Please!! I am cosidering purchasing M60s but I don't feel comfortable doing it without listening to them. I would appreciate if anybody in Washigton DC/Northern VA area is available for auditioning. My zip code is 22041, Falls Church, VA.
i believe there a few axiom owners in the DC area.. hopefully, they will be avail for you.
bigjohn
Hey bigjohn, I saw your other reply to my first post, thanks a lot!!
Welcome thyname. Capn Pickard lives in the d.c area. Somewhere in Virginia there are three known users. Nicholasnho from Chantilly. Seabear from Charlottesville. And Ashboomstick from GlenAllen.
Hopefully they'll chime in soon. Good luck.
Hallowed be you, ThyName!
Bren R.
LOL!!
Sorry thyname, welcome.
Thyname,
Just saw this thread;
Did you get my PM?
Tom
Yes Tom, I got it, did you get mine?
You're welcome to come take a visit. See my response to your pm.
Thyname...glad you found some help. Welcome to the boards.
Hi guys; Just to let you know that I just ordered my black oak M60s!!! Thanks to Adrien Pickard in DC who was kind enough to let me audition them at his place. What can I say!! Awesome!! I can only imagine how well they will sound in my Rotel setup!!! Can't wait!!
Congrats on your purchase.Looks like we are getting a few more Rotel owner here
Thyname...what Rotel gear did you get/have? I'm going Rotel for stereo paired up with the 80s.
BrotherBob: I have RX-1052 stereo receiver with RCD-1072 cd player. If you like separates (or/and if you have more money) get rb-1070 power amp and rc-1070 preamp. RCD-1072 is a must!
Actually I just bought the RB-1080 amp and RC-1070 preamp a week ago for a pair of 80s for stereo only, hopefully they should be here Monday or Tuesady of this week and the 80s will be ordered soon after the arrival. I have a 60s system for HT with an H/K reciever so the wait won't be too aefull bad.
Axioms sound sweet!
Skerdi (Thyname),
Congrats on the purchase. It was my pleasure meetin you yesterday. Its always nice to welcome a new owner to the fray!
You're gonna love these speakers. I'm really excited for you. Let us know how it all works out when they come in. Hopefully, it will sound even better at your place, with your nice Rotel gear, etc. compared to my "bo-bo" components....
Congrats again and you are very welcome!
Thank you so much Adrien, I really appreciate your help!!!
I keep hearing lots of great things about that RCD-1072. I just have a hard time convincing myself to spend that kind of dough on a unit that can only playback cd's. For just about the same price I can get the Denon 2900.
But the curiosity it killing me.
Denon 2900 is cheaper, RCD-1072 retails for usd 700 (but I got it $640 brand new) I have more than 300 redbook CDs and I just wanted to get the most of them, the sound is excellent and the look of all Rotel combo gear is just as great! Besides you may want your receiver remote to control the CD player, as this is not the case of general consumer electronics controlling Rotel equipment. Just FYI, RCD-1072 plays HDCD, they are not very common but I have a couple and sound so warm and natural.
For more costumer reviews on Rotel gear in general go to htguide.com/forums and then click on Club Rotel.
Congrats on your speaker purchase Skerdi.
When will they be at your door? Did you order a or b stock?
The msrp on the 2900 is $999, but I've seen factory authorized refurbs for as low as $510. I'm very tempted to grab one at that price, but I'm afraid Roger may kill me if I do. Seriously.
I don't want to die.
Thank you Michael, I got brand new "A" stock, I just did not wanted to take the risk for used speakers for such a price, and also I could not wait 2+ weeks for "b" stock. They told me they will be here on Wednesday via Feddex Air. However, I have not gotten any shipment tracking confirmation email yet. See my PM...
Oops!! Just got shipment confirmation email from Axiom, can't wait!!
That shipping e-mail means its official. Get ready to be checking the tracking number 10 or 15 times an hour....
I just hope that what happened to me, DOSEN'T Happen to You!!!
I got my tracking number, and started the track trek. All went well right up until the speakers got to my town.
They were logged onto the delivery vehicle at about 8:47 AM.
So I waited,
and waited,
In the window, looking at the road.
Here, on line, trying to pass the neverending hours.
On the front porch, listening for the truck.
Finally....
It took NINE HOURS to travel the six miles from the airport to my house!!!!
(it was worth it)
Skerdi, you'll certainly enjoy your wonderful new M60s. Just to clarify a point, the factory outlet speakers are also brand new, but supposedly have some slight cosmetic defect. Couldn't find one on my M22s.
Got my shipment email as well.
Wednesday Delivery.
60's 8s' 150 500
My nose is stuck to the door and they've only left Canada this pm
Bugbitten & Thyname,
Congrats on the new purchases!
You are going to be lovin' Life when they arrive.
TjB
Got my shipment email Monday.
Wednesday delivery, yahoo that's today.
Except Fedex tracking hasn't changed since speakers got to Barrie depot on Monday - so maybe not today.
But got the sub Monday (svs PB10-ISD) and stayed up till 03:00 playing music and a couple movie tracks. For a 10"er its got a lot of slam. The scene in Spiderman 2 where you can here the heavy footsteps of Doc.Oct's appendages coming up the apartment building (about 1:15 mark) was amazing at 95db. I couldn't believe how much the driver was moving.
Now I wait for the M3's., qs4's and vp100 to arrive.
Just got a call at work from my wife and the speakers arrived a few minutes ago just as she was walking out the door. She said 6 boxes arrived, yet I only ordered 5 speakers (2 mains, 1 centre and 2 surrounds). Apparently one of them is only something like 8"x4"x2". Anyone know what it could be? Is this typical for Axiom?
It's going to be a long day at work and another night of lots of tunes and little sleep.
Sounds like a perfect day to eat something "bad" at lunch and have to go home early.
No idea what the sixth box could be.
I've heard that sometimes they ship grills separately.
Yep, after I returned all my original beech finish speakers, the cherry ones came back with the speaker grilles for the qs-8s in a separate box. I, and I think a couple of other folks, had a problem with the little balls that anchor the grille breaking off during shipping, so the resolution was to ship them in a seperate box.
My M60s just arrived at 11.30 AM at my doorstep (as I was waiting for them home) Very happy as I was expecting them after 4PM! Immediately started unpacking and plugging them to my system. It has been playing now for 10 min. First impressions? I can already recognize the sound I heard while I auditioned them, but a little harsh as compared to the ones I listened to at Adrien's home. However, I know that they need some time to "warm" or "break in" as they call it. Bass is heavy!! I'll keep you posted...
Not... necessarily on the break in. It's one of those other audio controversies.
must be the
ear drum break-in he's talkin about.
I don't quit understand what you guys are talking about, but the sound is little harsh (it hurts my ears, feels scratchy), also the highs are not as crisp loud and clear, as I expected and heard them at the demo. Again, it is only 30 min now. I'll probably go out for while and live them on.
Guys!! what was your first experience with M60 (or axioms in general) when you first got them?? At least with my experience with my JBL speakers and Rotel Cd player they were really dissapointing at the beginning. I particularly remember my Rotel cd player hurting my ears for at least 3 days. Then I left it on overnight a few times, it got better and better and now it is simply amazing and warm.. any experience with new Axiom speakers will be appreciated.
Thanks!!
If you liked your demo, and you think the speakers you received are harsh, scratchy, and hurt your ears...something is amiss. My first guess would be the room. That'll make the biggest difference between what you heard at someone elses house and what you're hearing now. A close second would be what it is you're listening to. A badly mastered cd is going to sound AWFUL through the Axioms.
Uh-oh, here comes the break-in controversy.
Thanks Kcarlile and AshBoomStick, the dimensions are about right to be the grills.
Can't wait for lunch and that festering sandwich that's likely to send me home.
In reply to:
Can't wait for lunch and that festering sandwich that's likely to send me home.
In reply to:
When you get back into the office, tell everyone what a great deal you just got on that day-old tuna sandwich, and your surprise that the other morons at the restauraunt thinking it had to be refridgerated. Two minutes later, burp loudly, moan, and go fetal under the boss' desk.
My M2s sounded awful when I first got them but after a couple of daysthey really sounded nice. Ditto with the M60s but I didn't have time to monitor "sound vs. time", I just let 'em play during the day while I was at work.
well i may as well start it... when i first got my M60s they did seem a little harsh on the ears, with real strong highs. which made me feel really crappy cause i had just dropped 2300 samoleans on these speakers without ever having heard them. However after about, and i $hit you not, 30 minutes of putting music through them they settled down and they now induce copious amounts of audio bliss in anyone who hears them. Now I don't claim to be an authority on the characteristics of Axiom speaker break-in or the lack thereof, but i DO know that either my speakers,or my perception, of them changed. Frankly, I don't give a damn, 'cause I love them now and THAT'S what's important.
I finnally found one (big john) here to support "Break in" theory!! I am soooo sure that my Rotel RCD-1072 cd player sounded so harsh at the beginning. I sat down at listening position and my ears would start hurting after 20 min listening. This did not happen anymore after a week or so: I could sit down for hours and listen to music and not feel any fatigue at all.
Before I leave home for a while (I will make sure I leave my speakers on and playin in "repeat mode"), a few more observation:
- Bass is sooooo heavy!!! it rocks my windows!!! Even with my "best of Sade" cd. I don't think more bass in necessary for music (different issue with movies) As you know my system is Stereo for music only.
- Compared to JBLs, M60s fill the room (my living room is big 20X23) so much better. I can sit in front of the computer, aside from my audio-video sitting area and really hear it very loud and clear.
- I moved the speakers a little forward from the back wall and they sound better now. I am concerned that my fiance when she comes back will not permit me keep at that distance now.
- I can clearly hear a distinct, sweet sound I heard when I demoed axioms. Awesome!!!
- There is no "sound color" whatsoever!!! I am talking about a certain sound I used to hear with my JBLs. They sound natural.
Trust me guys, first impressions are good... I am sure it can only get better.
Again, thank you Adrien for letting me listen at your place.
I just want to read some more impressions you guys had when you first got your M60 (or M40s, M50s, M80s).
Thanks!!!
Your CD-P burned in? Did I read that right?
I REALLY gotta get a spit shield for my monitor... or quit drinking Pepsi while reading the forums.
Ohh, and another thing - if the room is carpeted... the carpet will break in over time... it'll lay flat in radial waves from each of the drivers... helps wind resistance to the sound.
Blame break-in, blame the fact you're actively concentrating on listening, eventually you'll relax and just listen to 'em.
Bren R.
After a short "Break -in" in memory of my M3s; when my M50s arrived, I paid attention: About 20-25 minutes to settle in.
Skerdi,
Congrats on the new arrivals. Pictures are a must now... so that the rest of us can enjoy, too.
As far as the break-in goes. Who cares whether its the 6 inches of woofer that are breaking in or the 6 inches of gray matter between your ears that are breaking in. I think that you're used to hearing a "muddled" high frequency response and a pronounced mid-bass with the JBLs. That "speaker memory" will fade as you listen to the M60's over time, and you'll begin to get used to the speakers more as time goes on.
In addition, don't forget how close we were sitting when listening (around 8 feet). Your listening distance might be different.
In regard to the bass, that likely is the difference in your Rotel gear compared to my Panny/Yamaha combo (even though the DACs in the Yammy were doing the heavy lifting because of the optical connection). The Rotel might be accentuating the bass and high frequencies more than mine did. Try trimming these values (if you can) with your receiver or your CD-P.
In any event. I'm really happy that you're really happy. Keep us informed.
I have to agree with Bren here. I never heard of a CD player breaking in. I'm not gonna call you a liar, because maybe you really did hear it but I really don't see how. I don't believe in speaker break-in myself, but I won't say it doesn't happen. I don't believe my speaker's or my ears "broke-in." I liked my Axiom's from the first moment I heard them; then again, I've always had a very astute ear. I guess not everybody is quite as lucky.
Some of you guys made me feel really stupid with the "break in", even though I was quite sure what I heard with my CD player when I first got it, and after a week of serious play. My job is evenings and I have plenty of time during the day at home to listen by myself my audio equipement, loud, not loud, with no other people interfering. Anyway, I posted this question to Club Rotel and here is what I got:
http://www.htguide.com/forum/showthread.php4?t=13253
Make sure you check it often, as there are plenty audio experts (or at least Rotel enthusiasts) who can jump in.
As would be expected there's a camp of "break in is real" and a camp of "break in is a myth/it's your ears/brain" people.
Most (not all) Axiomites are in the "it's your ears/brain" camp.
It's a viciously debated topic that can never be settled.
now couldn't this be settled by getting freq response curves on brand-spankin' new speakers and ones that have been "broken in"? at least theoretically?
>>Some of you guys made me feel really stupid with the "break in", even though I was quite sure what I heard with my CD player when I first got it, and after a week of serious play
Keep posting what you heard and don't worry about it; just keep an open mind about what is CAUSING the effects you hear. Break-in is hotly debated even for mechanical things like speakers. Every so often we learn that things aren't as black and white (or as "1" and "0") as we thought.
Obviously we try to understand what could be causing a "break-in" effect... and in cases where nobody can come up with a rational explanation of what might actually be changing there tends to be more doubt that there is a real break-in happening. The mind does do a surprising amount of adapting to new situations so in this case it's most likely this was your brain adapting to the new sound but don't get bullied into reporting what you think you should be hearing
I've been mulling this whole "break-in" thing around in my head a lot lately. I haven't been thinking about "break-in" itself, as much as I've been thinking about the disagreement over it. What I've been pondering is why the debate over this can become so heated. I'd like to make a couple of points, and I hope it will be understood that I mean no offense to anyone who believes differently, and that I support your right to do just that.
I happen to be in the "break-in is primarily a psychological phenomenon" camp. One of the things I've noticed is that when our side says that break-in is all in your head, the other side reacts as though we're saying that you don't really hear a difference, and you are actually nuts, or crazy, or worse, stupid. I can't speak for everyone in my camp, but that is NOT what I mean. I firmly believe you hear a difference. I believe I noticed a difference in my M22s after a period of time. So we really don't differ on the question of a change in the way a speaker sounds after a period of time. Where we differ is where that change takes place. Break-in proponents believe it takes place in the speaker, while we believe the difference is caused by a change in one's perception of the speaker's sound.
Here are a couple of examples of the short term variety of this phenomenon. I'm watching TV using the TV speakers. A program comes on that I wish to enjoy through my system, so I make the switch. I ALWAYS am startled at how bad my system initially sounds. It's muddy, and unsatisfying. Within a relatively short period of time (I've never timed it), without changing volume or anything else, I find myself thinking "This sounds great! How could I have thought otherwise." It is my contention that I simply became acclimated to the difference between the TV speakers' sound, and my system's sound.
"AH!" You say. "But the system wasn't warmed up yet. The drivers were still cold and stiff, and they changed when warmed up." Well how about this, then.
When demoing my system for a visitor, the system having been up and running for a half hour or more, I have the volume at a satisfying listening level. We start to converse, but the system is a little to loud for easy conversation, so I turn it down. Immediately I find myself thinking " UGH, at this volume, the system doesn't sound very good, but we want to talk so I'll leave it there temporarily." Within a few minutes (again, I never timed it), and without changing the volume at all. I'm thinking "Son of a gun! Now the system sounds great."
These are two examples of a short term version of perception change. They don't exactly explain what we call "break-in," but they make the point that perception is a variable. It IS subject to change.
To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a test, or demonstration that supported the concept of speaker break-in. In fact every test or demonstration, of which I am aware, has done exactly the opposite. Craigsub did a test where he broke in one of a pair of Onix Reference 2 speakers, and in a blind test could tell no difference between it, and it's out of the box twin.
My main point is the we essentially do not disagree over whether or not one can hear a change in speakers after a period of time. I believe you when you tell me you hear a difference. The question is, where does that change take place; in the speakers, or in ones perceptions of the speakers' sound?
Here is another URL from same site posted a while ago, very informative with links bringing to some manufacturers websites explaining "break in" in their own products:
http://www.htguide.com/forum/showthread.php4?t=9217
As for me, I cannot listen to my speakers properly today as my ears are a little deaf from a concert last night in Springfield, here in VA...
I like Jack's post. I don't care deeply about break-in one way or the other. We buy this stuff to enhance the joy in our daily lives; if somebody thinks their joy is increasing, God bless 'em.
One thing not noted (in this thread) are the motives of manufacturers on the break-in topic. My opinion is that manufacturers are wise to espouse the "break-in exists" theories. What they are really saying is, "if you don't like it right out of the box, give it a bit of time and you will like it more later. Don't base a decision on whether to return the product on first impressions." So, whether quantifiable, objective equipment break-in exists or not, they successfully hedge their bets by offering up the notion that your perception will change for the better. Genius, really.
I can't control enough of the variables and do not have good enough ears to have a valid personal opinion as to whether any changes that may exist are sufficiently significant to matter to me.
That's why it takes exactly 31 days to break in most speakers!
>>My main point is the we essentially do not disagree over whether or not one can hear a change in speakers after a period of time. I believe you when you tell me you hear a difference. The question is, where does that change take place; in the speakers, or in ones perceptions of the speakers' sound?
I agree with everything you said... the only sticking point for me is that based on a VERY small sample space I have noticed a couple of times where playing the speakers for a while resulted in smoother sound even when I was not there to listen to them.
It is possible that my brain is adapting to the sound "in the background" even if the sound is not playing but based on my admittedly limited knowledge of neurology and cognitive science things aren't wired up that way... for auditory inputs you need the actual stimulus present for the brain to "learn".
Good point, John. The only response I can come up with is that auditory memory is very short. So, when you return to the speakers that were playing in your absence, you are comparing what you are hearing to your IMPRESSION of what you heard earlier, rather than what you actually heard. That doesn't rule out the possibility that the speaker changed in your absence, but it doesn't confirm that it did, either.
Agreed. I'm not even claiming that I'm sure speaker breakin exists, just felt that we were dismissing the possibility too soon without valid testing (nobody had any valid tests at the time
) and without a good explanation...
"but don't get bullied into reporting what you think you should be hearing"
BRAVO!!!
The last couple of posts by Jack and John were some of the best posts I have read in a while.
Thank you both.
I am going to add to the discussion for a couple of reasons.
1; I think that those who think that break in does occur get shouted down just a bit too enthusiasticly by those who do not believe in it. I certainly do not have enough facts, or knowledge of the physics of loudspeaker design and building or psychoacoustic (sp?) principals to side with either camp based on anything more than my own personal experience.
2; I am positive that I noticed a distinct difference in how my M60s sounded from the moment that I plugged them in to 20 minutes later. And I noticed even more of a difference 4 hours later. What that was caused by, well.. I think some of you may be better at explaining than me, but I am a very critical listener, and I am firmly in the camp that it was the speaker changing, and not my ears.
3; Lastly, I propose this as a question, because I have never seen it figured into this discussion or argument in anyting that I have read.
And please take this question from the point of view that I am not a scientist or have anything close to as much technical knowledge that I have come to enjoy from so many of you on this site;
Many people over time have had to replace the rubber surrounds around the driver. Correct?
When a speaker is working to produce sound, the only part of that speaker that is actually moving (well, I know that the cone is vibrating, right?) is that rubber surround that is holding the cone in it's frame. Correct?
So, that rubber surround is being stressed and pushed and pulled many, many times over the course of time. Correct?
Besides the fact that rubber dries out over time, and light, among many other things also acts as a factor in degrading rubber, neccesitating it's replacement, would not this constant movement also be a contributing factor in it degrading/changing over time?
And, if that movement is contributing to it's eventual breakdown, then that breakdown/change has to be occuring from the moment that the speaker is turned on, does it not?
Many of us have unfortunately known the sickening sound when a rubber surround on a cherished old speaker finally gives way. One moment wonderful sound, the next moment that horrible blatting dying fart.
In my mind, to know that this instantaneous change can, and does occur, and then to be unwilling to admit that the same process has been occuring from the first moment that the speakers were turned on -albeit at a much slower and less dramatic pace- just seems silly.
Sort of like the guys to whom a loss in the first week of the season merits a shrug, yet that last loss that keeps their team out of the playoffs is the end of the world.
They were both the same, yet one was barely noticable, and the other was the end of the line. But they were both the same.
To sum up;
A speaker is (just like almost everything else) constantly changing/degrading/ageing. It (or parts of it anyway) will eventually wear out. No?
I do not understand why it is not considered plausible, in some circles, for the beginning of this process to be apparent, even if it is in small degrees, just as the end of this process is apparent.
I will now put the helmet on and wait for the science guys to show me why I am wrong.
AND! Like the rest of the time I spend on this forum, I'll probably learn a Helluva lot about something!
(remember! this was all posed as a question and my opinion! I was not stating anything that I can back up as facts!)
In reply to:
I do not understand why it is not considered plausible, in some circles, for the beginning of this process to be apparent, even if it is in small degrees, just as the end of this process is apparent.
But what about the part that comes between the first change and the last change, that part that basically equates to the lifetime of the speaker? If break-in (or slow break-down), really does occur, then you should be able to notice it constantly throughout the life span of the speaker.
How does a speaker know to stop breaking in after the first 48 (or so) hours, and then wait 10-15 years before wearing out altogether?
And the thing with rubber surrounds is that they either do the job or they don't. If anything, they should affect the sound negatively (by resisting movement) as they age and dry out. If anything, speakers should sound best straight out of the box if it's the driver surrounds that are changing. Do you see where I'm coming from?
I need to respond to two of your statements:
"I am firmly in the camp that it was the speaker changing, and not my ears."
In my post I made the point that I believe you when you say you heard a change. I also went to great lengths to make it clear that I believe that what changes is your perception of the speaker's sound. Nowhere in my post did I take the stance that your "ears" change.
Then you said:
"In my mind, to know that this instantaneous change can, and does occur, and then to be unwilling to admit that the same process has been occurring from the first moment that the speakers were turned on -albeit at a much slower and less dramatic pace- just seems silly."
It seems to me that your saying anyone who doesn't agree with this theory is "silly." I do hope that was not your intent.
All that aside, if I understand your theory, you're contending that this process begins precipitously in the early part of a speaker's life, resulting in a noticeable change in the speaker's sound. But, though the process is ongoing, it slows to the the degree that no change in sound is noticeable. If this process indeed affects the sound of the speaker, no matter how slow the process, there should be additional change in the speakers sound whether it takes 1 year or two years, or twenty years. Either this process affects the sound of the speaker or it doesn't. It can't affect the sound at first, and then continue but NOT affect the sound of the speaker.
I had my AR5s 30 years. While I cannot say for certain that they sounded exactly as they did when I bought them, if they were different, the amount of change was so small as to be insignificant right up to the point when one of the woofers failed. If your theory is correct, after 30 years, surely they would have sounded significantly different as time went by, even sounding terrible as they neared the point of failure, no matter how slowly the process progresses.
More importantly, your theory is based on the premise that the "rubber surround, ...being stressed and pushed and pulled many, many times over the course of time" actually has an affect upon the way the speaker sounds. Do we know this for a fact, or is it only an assumption?
In any event, though I support you right to believe this theory, absent proof, I would hope that you make it clear to all that it is just that; a theory, and I would respectfully request you don't imply that anyone who doesn't see it your way is "silly."
To return to your point about how believers are treated, I think that can be explained by the frustration at seeing an unproven theory presented as fact (I'm NOT referring to your post), particularly when whatever evidence, or proof, is available supports the conclusion that speaker break-in doesn't occur.
In reply to:
I think that those who think that break in does occur get shouted down just a bit too enthusiasticly by those who do not believe in it.
Because we're constantly bombarded by the other side from salesmen and aUd1oPh1l3z... even respectable speaker companies have had to insert break-in notices in their slip sheets just to appease those people. One of those "if you don't believe - you'll ignore it... if you do believe, you'll want to see it, or at least pester us on the phone with questions on how long it takes" things.
Bren R.
"It seems to me that your saying anyone who doesn't agree with this theory is "silly." I do hope that was not your intent."
No!
Absolutely not!
I have WAY too much respect for the members of this forum, and their amazing knowledge of this, and so many other subjects, to ever call anyone here silly. Seriously.
And, I tried my best to make sure that everyone knew that what I was doing was simply throwing out a particular concept regarding this argument that I had been wondering about for a while, in an effort to better understand the whole thing.
It always seemed to me that the arguments against speaker break in relied on "It dosen't happen because so-and-so says it does not happen" or something close.
It had just occurred to me that there MIGHT be a plausible reason why it MIGHT happen, and I wanted to see what others thought of that reasoning.
I am sorry if I did not make that clear enough,
And, as always, I am more than happy to be convinced otherwise by those who know much more about the subject.
That is how I learn!
Now back to read the rest of your post, but I wanted to respond to the "silly" thing as soon as I saw it.
(and I'm betting I will need a bigger helmet! :0 )
"Do you see where I'm coming from?"
Absolutely.
There you go. It only took one post by Peter to blow a hole right through my theory.
And I still haven't gotten to Jack's whole post.
As to;
Do we know this for a fact, or is it only an assumption?
Again, I tied my best to make sure that what I was posting was merely an idea that I had been pondering, and certainly nothing even coming close to fact!
That is why I added this;
"(remember! this was all posed as a question and my opinion! I was not stating anything that I can back up as facts!)"
In reply to:
Because we're constantly bombarded by the other side from salesmen and aUd1oPh1l3z...
I see that Bren has the same lack of respect for the term "audiophile" that I do.
(Having mentioned this in a recent post, I DO apologize for the redundancy.) Actually, It's a lovely word, that, according to
Merriam-Webster Online has a simple, straightforward meaning, to whit: "
a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction." Now that's nice. And, by that definition, I AM, indeed, and audiophile. But, unfortunately, the word has been hijacked, and has come to mean someone who is an expert on high-high fidelity sound. Regrettably, the word is all to often applied, usually by the miscreant himself, to someone who is anything but an expert.
I would NEVER classify myself as an audio expert (did I just hear a number of people say "DAT'S DA FACT, JACK!"
). So, I'm forced to eschew any claim to a very nice term which, by definition, actually does apply.
"Because we're constantly bombarded by the other side from salesmen and aUd1oPh1l3z... "
Heh, heh, heh...
Well, this is an interesting side-bar.
I had COMPLETLY lost sight of the fact that there are apparently MORE people out there who believe speakers break in (or at least have a vested interest in trying to make sure that others believe it)than not.
This comes from using these forums to satiate my A/V reading jones, rather than the mainstream press and sites.
And to be sure, I have certainly learned a helluva lot more here in 4 or 5 months than I did from years of reading the mainstream stuff.
It is what keeps me coming back.
In reply to:
Again, I tied my best to make sure that what I was posting was merely an idea that I had been pondering, and certainly nothing even coming close to fact!
That is why I added this;
"(remember! this was all posed as a question and my opinion! I was not stating anything that I can back up as facts!)"
Understood. I meant my question only to be rhetorical, in order to emphasize that all this is speculation. I meant no offense, took none, and was appreciative of the fact that you were merely throwing out possibilities. That's all I'm doing too. I don't know whether the forces applied to the rubber surround have any effect on the sound of the speaker, or not.
P.S. From your recent posts, may I say I envy you your fiancé. She sounds like a great lady. Much happiness to you both.
"merely throwing out possibilities"
You got it!
That was all I was looking to do.
I should have caught that "silly" thing before I posted it.
My Bad!
And thanks for the nice compliment on my Fiance. She really is pretty far off the charts as far as I am concerned. I just make sure that she knows this every day, and keep up my end of the bargain. It is a good thing.
Hi guys; Just wanted to post some pictures of my M60s and my audio-video gear. Anybody knows how to post my pics? I read that I need to get them from my own website, but I don't have one.
I posted three pictures at another forum that allows attachments. Please click on the links below:
http://www.htguide.com/forum/attachment.php4?attachmentid=2851
http://www.htguide.com/forum/attachment.php4?attachmentid=2852
http://www.htguide.com/forum/attachment.php4?attachmentid=2853
i post pics by using photobucket.com..
all you do is go there and set up an account, its free and takes about 2-3 minutes.. then, you can upload your pics onto the photobucket site, and use the url link under each pic to post it here.
give it a shot, and see what you can do.
bigjohn
lets see if we can make those links.
PIC 1
PIC 2
PIC 3
those Rotels look SWEEEEET!
bigjohn
I'm really diggin your setup Skerdi. Very nice and clean. Props to bigjohn for the links.
Any chance that we could see a wide angle shot of the whole setup?
Very nice.
Aren't those Rotel's beautiful?
Well I don't know your intent, but if you plan on using the M60s as the linchpin for your HT system, then adding a VP center, some QS surrounds, and a good subwoofer, you are going to be stunned, and REALLY HAPPY with the difference in your HT experience. Enjoy!
Sweet system Thyname!
Thanks for sharing the photos. I really like the way the Rotels look with the speakers, stand and T.V., nice gear!
... then I'd need to buy an expensive Rotel surround processor, more speaker cables, interconnects a quality Rotel dVD player, all what you mentioned, etc... can you imagine what all those cost. My fiance would kill me!!
In reply to:
My fiance would kill me
it will be much easier to get it all now, then trying to wait til you are married..
and you wonder why a lot of audio enthuisiasts are single or divorced...
bigjohn
As an experiment with your movie of choice, replace the front set of the "dream" system HTIB speaker system with the M60's with all of the other speakers in place, re-calibrate and listen to a movie that way...or better yet, remove the center from the setup altogether and let the M60's act as a phantom center...
You will be greatly suprised and don't really have to wait to enjoy the M60's with movies...
BTW: Cool looking system...
WhatFurrer
VP100 from outlet..............................$346
QS8's from outlet..............................$450
Rotel RSP-1066 used on audiogon or Ebay........$750-850
Denon DVD-2900S from Ecost.....................$510
Blue Jeans Cables (speaker and interconnects)..$100
I imagined it for you. Now go make it real.
still needs the sub!!!
bigjohn
Guys!! don't give me ideas!! it is already a lot of money!! Besides I care a lot for music as I really believe that a good system makes a big difference. For movies I can survive with my HTIB for now, I live in an apt. and the bass required to watch a good movie will make my neigbors complain a lot.
BTW, I like Rotel RSP 1098 7.1 processor better with mrsp of $3000. But it will require Rotel power amp such as RMB 1095 that costs an extra 2k. Have you ever seen or auditioned RSP 1098? it is so gorgeos!!!
Good one Spiff.
Is it just me or is the price of that vp100 posing as a vp150?
I was going to ask that.
Thyname, great looking system, and just ask the neighbors over and then they may not complain.
Oops. Yep...that's the VP150 price.
I've not seen the RSP-1098, though I've heard good things about it. I have the 1066 with the 1075 amp and it's terrific. Both can be found used for really good prices, that's why I pointed them out. The 1098/1095 combo is Rotel's top-o-the-line models. Very pricey indeed.
I'll be keeping the Rotel gear I have now until HD-DVD players are out. At that time I'll likely get a player and a new processor. But that's a long ways off.
(thank god!)
Skerdi,
Great looking system, my friend. Really clean and contemporary. I hope you're enjoying listening to it as much as I enjoyed looking at it. ( Actually, hopefully more...)
