Hartsfield vs. Khorns?

[Seadog]

A very nice pair of Hartsfields sit on display in an audio store in Madison, WI. I was there last summer and tried to get the owner to play them, but I was told that they are for show only.

Maybe since they don't sell horn speakers in the store, playing them would be bad for business!

[TBrennan]

Seadog---Yeah, probably so. How are you going to sell the "latest" technology if some old dinosour made in 1960 sounds better?

[Parrot]

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

On 5/3/2005 5:36:43 PM Seadog wrote:

A very nice pair of Hartsfields sit on display in an audio store in Madison, WI. I was there last summer and tried to get the owner to play them, but I was told that they are for show only.

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

That really tells you all you need to know about the big bruisers, for sure. They look a lot better than they sound.

[Duke Spinner]

Perhaps ....

they Sound Better than anything in the store

[fini]

Paul,

Is that one of your hounds looking askance at the Hartsfield?

[mike stehr]

I dunno, but that one little kid has his gun pointed right at that one dude's dick. I'd be nervous.

Those kids look so happy.....

[fini]

Most of them have their guns pointed at him. He's the Klipsch salesman.

[jacksonbart]

"Hartsfield vs. Khorn...that feud has been going on for YEARS..."

LSHISMP Thanks, well there is another pair of pants shot to hell.

[Edgewound]

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

On 5/2/2005 5:23:14 PM Royster wrote:

Nice looking speaker. But at that price a complete joke IMHO.

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

I fail to get the joke.

A PAIR of Hartsfields would cost you $1,986.00 US, in 1962

$1,986.00 US 1962 dollars are worth $12,619.65 US 2005 dollars

$20,000.00 US 1962 dollars are worth $127,086.09 US 2005 dollars

The difference in price, in today's dollar, measured against the value of yesterday's (1962) dollar equivalent is ($7,380.35 US 2005 dollars) today, = $1,161.47 US 1962 US dollars

In other words $7,380.35 US 2005 dollars = only $1,161.47 US 1962 dollars,the price increase since they were first built

Not bad after 43 years

Still a bargain, not even considering that the drivers used in Klipsch don't even come close to the quality and precision of JBL, and the cost to manufacture them

I prefer the SOUND of Klipsch, but the build quality doesn't hold a candle to vintage JBL, that's why they are so coveted by collectors

[Edgewound]

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

On 5/3/2005 6:19:15 PM Parrot wrote:

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

On 5/3/2005 5:36:43 PM Seadog wrote:

A very nice pair of Hartsfields sit on display in an audio store in Madison, WI. I was there last summer and tried to get the owner to play them, but I was told that they are for show only.

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

That really tells you all you need to know about the big bruisers, for sure. They look a lot better than they sound.

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

Hartsfields can be compared to "blue chip" investments. I can understand the reluctance of an owner to give demos to every curious window shopper, they're very rare.

"They look a lot better than they sound"

Please elaborate, and describe your listening experiences and impressions, with Hartsfields, or any other JBL product from that era

Must be time for you to tune up the old hearing aid

[markus111]

I just recently heard a pair of the reproductions. My modified khorns sound quite a bit better. It really wasn't a fair comparison though, because the room the hartsfields were in was way too small. I had a feeling that they should (could) have sounded a lot better than they did. The bass was truly excellent, but the mids and highs were not so great. Part of the problem was that the guy demoing them nsisted on playing them so loud that the treble cut through you like a knife. I have a feeling that in the right setting these could sound really good. They still cost $20k though, and for half that you could put together a pair of Jubilees.

[Clipped and Shorn]

I recently auditioned those reference masters I mentioned in the other thread through a vintage Hartsfield thru MacIntosh tubes. It was nice, but my recollection was that fini's Khorns sounded sweeter.

C&S

[Edgewound]

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

On 5/4/2005 1:43:51 PM Clipped and Shorn wrote:

I recently auditioned those reference masters I mentioned in the other thread through a vintage Hartsfield thru MacIntosh tubes. It was nice, but my recollection was that fini's Khorns sounded sweeter.

C&S

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

Clipped and Shorn,

Don't know for sure if your post was in reponse to my invitation to share experiences, but thanks anyway.

It was directed at Parrot, who seems to be the resident JBL expert and critic.

[TBrennan]

If you heard CAR "Hartsfields" using TAD drivers (and the guy usually uses TAD) then you weren't hearing real Hartsfields.

[fini]

Yeah, they probably weren't the real McCoy...

[formica]

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

On 5/4/2005 1:52:28 PM Edgewound wrote:

Don't know for sure if your post was in reponse to my invitation to share experiences, but thanks anyway.

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

Personally, I would be interested in hearing anyone's experiences with the Hartsfields. How did they compare to the Khorn... as the components used were top notch for the time. Also how do the originals compare with the repro with TAD drivers... (which are significantly more $ than the K55 and K77...).

From the technical drawings, I don't see the bass bin having any "significant" advantages over the Khorn... but I didn't look into the math. The Jubeliee should be able to have a higher x-over than it.

I'm figuring that the improvements were mostly in the HF range... ?

Rob

[Parrot]

As Tommy points out, this discussion is getting muddled because some of us are talking about original Hartsfields and some of us are talking about the new version that is being marketed at 20 grand. I've never heard originals.

I can't give a definitive judgment of the new Hartsfields without having evaluated them in a known environment. All I can do is say definitely that at the two audio shows that I've heard them at, they sounded poor. Muddy, overbearing, unmusical, unrealistic, a novelty act. Since some people like them, I can either figure they've heard them in better rooms or else they have atrocious taste.

At the AudioKarma Fest, which was just a few weeks ago, I would venture to say that among the people I talked to, that room had the worst sound of the show. On the other hand, at the LimaFest, where the Hartsfields were demonstrated under far worse conditions, there were a number of people who were giddy at the sight of them. I thought they were out of their ever-loving minds and had no business being at an audio show with that lousy of judgment, but that's the way it is sometimes. There were people there who thought Welborne's room sounded good, too; go figure. There's just no accounting for taste.

My theory is that a good number of people have bookshelf and audiophile-type speakers at home, never have heard good bass, and so when they hear something that assaults them at these shows, they think that it is really something, even though it sounds nothing like real bass. It's impressive to these people in a demo because it's so unlike what they have at home.

[Clipped and Shorn]

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

On 5/4/2005 2:08:12 PM fini wrote:

Yeah, they probably weren't the real McCoy...

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

I think they were the real Hatsfields, although the only name I could see on this speaker was "Signature". I copied down the number on the Jim Lansing grey thingy in back which was the only thing I could actually see. I have momentarily misplaced that scrap of paper. It may have been an early version, but it looked exactly like the photos and it came from an original owner in LA. The guy who had this also just latched onto a mint JBL Paragon. The Hatsfield sounded better than the Paragon in his space.

C&S

[Edgewound]

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

On 5/4/2005 3:57:53 PM Clipped and Shorn wrote:

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

On 5/4/2005 2:08:12 PM fini wrote:

Yeah, they probably weren't the real McCoy...

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

I think they were the real Hatsfields, although the only name I could see on this speaker was "Signature". I copied down the number on the Jim Lansing grey thingy in back which was the only thing I could actually see. I have momentarily misplaced that scrap of paper. It may have been an early version, but it looked exactly like the photos and it came from an original owner in LA. The guy who had this also just latched onto a mint JBL Paragon. The Hatsfield sounded better than the Paragon in his space.

C&S

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

JBL Hartsfield, also known as: D30085

[Edgewound]

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

On 5/4/2005 3:47:15 PM Parrot wrote:

I can't give a definitive judgment of the new Hartsfields without having evaluated them in a known environment. All I can do is say definitely that at the two audio shows that I've heard them at, they sounded poor. Muddy, overbearing, unmusical, unrealistic, a novelty act. Since some people like them, I can either figure they've heard them in better rooms or else they have atrocious taste.

At the AudioKarma Fest, which was just a few weeks ago, I would venture to say that among the people I talked to, that room had the worst sound of the show. On the other hand, at the LimaFest, where the Hartsfields were demonstrated under far worse conditions, there were a number of people who were giddy at the sight of them. I thought they were out of their ever-loving minds and had no business being at an audio show with that lousy of judgment, but that's the way it is sometimes. There were people there who thought Welborne's room sounded good, too; go figure. There's just no accounting for taste.

My theory is that a good number of people have bookshelf and audiophile-type speakers at home, never have heard good bass, and so when they hear something that assaults them at these shows, they think that it is really something, even though it sounds nothing like real bass. It's impressive to these people in a demo because it's so unlike what they have at home.

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

Your contradictions and baseless comments make you sound like some pompous wine or food critic. If I understand what you are saying, you can criticize people who like the Hartsfield sound, while in the same breath, you admit you've never heard Hartsfields in a "known environment"? You also seem to pass judgement based on conversations you had with people who where there, to bolster your own limited perspective.

What a worthless post.