"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

"Maxprop" wrote in message
.net...

putting perfume on a pig doesn't make it something else.

Don't knock it, till you've tried it.

Scotty

"Mys Terry" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 May 2006 16:25:21 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:


"Mys Terry" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 11 May 2006 12:39:09 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:


"Mys Terry" wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 11 May 2006 02:46:51 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:

Tools are SAE, but our system of numbers is referred to as British.
SAE
tools are numbered in the British fashion.

Yes, our tools are numbered in the "british fashion" of fractions, but
the
Brits
are expressing metric sizes using fractions, while we are using the
inch.

The Brits abandoned their various systems in favor of the metric system
decades ago.

If you
needed to work on a 1954 BSA Golden Flash, you would need a set of
WHITWORTH
wrenches and sockets. Neither a metric or American SAE set would fit
properly.

Thankfully I don't own a BSA from that vintage. However I did have an
early
60s conglomerate (built from a variety of parts from various years) BSA
Gold
Star flattracker, but that was all metric.

Max



Based on your own statements, you VERY obviously did not own a BSA.

Based on your comment, I'd say you are up to you old trick of speaking
without a clue again.

Max


BSA never built an engine using anything other than Whitworth
fasteners, and a very few "mongrel fasteners of their own
specification which do not conform to ANY known standard between the
1930's through the end of the 60's.

That means you are either lying about owning a BSA, or you never did
any of your own work on it and so didn't realize that the fasteners
were Whitworth, not metric.

If they were, as you claim, Whitworth, that didn't alter the fact that my
metric and SAE tools fit them acceptably well. Hell yes, I did my own work.
A poor flattracker could barely afford lunch, let alone a technician to work
on his ride.

Max

"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

A poor flattracker could barely afford lunch, let alone a technician to work
on his ride.


You were not a flat tracker, either.



I sure hope Maxi can prove he owns 802's because he's taking a mighty
drubbing these last few days...almost Sloco style in fact!!!!

WahBAM!

RB
35s5
NY

"Maxprop" wrote in message
k.net...

If they were, as you claim, Whitworth, that didn't alter
the fact that my
metric and SAE tools fit them acceptably well. Hell yes,
I did my own work.
A poor flattracker could barely afford lunch, let alone a
technician to work
on his ride.


I, along with many of my friends have owned / ridden /
wrenched on many a Triumph / BSA / Norton and none of us
ever had ''Whitworth tools''.

BB is an idiot!

Scotty

yeah, those Whitworth Phillips head screws used to get
rounded pretty quick.


Yep, nothing but P-heads holding those Triumph / BSA / Norton's!!!! A
miracle of engineering!

How much MORE BUSTED can Scotty and Maxi get??? Let's find out!


RB
35s5
NY