ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (04/26/85)
Apparently, I buy loudspeakers for different reasons than some people. For instance, in a recent posting Herb Chong says he's looking for $3,000 speakers because he hasn't heard any $1500 speakers he really likes (these are Canadian dollars). While it may well be true that I might have been able to find speakers I liked better than the 901's for $3000, or even $1500, I paid less than $900 for the 901's, including the equalizer (well, the stands drove the price a little above $900) so I don't think the comparison is quite accurate. (at the time, the list price for 901's was $1400, and I think it's still $1400, so I don't think the selling price has changed much) In any event, even if I had found speakers I liked better for $600 more, it is very hard for me to imagine anything that would be so much better that I wouldn't rather spend the extra $600 on records or CDs! (This is not a joke. I'm now edging up on 14 shelf feet of records and am well past 100 CDs) That's what I mean when I say I seem to have different criteria from most people. Here are my speaker criteria: 1. The manufacturer must be likely to remain around for a long time. If a driver disintigrates ten years from now, I want to be able to replace it. 2. The speakers must be reliable and generally unfussy. Even though I can replace a driver if it breaks, I would rather not have to. 3. They must not dominate the living room. Being able to see over them out a window is a definite asset. 4. They must not be critical about room placement. I do not want to have to remodel every house I buy to make a place that they can live. 5. They must be highly cat-resistant. 6. They must sound good. These criteria are NOT listed in order of importance -- they are ALL important and I didn't want to buy anything that didn't meet all six. Out of these six criteria, the 901s clearly meet 1 through 5. Some may quibble about (4), but while finding a wall for them to reflect from is a bit of a pain, it is more than compensated for by the fact that people can sit much closer to them than to most other speakers without getting their ears blown off. (yes, I know this is far from the best place to sit, but at a crowded party SOMEONE's got to sit there) Now, item 6 is a matter of taste. De gustibus non disputandum. However, if I shut my eyes while listening to any decent classical recording, I have no difficulty imagining that I am seated in a concert hall instead of in my living room. Some golden ear is surely going to point out that if I had just bought Superframmis XYZ speakers, for the price of a good used airplane, I would be able to imagine that I was sitting on the stage. Well, I don't normally use a microscope to look at photographs, either, though I won't fault those who take to that pastime. A few weeks ago, I sat down at the harpsichord and started playing a movement from a Bach partita. When I made my first mistake, Barb came running in from the other room with a look of alarm on her face. She was much relieved when she saw me at the harpsichord: she had thought I was playing a CD and something had gone wrong. That's good enough for me.
man@bocar.UUCP (M Nevar) (04/26/85)
Are we through with all the complaining about the 901's now ? If not, why don't we all go out and buy the WAMM's. At only 450.00, they are a great value and all the high-end press is raving about them. You even get Dave Wilson himself to come to your house to personnaly set them up !
man@bocar.UUCP (M Nevar) (04/26/85)
Whoops! I seemed to misplace that decimal point on the cost of the WAMM's. The current price is 45,000. -:) Sorry about that.
herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS]) (04/28/85)
you are right in that i have very different criteria for speakers.
mine are:
1) very flat and extended frequency response
my DM7's come factory matched to within 0.5 dB between
left and right systems. they are rated 70 to 25K within
2 dB. i could have gotten speakers with better bass
response and efficiency for the money i spent.
2) superior imaging
there are very few speakers in the price range that even
come close to the imaging ability of my DM7's. on
well recorded material such as Sheffield disks, i have
horizontal, front-back, and vertical imaging that is
well defined and absolutely stable. i compared a LOT
of speakers in the $1000 to $2000 range (CAN) for over
a year before i bought. some systems i rejected after
careful listening: Rogers Monitors, Mission 770,
B&W DM14's (one below mine), KEF 104.5, ADS 810,
Boston Acoustics A200, Yamaha NS1000M. note that these
prices were how much i would have paid, not how much they
listed for. subtract 30% for approximate US prices.
3) ruggedness
i have a relatively powerful amplifier (150w/ch) and
i occasionally drive it hard. also, i sometimes borrow
a friend's amp, strap them both for mono for 500w/ch
and use it that way. i have electronic speaker protection
builtin.
4) i don't care about anything outside the listening window
it's about a 1ft cube where the best sound is. this is
not to say that there is bad sound elsewhere, just that it
is better within the window. this is as much a consequence
of the design of the speakers as how i have them placed
(aimed directly at the listening position).
Herb Chong...
I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble....
UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!water!watdcsu!herbie
CSNET: herbie%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet
ARPA: herbie%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
NETNORTH, BITNET, EARN: herbie@watdcs, herbie@watdcsu