"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm sure the "many hybrid owners" are more orgasmic about their cars
than
about the second coming of Christ. After all they already bought them
and
are stuck with an cost-inefficient technology that will be superceded
shortly.


Plenty of folks give bad reviews to their new cars, Maxi. Just cruise
the Ford or GM forums.
As for Consumer Reports, every auto enthusiast considers them a joke,

I'm an auto enthusiast, and I don't, which clearly refutes that statement.

even worse than MotorTrend. They're fine if you need help buying a
washing machine. And CR thinks Bose is world class sound. Nuff said.

The Consumer Union does three things that no one else does: 1) they *buy*
the cars they test--they are not specially-prepared cars, provided by the
manufacturers, owners, or dealerships like ALL the other automotive press
uses. They just go buy an example of the car off someone's lot, and they
don't tell them what it's for. 2) they test the car over a period of months,
not just a one or two-day trial at some track and over a piece of roadway.
3) they take no advertising from manufacturers, thereby not committing
themselves to fluffing a road test in order to keep an advertiser happy.

Every other American road test group, whether automotive printed media or
on-line source, uses borrowed cars. And if they pan the car too severely,
they can kiss getting future vehicles for testing goodbye, not to mention
lost advertising revenues. The British magazines are somewhat less beholden
to the manufacturers, but they, too, use borrowed cars.

It's not surprising that lots of enthusiasts dislike Consumer Reports. If
you've paid $50K for a new Corvette, and CR has just published a road test
calling it a piece of plastic junk with more rattles than a wealthy baby,
you probably are going to take issue with them. It's like Practical Sailor
magazine--I hear far more hate-speak toward them than praise, but then they
call 'em the way they see 'em, too. Any time someone knocks your particular
boat, car, anchor, or whatever, you're going to be ****ed. And you're
probably going to do whatever you can to discredit that source.

Consumer Reports does one other thing: they do the most inclusive and
extensive owner surveys in the industry. Only Road & Track magazine does a
good job in this area, but not as extensive as CR.

Go ahead, Bubbles--shoot the messenger. But if the foo ****s . . .

As for Bose, they made some very fine speaker systems years ago. I have no
idea what they produce now, but I'm guessing you're prejudice against them
is long-standing and based on seriously out-dated information from CR. I've
never seen CR refer to Bose as "world-class sound," so I have to conclude
that this is something you heard from other prejudiced types. I'm under the
impression that you've probably never had an original thought in your life.

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.

Max

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.


RB
35s5
NY

"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

Answer this: why do more recording studios have B&Ws as their monitors
than
any other speaker made?


Bwahhahahahahaha! That was B&W's bit for years. Of course they GAVE out
tons of their old mini monitors and STILL more Yamaha monitors were in
studios. B&W is renowned as a bright speaker. They're good, but not
wonderful for sustained listening. Studio monitors make bad home
speakers and you don't even know why! Like I said, you totally buy into
ads while I audition speakers carefully...here is what I've owned....

B&W CDM Series (Bright, but otherwise good)
Carver Silver Ribbons (Amazing)
Heybrook H Series (Forgiving)
Revel Gem (No compromise for 4K)
Revel Q series (Good all around speaker)
Snell JII, JIII and JIV (Very forgiving on all material)
Canton Quinto 540 (Too bright, stunning bass speed)
Royd Coniston R (The least colored speaker ever)

And several more, and while the B&W's were good, they were far from the
best. B&W 801's are still a landmark speaker, but you don't own those,
now do you? Get back to me when you're done reading old issues of
Stereo Review. The comment about B&W studio monitors being some sort of
reason why they are good home speakers pretty much says it all. Maybe
you should use Rolland speakers at home as well???

And now...because you've made such a dope of yourself....I present you
with...BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!

RB
35s5
NY

They like that thumping
bass, that screaming treble, that blaring midrange.


You even got that wrong. Poor speakers (Such as Bose) have sucked out
midrange, sloppy booming bass and bright highs. Why not give us all a
treat and tell us WHICH B&W's you own?


RB
35s5
NY

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...
They like that thumping
bass, that screaming treble, that blaring midrange.


You even got that wrong. Poor speakers (Such as Bose) have sucked out
midrange, sloppy booming bass and bright highs. Why not give us all a
treat and tell us WHICH B&W's you own?

802Ds.

Was that a treat? If so, you are easily amused.

Max

802Ds.

Was that a treat? If so, you are easily amused.


Max, if you own the 11, 500 dollar pair of 802Ds (and have them in
every room in the house!) and also own the 7-10K in electronics
required to make them sound good, I owe you an apology. They are VERY
fine speakers and I heard a pair with Krell amps and CJ front end
recently.
Still, I find it hard to believe that you own these so perhaps you'll
post a pic of your setup...or I'll do it for you if you send. I'm very
interested in such exotics, which I'm unable to own until Thom's older.


RB
35s5
NY

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...
802Ds.

Was that a treat? If so, you are easily amused.


Max, if you own the 11, 500 dollar pair of 802Ds (and have them in
every room in the house!) and also own the 7-10K in electronics
required to make them sound good, I owe you an apology. They are VERY
fine speakers and I heard a pair with Krell amps and CJ front end
recently.
Still, I find it hard to believe that you own these so perhaps you'll
post a pic of your setup...or I'll do it for you if you send. I'm very
interested in such exotics, which I'm unable to own until Thom's older.

The 802s, acquired last year, are in the family room, on either side of the
fireplace. My electronics are older and need upgrading, but aren't bad.
Since I've acknowledged that and see no reason to begin another pointless
debate, we'll leave it at that, rather than elaborate on my electronics.

The other B&Ws aren't quite so "exotic". I have 701s in the living room and
a pair of DM601 S3s in the bedroom, which are fine for the type of listening
we do there. I also have a B&W sub in with the 802s, but can't recall the
model offhand. It is a 12" unit, chosen for musicality, not movie rumble.

What do you think of McIntosh gear?

Max