our home. Similar to justonemore's experience, many, many years ago (mid to late 1960's and early 1970's) I purchased my high end sound system(s) through the military's PX/PX system. Impressive system, took up half a wall in our various living rooms and eventually we replaced it with a Bose Home Theater Sound Surround system for the TV and listening to music, supplemented by Bose's Wave Radios and multi disc changers in several rooms of the house (yes, I know the Wave Radios are not stereophinic systems, but they do sound pretty darn good). When we play music through the surround sound speakers it sounds every bit as good, perhaps even better, than what we enjoyed from that gargantuan system from years ago and the surround sound system takes up surprisingly little space. Don't discount Bose as an option for future speaker needs.
> 
> Again, I admit, I am not an audiophile!


Indeed, an audiophile would "harrumph" at your post before fainting from the vapors. Honestly, modern systems designed for home theaters seldom measure up as true high fidelity. That said, for the vast majority of listeners they are quite satisfying, very practical, and not terribly expensive. There is no reason every music lover should or must be an audiophile.

As for Bose speakers, my impression (and I've not researched this recently) is that with the exception of the 901s the company's current models are not considered serious products by audiophiles. They are considered well-built, creatively engineered, practical products for the average person who wants above average quality. The 901s are very controversial among audiophiles, falling into the love them or hate them category. They are engineered to project very differently than other speakers, and most audiophiles will tell you that that proper placement is even more critical for them than most speakers.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I think the 901 was revolutionary when it came out, both in style as well as function. My guess is that Bose has been living off of that reputation for the last 30 years or so.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Oops, I surrender!  Might I be able to blame my ill informed, yet well intended recommendation of Bose speakers/sound systems on the "high frequency hearing loss" experienced from years of working in high noise environments? LOL.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> ^ I think the 901 was revolutionary when it came out, both in style as well as function. My guess is that Bose has been living off of that reputation for the last 30 years or so.


I agree, at least to some extent. Yes the 901s were revolutionary, though were also controversial from inception. Althought the build quality was and still is excellent, purchasers had very mixed reactions. The critics claimed that the speaker projection system was better in theory than in practice, while fans attributed suboptimal experiences to improper speaker placement. That battle continues today, though I'd say fans are now a pretty small minority. Personally, I think Bose builds terrific products, but would not buy 901s without a devoted listening room designed for them.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Oops, I surrender!  Might I be able to blame my ill informed, yet well intended recommendation of Bose speakers/sound systems on the "high frequency hearing loss" experienced from years of working in high noise environments? LOL.


Why not? When it comes to listening to the fetching Mrs. P, I often blame my embarrassing record on my audiophile days of youth. ;-)


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Mike Petrik said:


> I agree, at least to some extent. Yes the 901s were revolutionary, though were also controversial from inception. Althought the build quality was and still is excellent, purchasers had very mixed reactions. The critics claimed that the speaker projection system was better in theory than in practice, while fans attributed suboptimal experiences to improper speaker placement. That battle continues today, though I'd say fans are now a pretty small minority. Personally, I think Bose builds terrific products, but would not buy 901s without a devoted listening room designed for them.


My component stereo days are long behind me. I used to have a pair of Polk Audio SDA 2A floor speakers and loved them. I'll assume you're more current on the technology than I am. Do you think that for the price the 901's are good or do you think one could do better?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> My component stereo days are long behind me. I used to have a pair of Polk Audio SDA 2A floor speakers and loved them. I'll assume you're more current on the technology than I am. Do you think that for the price the 901's are good or do you think one could do better?


Your assumption is kind but incorrect. I'm an ex-audiophile, not a current one. Back in the 70s it was a true passion. Marriage, children and a demanding law practice made that passion unsustainable, though it is still a minor interest and I've not forgotten everything I learned -- at least yet. ;-) As for the 901s, I'm not in the market (my 4 vintage Large Advents serve my needs just fine), but if I was I doubt I'd buy the 901s even if I could pull off the perfect set up for them. Instead, I'd probably get online at audiokarma.org and do some fun dligence (see link below for a nice discussion re the 901s). Very good and knowledgeable folks there.

P.S. Those Polks were fabulous speakers!

https://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=467640


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

I shared the results of my search, and others have made well-informed suggestions. I think the next step would be to listen to several pairs of speakers. Ideally they'd be set up to play through the same CD player and amp/preamp, but he main thing is to find speakers that sound good to you playing music with which you are familiar. Take a couple of good quality CD's that you know well and have a listen.

Good luck,
Gurdon


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Well, thanks to 32r'n'r I have purchased a decent pair of Mission speaker stanchettes sufficient to hold my 3.5kg speakers. And jolly fine they are too. I shall upload a photo presently.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Shaver said:


> Well, thanks to 32r'n'r I have purchased a decent pair of Mission speaker stanchettes sufficient to hold my 3.5kg speakers. And jolly fine they are too. I shall upload a photo presently.


That's great to hear--literally. I did not get around to posting photos of my own stands, but trust that you did well regardless. That said, 3.5 kg seems light for the Kenwoods you posted earlier. Was I right? Did you succumb to the lure of modern technology? I had predicted that you would not be able to walk out of the shop sans new speakers...

As I write this, I am listening to a Nat King Cole LP I picked up for $1 at Goodwill a couple days ago. It is marvelous. In fact, I have been listening to records for the last four hours, positioned in the sweet spot and loving life. I am a hopeless vinyl addict. I bought an audiophile copy of Al Green's Greatest Hits that arrived recently and I was absolutely floored. I've owned the record for practically forever but never heard it like I have just heard it. It makes me feel all gooey inside.

Enjoy those stands, Mr. Shaver.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

I come from a next-to-nothing knowledge in audio equipment, so there's your disclaimer to my opinion. I picked up an old (70's?) pair of JBL L100s on Craigslist not too long ago for my basement stereo I've been hobbling together. Hooked up to a 70's(?) Akai AA-1175, it sounds pretty darn good for <$200 total. I looked at a pair of 901s, but the price was a lot more and they didn't sound much, if any, better - granted, that could have something to do with placement and the owner's other equipment. Now to find speaker stands and a half-decent turntable without making a real investment...

J1M, if you're still looking, and if the L100s can be found for similar prices near you, they're a more than satisfactory speaker for the money, in my opinion.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Tilton said:


> I come from a next-to-nothing knowledge in audio equipment, so there's your disclaimer to my opinion. I picked up an old (70's?) pair of JBL L100s on Craigslist not too long ago for my basement stereo I've been hobbling together. Hooked up to a 70's(?) Akai AA-1175, it sounds pretty darn good for <$200 total. I looked at a pair of 901s, but the price was a lot more and they didn't sound much, if any, better - granted, that could have something to do with placement and the owner's other equipment. Now to find speaker stands and a half-decent turntable without making a real investment...
> 
> J1M, if you're still looking, and if the L100s can be found for similar prices near you, they're a more than satisfactory speaker for the money, in my opinion.


You can actually do pretty well for around $100, if you are patient. Decent quality vintage speakers are pretty easy to find on CL and virtually impossible to sell for those who have them. You shouldn't have to pay more than $50, and if you go straight to the source, they're fairly common in thrifts for south of $20. No one wants them anymore. If you were closer to me, I'd give you one of my turntables. I have three spares, none of which are likely to see any use since I upgraded. All three were thrifted for virtually nothing--I don't think I paid more than $10 for any of them. Amps can be tricky, since you need a phono input and lots of modern amps lack them, but it sounds like you've got that covered. As I recommended to Shaver, you can use milk crates for speaker stands. They're better than nothing, and free, or nearly so, to boot.

One thing I would recommend if you are going to go the vinyl route is a decent record cleaner. I paid $300 for mine secondhand (it's a Nitty Gritty 2.5), but a trusted friend swears by this: https://www.soundstagedirect.com/spin-clean-washer-package.shtml

Can't emphasize it strongly enough: Clean records make a HUGE difference, no matter the quality of your system. A Discwasher brush is a good start, but doesn't go nearly far enough. I'm at a point where I'm spending $30 or more on records that I really want, but I also play plenty of records I found in thrift stores. A clean record from a thrift store will sound better than a dirty Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab recording that cost a mint. Once the record is clean, keep it that way by investing in quality sleeves. Expect to pay about $20 for 50 (Sleeve City is a good source). Once I've cleaned a record and put it in a good sleeve, I usually do not have to clean it again.

There is a ton of stuff you can do to improve sound quality without going off the deep end--like I did--and spending a kazillion dollars on turntables and speakers and the like. Just as clean records are key, a clean stylus is vital, and there's good news on that front. The world's best stylus cleaner is Mr. Clean Magic Eraser, available at any Walgreens for about $2. One $2 box should last you a lifetime. All you do is set the Magic Eraser beneath the stylus, lower it, raise it and voila: a clean needle.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

32rollandrock said:


> You can actually do pretty well for around $100, if you are patient. Decent quality vintage speakers are pretty easy to find on CL and virtually impossible to sell for those who have them. You shouldn't have to pay more than $50, and if you go straight to the source, they're fairly common in thrifts for south of $20. No one wants them anymore. If you were closer to me, I'd give you one of my turntables. I have three spares, none of which are likely to see any use since I upgraded. All three were thrifted for virtually nothing--I don't think I paid more than $10 for any of them. Amps can be tricky, since you need a phono input and lots of modern amps lack them, but it sounds like you've got that covered. As I recommended to Shaver, you can use milk crates for speaker stands. They're better than nothing, and free, or nearly so, to boot.
> 
> One thing I would recommend if you are going to go the vinyl route is a decent record cleaner. I paid $300 for mine secondhand (it's a Nitty Gritty 2.5), but a trusted friend swears by this: https://www.soundstagedirect.com/spin-clean-washer-package.shtml
> 
> ...


Thanks for the recs. I will keep an eye on thrift shops around here and I bet something pops up. To keep the aesthetic going, something that is all brushed aluminum would be ideal, but I'm not really that picky.

I really like the L100s I picked up and my great room has some old Acoustic Research speakers and a 70's Pioneer SX something or another. The AR/Pioneer set up sounds great, but never gets played at much volume and mostly gets jazz and classical music played through it. Both receivers have phono inputs. In the basement, I can conceivably turn the speakers sideways and place them on the built-ins on either side of my fireplace, which would place them at perfect height. I wouldn't think so, but is there any disadvantage to turning them sideways?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Tilton said:


> Thanks for the recs. I will keep an eye on thrift shops around here and I bet something pops up. To keep the aesthetic going, something that is all brushed aluminum would be ideal, but I'm not really that picky.
> 
> I really like the L100s I picked up and my great room has some old Acoustic Research speakers and a 70's Pioneer SX something or another. The AR/Pioneer set up sounds great, but never gets played at much volume and mostly gets jazz and classical music played through it. Both receivers have phono inputs. In the basement, I can conceivably turn the speakers sideways and place them on the built-ins on either side of my fireplace, which would place them at perfect height. I wouldn't think so, but is there any disadvantage to turning them sideways?


The only disadvantage is listening to people like me instead of trusting your ears. Every room is different, every system is different. Tinker with it until it sounds right to you, and it can be much less simple than pointing the speakers at the sitting position and calling it done, although that is usually the place to start. You probably already know this, but there will be just one "sweet spot," the sitting position where the sound is optimal. Now, there is a huge caveat, that being surround sound systems that do a really good job of making recorded music sound good. That is what has made two-channel systems such a challenge, I think. These 5.1's or whatever they are called can do an admirable job at a fraction of the price. But I still maintain that a two-channel stereo, properly considered, can do a better job of replicating a live performance, and that is really what you are shooting for. A friend has planar speakers paired with a subwoofer, and his system cost a lot more than my own. I think mine gives a good run for his money, at least for some types of music. His is better, at least to my ear, for rock and louder stuff, but mine is pretty darn good if you want to listen to Ella Fitzgerald or Miles Davis or the blues. Again, the room makes a big difference. I don't know what my system would sound like in his room, or vice versa.

I'm getting off point. I'm no expert--there are people here who know a lot more than I do about this stuff--but you can go a long way, I think, for not a lot of money these days if you are committed to vinyl. It all starts with the source, and analogue is better than digital. The sky is the limit when it comes to spending money on stereo gear, but I think that there is a built-in advantage if you start with vinyl. And it is pretty darn affordable. I have paid more money than I care to remember on some records, but I have also been richly rewarded with a recent $24 investment in Siamese Dream, as well as a $12 investment in Al Green's Greatest Hits. I already had both recordings (the former in CD, the latter in vinyl), but the sonic improvement was so, so over the top. That is cheap entertainment, so far as I'm concerned--I just sat there, listening, unable to think of anything other than what was coming through the speakers.

It doesn't make sense to invest in top-shelf pressings with the type of system you are talking about, but there are still tons of records in great condition that you can score for $5 or less that will blow the socks off any digital offerings. The local record shop has a $2 bin that has given up many worthy things. Steely Dan is one example. I always thought of those records as crap, but they are not. They spent a lot of time getting things just exactly perfect, and the vinyl aficionado will be the beneficiary long before someone with a CD player will see the light.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> That's great to hear--literally. I did not get around to posting photos of my own stands, but trust that you did well regardless. *That said, 3.5 kg seems light for the Kenwoods you posted earlier*. Was I right? Did you succumb to the lure of modern technology? I had predicted that you would not be able to walk out of the shop sans new speakers...
> 
> As I write this, I am listening to a Nat King Cole LP I picked up for $1 at Goodwill a couple days ago. It is marvelous. In fact, I have been listening to records for the last four hours, positioned in the sweet spot and loving life. I am a hopeless vinyl addict. I bought an audiophile copy of Al Green's Greatest Hits that arrived recently and I was absolutely floored. I've owned the record for practically forever but never heard it like I have just heard it. It makes me feel all gooey inside.
> 
> Enjoy those stands, Mr. Shaver.


Umm... this may well make me look just a little bit foolish but.....I weighed them on a pair of kitchen scales. This device probably loses anything approaching accuracy at weights of over 1kg :redface: I thought 3.5kg seemed a little light myself.

I manfully resisted the lure of any more tech - in all honestly I am thoroughly satisfied with the sound provided by my Cambridge seperate components (amp & upscaling DVD player) and Kenwood speakers: crisp, sprightly and vibrant.

I've been sitting in my own 'sweet spot' (indeed, the furniture of the room is arranged to best accomodate this particularly favoured area) listening to the Future Sound of London's first CD 'Accelerator' which contains some delightful complex electronica which will *really* test the frequency response of any hi-fi.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Hey 32, the turntable I was going to trash is a Miracord ELAC 40a ("Made in West Germany"). Online info seems to indicate that it is a reasonable machine (especially for a non-serious audiophile). The stylus is broken off, which is why it isn't playing. I presume I just need to buy a whole new cartridge? Are they universal fit? How do I figure out what I need? Help?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Tilton said:


> Hey 32, the turntable I was going to trash is a Miracord ELAC 40a ("Made in West Germany"). Online info seems to indicate that it is a reasonable machine (especially for a non-serious audiophile). The stylus is broken off, which is why it isn't playing. I presume I just need to buy a whole new cartridge? Are they universal fit? How do I figure out what I need? Help?


Never heard of it. And, this is a bit embarrassing, but I have no expertise on replacing cartridges or styluses. Before I upgraded, I never monkeyed with it. Now, it will be an issue, sooner or later, and I am somewhat dreading it. There are as many trustworthy stereo shops here as there are drycleaners, which is to say, none.

My guess is that you may have to replace the cartridge, but I think that you can also replace just the stylus (less expensive) as opposed to the entire cartridge. If this were me, I'd start with that and, if it doesn't work, try the cartridge route. I know that the shop that put my PX-3 in working order replaced the stylus on the cartridge (it's an Ortofon) as part of repairing and overhauling the unit. They didn't charge me for it. You might also try PM'ing CMDC. He recently acquired an upscale TT and may know more than myself. You are also closer to civilization than myself. In my experience, good stereo shops are eager to help show you the ropes with something like this, especially if they sell you the needed part. They recognize that good customer service pays dividends come upgrade time. Google around or trying asking for recommendations on shops on an audiophile forum.

I assume that you already have this TT. In general, I would advise against buying something that is broken and then trying to fix it. I did that with my TT, and while I am pleased with the results, I ended up spending more than I should have.

Sorry I can't be more help. Let me know how it goes. I want to worry less than I am worrying now about handling this sort of thing on my own TT.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Tilton said:


> Hey 32, the turntable I was going to trash is a Miracord ELAC 40a ("Made in West Germany"). Online info seems to indicate that it is a reasonable machine (especially for a non-serious audiophile). The stylus is broken off, which is why it isn't playing. I presume I just need to buy a whole new cartridge? Are they universal fit? How do I figure out what I need? Help?


As a minor addendum to the advice provided by 32r'n'r - it is very rare that a cartridge will require replacement (as I recall I have done this once in 40 years) but a stylus will require regular replacement if the device is used frequently.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

The new improved listening experience as provided by Mission stanchettes:


----------

