"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
ups.com...
I have B&W speakers in every room that has a sound system. There are
none
finer at any price, but the old Bose 901s I used to own were certainly
within the 95th percentile compared with my B&Ws.


Wow...I read everything you wrote up to this point and was about to
respond until I came to the hilarious comments about Bose and B&W.
Maxi there are plenty of finer speakers than your B&Ws. In fact, even
if you have 801's in every room, there are plenty that are better from
Martin Logan, Revel and of course Snell. I just sold my B&W CDM 1
center channel (a 900 dollar speaker) and it was good, but hardly the
best. My Revel speakers did everything better. Likewise my rear channel
B&W LM-1s, also sold off. Good gear from B&W (mated to Rotel amp and
preamp), but tippy highs require a more laid back preamp section. Yet
B&W uses Rotel for their listening tests!
As for Bose, even their top of the line 901s were a joke for false
imaging and Bose has always employed cheap drivers combined with unique
cabinets to fool less educated listeners...folks like you. Go listen to
a pair of Revel Ultima Gem's and then tell me what you think of your
B&Ws.
I get the feeling, as with BMW, that you're a fellow who buys into
advertising hook, line and sinker.

Bubbles, you're obviously little more than a regurgitation of other people's
opinions. You read something in Audiophile and it becomes gospel. Then you
listen to someone's highly colored speakers and decide, "oh yeah, those
really are the best." And then you go blow cash, believing you've reached
Nirvana.

Answer this: why do more recording studios have B&Ws as their monitors than
any other speaker made? Hint: they reproduce sound accurately, without
color, and without gimmicks. Those with no concept of what makes a great
loudspeaker generally don't care much for B&Ws. They like that thumping
bass, that screaming treble, that blaring midrange. Of course the original
performance didn't have all those components, but what the hell . . .

Max