Promedia 4.1 vs. Logitech z560 vs. Altec Lansing 641 vs. Boston Acoustics BA7800??

[Roj]

This is going to be fun:

"I'm not putting words in anyones mouth. Instead I'm trying to shed some light on these fruitless comments and expose you for the biased fraud you are. You did type the following tidbit didn't you? "

You'll have to get up really early in the morning to do that one, as they say.

"there is no horn-loaded speaker in existence that can accurately reproduce silky highs and a detailed and well-imaged soundstage. Horns, even the hybrid horns that Klipsch chose to use in their satellites, shoot sound at you with all the finesse of a rocket launcher"

"If that wasn't an outright condemnation of horns in general I don't know what is."

And you saw from my example with the RB-5s vs. the Tablettes that I'm spot on. Next...

Of course you immediately waffled and said that I was going too upscale in a comparison with the Tablettes but I expected that - when confronted with evidence, some folks do have a tendency to run for cover.

"Apparently your sole basis for this argument is merely auditions limited to the horn loaded Promedia's and reference series, and internet propaganda."

Nooo, not quite. You see, I auditioned the original Klipschorns years ago and that's what formed my original opinion. They were up against a set of KEF 105s and a set of Maggies and they couldn't measure up.

"As they say in the audio world if you haven't heard it your opinion don't mean **** . "

Thus you eat your own words...

"in the face of Martin Logan and even ProAc, Klipsch's home line doesn't fare too well when drawing a detailed jazz soundstage. As an example, go listen to a set of RB-5 IIs playing Miles Davis or Boney James and then listen to the same track on one of the ProAc Tablette series - the difference in placement is unmistakable."

"Lets try to keep a level playing field. You're making comparisons to much more upscale products. Taken for what they are the RB5's image very well. "

Now we get to the beginning of the waffling I mentioned above, namely the ProAc Tablette series. Heck, Polk does a better job when it comes to that.

"As I'll reiterate for the final time (because apparently yourself and Gluegun are suffering from a bout of amnesia), I've heard most of the Monsoon line (505, 702, 1000, 2000) under conditions as ideal as they're going to get in a department store, and was less than thrilled with the final result. "

Therein lies the tale - a department store. I could say that folks who base their opinions of a system on the butchered environment in a department store and then attempt to pontificate on that drawbacks of that line thereafter are at best foolish and at worst absurd or fraudulent but that would be resorting to your tactics.

"The crossover isn't smooth. I was able to localize lower midrange and upper/midbass from the sub. This wasn't so obvious when keeping everything on the same shelf, but the loss of bass imaging was. When the subwoofer was placed on the floor the changeover was disparaging. The sats sounded spaced out and thin, lending an exaggerated image to everything. The 702, 1000, and 2000's midrange was dreadful - sharp and wiry. "

First, placement matters and you obviously didn't do a good job. How can I say this? Other listeners (dvdvideo, Mr. ears, dvisic, Brad Estes, etc.) don't experience what you're climing to have heard. In fact, Audio-guru hears that same "one-noteyness" on the Klipsch 4.1s. When that many disparate people (I'm not even including myself in the mix) differ with you on all points, it's pretty obvious that either a) you did something wrong in the placement or you're blowing smoke. Since you say you've heard them and the that forms the basis of your allegations, I must conclude a).

"Even some of those pricy Martin Logans have trouble integrating the cone box woofers with their electrostatic transducers! I have nothing personally against Monsoon, I'm only describing what I hear. "

And I'm describing what many others hear, as are they.

"Frankly I'm not impressed with the musical performance of any PC speaker I've heard (note this doesn't include Videologic's or Swans). To incessantly rag on the Klipsch's flaws and turn a blind eye to the others is narrow minded and immature. "

To paint a given set of products as superior where they are average at best is misleading and spurious.

"The fact that you sit a few feet away makes a transparent soundstagesound stage impossible."

In a word:

Nonsense!"

"You're living in a bubble if you think you'll get realistic imaging in a desktop environment. First off the speakers are too close to the wall, decreasing soundstage depth. Second the close proximity of the speakers to each other diminishes soundstage width. Ideal placement is at least 6 feet apart - try doing that on your computer desk. Then you literally sit on top of the damn things cheating yourself of holographic imaging that floats beyond the speakers and into the room itself. "

If you'd set up the Monsoon correctly you'd see where your nice theories fall down. What they've done is create a localized imaging space that engineered to fit in a desktop environment. Now I can understand why you say that being a Klipsch fan - that line clearly fell on its *** in its attempt to do that - but other vendors have managed a considerably greater degree of success.

Either way, try as you will to say otherwise, far too many actual users have experienced the contrary and and thus have debunked your statements. You find them on 3DSS and Neoseekers and even Usenet - just do a search and you'll see what I mean. They're the ones who've experienced the Pro Media line and have discarded it because they DO want imaging and clarity, they DO want a detailed soundstage and a rich midrange and they DON'T want a front-row-center aprroach to sound.

Try as you will, you can't erase or debunk the testimony those people have put in print. You can of course choose to ignore it and that's your right but you can't make it go away. That will always put your comments in the perspective they merit. Thus you can say what you will here on this site where you are in the company of fellow Pro Media owners and that's OK, but of course when you stray out into the real world domain and do that, all I'll have to do is what I've always done: simply point folks to the contrary information, have them audition for themselves and expose the ersatz for what it is. I've found it most effective in shedding clear light on a given issue.

On that note, 'nuff said and I'm out of this thread.

------------------

"Faith manages."

jms

This message has been edited by Roj on 05-16-2002 at 10:33 AM

[TheEAR]

Good to see a good dirty fist fight in the LoudMedia section.

The Truth Warriors(Roj and Gluegun)are doing a fine job with their reality check.

Let me add someting here,since the question was PM 4.1 VS AltecLansing 641 VS Logitech Z560 VS Boston Acoustics 7800

I will answer the question the same way Gluegun did,since I did listen to all these systems!Yes siree and compared them

The Boston Acoustics 7800 is more refined then the Z560 or PM 4.1 by a good distance.And bests the Altec with relative ease.Midrange,again here all three cometitors are left in the back seat,and as for bass the Boston cube specs dont tell half the story.Power and definition to a good 35Hz with the 7800!

If I had to take just one of these four systems home it would be the Boston Acoustics 7800.With no hesitation

TheEAR(s) Now theears

[Gluegun]

Cool! Which was loudest in your opinion, the z560 or BA7800?

------------------

"Feh."

[OTL]

quote:

---

And you saw from my example with the RB-5s vs. the Tablettes that I'm spot on. Next...

---

If you don't see the flawed logic in pitting speaker A against speaker B at twice the price you're truly diluted. To then conclude that the design philosophy speaker A utilizes is inferior and all such products using a remotely similar approach are thusly inferior is blasphemy as best.

quote:

---

Of course you immediately waffled and said that I was going too upscale in a comparison with the Tablettes but I expected that - when confronted with evidence, some folks do have a tendency to run for cover.

---

Evidence. Evidence your thought process isn't a rational one.

quote:

---

Nooo, not quite. You see, I auditioned the original Klipschorns years ago and that's what formed my original opinion. They were up against a set of KEF 105s and a set of Maggies and they couldn't measure up.

---

I haven't heard Khorns so I'm not about to make assumptions. However has it ever occurred to you significant advances may have been made in the last five decades in regards to horns? Those Avantgardes are ready to obliterate your preconceived notions of what a horn is capable of. All you need to do is put aside this deep seeded personal vendetta for a moment and experience for yourself.

The "up front" perspective of Klipsch speakers is a conscious and intentional decision on their part. It is not a limitation of horns.

quote:

---

Now we get to the beginning of the waffling I mentioned above, namely the ProAc Tablette series. Heck, Polk does a better job when it comes to that.

---

Different, not better. But then again only an open minded individual could admit it.

quote:

---

Therein lies the tale - a department store. I could say that folks who base their opinions of a system on the butchered environment in a department store and then attempt to pontificate on that drawbacks of that line thereafter are at best foolish and at worst absurd or fraudulent but that would be resorting to your tactics.

---

You want to argue this to infinity no matter what anyone says. It's called denial.

quote:

---

First, placement matters and you obviously didn't do a good job. How can I say this? Other listeners (dvdvideo, Mr. ears, dvisic, Brad Estes, etc.) don't experience what you're climing to have heard. In fact, Audio-guru hears that same "one-noteyness" on the Klipsch 4.1s. When that many disparate people (I'm not even including myself in the mix) differ with you on all points, it's pretty obvious that either a) you did something wrong in the placement or

you're blowing smoke. Since you say you've heard them and the that forms the basis of your allegations, I must conclude a).

---

These people have never gone into detail so I'll call your bluff. There are others out there with similar findings as mine, all you have to do is look. I could have purchased everything in the store and auditioned at home and you stil wouldn't be satisfied. The systems were setup identical, and only the Monsoon's exhibited these traits. It's a fundamental problem with the high crossover, not anything on my (or the stores) part. Audio Guru isn't exactly in mirroring your image of the Klipsch 4.1's. He makes no illusions to how big a role placement plays with the sub, and neither does the level headed Mark Muschett. Thoroughly re-read Mark's PM 4.1 and Z560 review again, apparently it didn't all sink in.

quote:

---

To paint a given set of products as superior where they are average at best is misleading and spurious.

---

Now we've reverted to outright lies. I've voiced my preference of the PM 4.1's for DVD's and games but never lauded them as superior. I recall describing them as garbage for music.

quote:

---

If you'd set up the Monsoon correctly you'd see where your nice theories fall down. What they've done is create a localized imaging space that engineered to fit in a desktop environment.

---

Thank you, you just reaffirmed my stance that a truly transparent soundstage won't fit into a desktop environment.

quote:

---

Now I can understand why you say that being a Klipsch fan

---

Not a Klipsch fan, but an unbiased individual that can acknowledge a decent product when he hears one. I don't care what design approach a product entails as long as the end result is good sound.

quote:

---

Either way, try as you will to say otherwise, far too many actual users have experienced the contrary and and thus have debunked your statements.

---

Reality check: You're the lone person debunking my statements in their entirety. These juvenile message boards you frequent aren't exactly the place to find qualified and insightful people anyhow. I would have greatly preferred this discussion taken place on www.audioasylum.com or similar forum inhabited by experienced enthusiasts, and perhaps we could have received feedback from the men behind the equipment themselves.

quote:

---

Thus you can say what you will here on this site where you are in the company of fellow Pro Media owners and that's OK, but of course when you stray out into the real world domain and do that, all I'll have to do is what I've always done: simply point folks to the contrary information, have them audition for themselves and expose the ersatz for what it is. I've found it most effective in shedding clear light on a given issue.

---

Please, I'm not the one hiding behind kiddie BB's to brainwash or scare off the uninitiated with my brand of tainted rhetoric. I would've had this discussion take place on a grown up board if I had the choice. I have no brand to push or cut down. I have no "agenda" other than instilling some sense of open mindedness and defending a decent product against all out assault.

quote:

---

have them audition for themselves and expose the ersatz for what it is.

---

Couldn't agree more. Go in with an open book and form your own conclusions.

If you'd like to carry on such debates in the future lets take it to www.audioasylum.com where neither of us have formed alliances and we can have some educated replies. Regards.

This message has been edited by OTL on 05-17-2002 at 03:50 AM

[Gluegun]

OTL,

If you want Roj to read that post of yours, try taking the argument to 3dss.com.

He is willing to discuss this there.

------------------

"Feh."

[fs1]

Getting back to the Boston Acoustics BA7800: First off, I have NEVER heard that system, but I have some doubts as to the "consistency" of BA products. I have heard their HTIB setups, the $600 DT6000/DPS5.1 and the $1,000 DT7000. I wasn't impressed with their DT-series for both HT and music. The DT6000 and DT7000 have poor music soundstage imaging (reminds me of what I heard from the PM 2.1 and 4.1); its bass impact and volume for HT use is underwhelming, even with bass levels turned up (even on the 8" DT7000 sub).

Anyways, it may be that the Unity-based (or so people here say) BA7800 performs much better than the $1000 BA DT7000 or the lower-end DT6000.

[psyke]

i just bought another pair of Pro 2.1 recently, and i personally think that it's louder and have more bass than the pm 4.1

i was wondering what if i hook up 2 sets of Logitechs, would it be the loudest system of all? even the BA7800?

Since the Logi is the cheapest

[Gluegun]

Well, the 113 dB systems I know of are the z560 (they don't have a 2.1 system that loud), the PM5.1's, and the BA7800...

------------------

"Feh."

[Lil888]

Well I listened to the ProMedia 4.1s at Best Buy and they sounded really nice. I thought to myself...no way am i paying $300 for computer speakers. I looked around and found them on UBid.com for only $159 brand new from their warehouse. They had like 24 of them at the time.

[Btrigg]

I would have guessed that if you said "no way am I paying $300 for computer speakers" you also would have thought the promedias sound good....

[justin_tx_16]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Btrigg:

I would have guessed that if you said "no way am I paying $300 for computer speakers" you also would have thought the promedias sound good....

---

when did you start hating promedia speakers?

------------------

-justin

SoundWise Support

A technical help site created by me and my fellow Klipschers

I am an amateur, if it is professional;

ProMedia help you want email Amy or call her @ 1-888-554-5665 or for an RA# 800-554-7724 ext 5

Klipsch Home Audio help you want, email support@klipsch.com or call @ 1-800-KLIPSCH

RA# Fax Number=317-860-9140 / Parts Department Fax Number=317-860-9150s>