or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Most Important Aspect of an Audio System
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Most Important Aspect of an Audio System - Page 8

post #211 of 280
Ntrain96 sure sounds a lot like ntrain42.....chooooooo chooooooo!
post #212 of 280
LOL, you guys crack me up, and having a good time with you all is why I keep coming back here and posting. Have a great night guys; I'm sure they'll be more fun to be had tomorrow.
post #213 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by N8DOGG View Post

Ntrain96 sure sounds a lot like ntrain42.....chooooooo chooooooo!

Exactly. He also sounds just like ntrain6943, whose delusional posts were most often replied to with the phrase "I think you don't know what you're talking about."

LMFAO!

Chris
post #214 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntrain96 View Post

Its alot closer to $5 bucks for a cabinet than it is to $50 without question, especially with what you dont pay for labor over there. Here is a nice lil link: http://www.parts-express.com/pe/show...number=302-700 $100 bucks a pair, RETAIL. WHat do you think parts xpress makes on this item? WHat do you think they buy at? I bet they buy at around $40-50 tops for the pair, and then take into account these are finished in gloss black paint, with magnetic grilles........and they are the "end retailer"........so how much does it cost Dayton to make or outsource them do you think so they can make a profit as well? So if Mark whoever was quoting $40-50 a pair, thats probably about right.........the actual mfg. of those cabinets was probably able to make each pair in the $5-10 range or less. Backs my point quite well.

Sounds great to me. I will take 100 sets and I will even pay you 100% mark up in other words $10 each. You have your first order.
Reply
Reply
post #215 of 280
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

Sounds great to me. I will take 100 sets and I will even pay you 100% mark up in other words $10 each. You have your first order. Now you too can be in the high profit speaker manufacturing business.

Put me down for another 100.
post #216 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by cschang View Post

ntrain...you still haven't answered my question about your Rythmik. Why did you buy it rather than make it yourself?

Funny part is, subs are so much easier to build than speakers.
Reply
Reply
post #217 of 280
^^^

true dat...
post #218 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccotenj View Post

most are also a bit more realistic about product costs, and respect the work that at least some speaker vendors do...

Yes, the cost of materials might be cheap but once you outsource to get them processed... it ain't simple math afterall. In the end after all these postings we still can't figure out the profit margin of a speaker company?
post #219 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

Says the guy who willingly sold voodoo and snake oil. Oh the irony!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ntrain96 View Post

THe irony is very much there.....Im just smart enough to stand on the correct(and profitable) side of it.

I've been looking over these posts over the last few pages, what the heck happened to the poll????

I wasn't going to say anything since I've been just making fun of the direction this thread took, but I have just one question concerning that answer ntrain gave to nuance.........

How is there a correct side to ripping people off?
-
-
-
-
post #220 of 280
Seems like ntrain's position only really makes sense for companies like Harmon that can afford incredible large quantity purchases of raw materials and rapidly assemble everything in house. Smaller speaker companies can get a discount on large purchases, but you cant expect them to build and stock hundreds of speakers and hope they continuously sell their luxury items.

Diy has to pay full retail for all items involved, and take the time to assemble. Thankfully there's a community in place to weed out the overpriced crap, and help people find quality components that are cheap.
post #221 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff4RFC View Post

How is there a correct side to ripping people off?

I don't see how accepting money from willing happy clients = ripping off. Isn't that the very basic core of doing business?
post #222 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veda View Post

I don't see how accepting money from willing happy clients = ripping off. Isn't that the very basic core of doing business?

I don't know, I guess I was raised differently. From the beginning, I've worked many different retail jobs from, restaurants to hardware stores to plant nurseries to supplement sales to selling motorcycles.

I needed a job just like the next guy, but if I didn't believe in the product I was selling, I wouldn't take the job.

Now maybe I read into it wrong here, but it appears that a guy is knowingly selling a product to people that doesn't work as advertised hence the terms "voodoo" and "snake oil".

Regardless if the customer is willing and happy, if you sell something to someone that is pure crap, I see that as a rip off.

The very basic core of doing business, IMO, should have a foundation of integrity.
post #223 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff4RFC View Post

The very basic core of doing business, IMO, should have a foundation of integrity.

What if that integrity turns out to be false, like the Iraq war. Made a lot of money off it (Halliburton), but turned out to be for a wrong reason/excuse, but nobody cares right? It's like "Oh I got duped, oh well...". The fault for paying too much for anything is with the buyer. There's simply no excuse for ignorance but then again if he/she got too much money to care about such trivial things. Oh well, all's good...

Regarding voodoo, if they believe it works then it's not voodoo even if we believe it otherwise. Regardless of whether we're talking biz or not, a crap to one person is gold to another. Who are we to say they should believe or buy what we deem is right? Are we in a jihad or crusade?
post #224 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veda View Post

What if that integrity turns out to be false,

Are you sure you want to go with that? Here's integrity;

Integrity From Wikipedia,

Integrity is a concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes. In ethics, integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions. Integrity can be regarded as the opposite of hypocrisy,[1] in that it regards internal consistency as a virtue, and suggests that parties holding apparently conflicting values should account for the discrepancy or alter their beliefs.

The word "integrity" stems from the Latin adjective integer (whole, complete).[2] In this context, integrity is the inner sense of "wholeness" deriving from qualities such as honesty and consistency of character. As such, one may judge that others "have integrity" to the extent that they act according to the values, beliefs and principles they claim to hold.

A value system's abstraction depth and range of applicable interaction may also function as significant factors in identifying integrity due to their congruence or lack of congruence with observation. A value system may evolve over time[3] while retaining integrity if those who espouse the values account for and resolve inconsistencies


Bottom line is, integrity is honesty, you're either honest or dishonest, you have integrity or you don't.

If you want to say, "What if integrity turns out to be false", then I'll say, what if there's no solid ground to stand on?

Either way, it's not reality.
post #225 of 280
I'm with Geoff. While I am fully supportive of capitalism and the free market, I dislike companies that knowingly cheat and scam, and I will not purchase from them; I'll even shout from the hill tops that they are crooks. In the end, though, consumers need to be smart enough to not purchase garbage. It's their money, and they can do with it what they please.
post #226 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

I'm with Geoff. While I am fully supportive of capitalism and the free market, I dislike companies that knowingly cheat and scam, and I will not purchase from them; I'll even shout from the hill tops that they are crooks. In the end, though, consumers need to be smart enough to not purchase garbage. It's their money, and they can do with it what they please.

I find it more of a gray area personally. Given the plethora of sources refuting the "magic" of high end cables, one ultimately has to be willfully ignorant in order to buy high dollar wire. I don't really think its wrong to cater to such a market, any more than I think it immoral that a "devout" atheist would sell high dollar rosaries to Catholics.
post #227 of 280
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMK! View Post

In any case, I think it is interesting that speakers lead the way. In a music only two channel system that makes sense. But when you need to get sound right over a large listening area with multiple seats/rows, the room and electronics (i.e. EQ) play a bigger part.

I wonder if I had been more specific about a multi-channel Home Theater system, would the results would be the same?

I hate to quote myself and distract you guys from your fascinating discussions but I did pose this question a few pages back ...
post #228 of 280
All three play a bigger part, but I doubt it necessitates a change in methodology - speakers, room, equipment is still my vote.

How about the third scenario - a hybrid home environment in which both music and HT are equally important? This is where I was before I started rebuilding. In this case, at least for me, speakers jumps way out ahead of the other two, as I've yet to hear speakers marketed for home theater that allows for accurate, transparent music enjoyment.
post #229 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMK! View Post

In any case, I think it is interesting that speakers lead the way. In a music only two channel system that makes sense. But when you need to get sound right over a large listening area with multiple seats/rows, the room and electronics (i.e. EQ) play a bigger part.

I wonder if I had been more specific about a multi-channel Home Theater system, would the results would be the same?

Doesn't make much difference to me. While you won't get any argument from me on the importance of the room or the electronics, the point remains that the speakers are the voice of the system. A great room and electronics won't turn a pair of NHT SuperZeros into JTR Triple 12s. On the other hand a pair of well engineered speakers appropriate for ones usage put in a room that's not a complete acoustical nightmare with a modicum of thought put into placement combined with modest but effective electronics should still sound pretty good.
post #230 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMK! View Post

I hate to quote myself and distract you guys from your fascinating discussions but I did pose this question a few pages back ...

to get back on topic...

nope, it wouldn't make any difference for me...
post #231 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMK! View Post

I hate to quote myself and distract you guys from your fascinating discussions but I did pose this question a few pages back ...

Sorry - here's my answer: no, it wouldn't change anything. I again say that the speakers are the most important, closely followed by the room (very closely, like within 1-5%). Why would focusing on HT change one's view? Perhaps if you added subwoofers into the equation some of the speaker folks might jump ship, but as is the speakers are still the most important. The room can be fixed/transformed using PEQ and bass traps, absorption and diffusion. Most furnished rooms will be acceptable enough to allow a good speaker to perform well. However, if you start with a crap speaker nothing you can do to the room will transform it into a great speaker.
post #232 of 280
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nethawk View Post

All three play a bigger part, but I doubt it necessitates a change in methodology - speakers, room, equipment is still my vote.

How about the third scenario - a hybrid home environment in which both music and HT are equally important? This is where I was before I started rebuilding. In this case, at least for me, speakers jumps way out ahead of the other two, as I've yet to hear speakers marketed for home theater that allows for accurate, transparent music enjoyment.

Typing on my pda so please excuse errors. I do a lot of concert listening in my system and consider it excellent @ M/C music.

A dedicated 2 channel setup is a different animal. Much easier to get great sound, imaging at one position. Although still factors, room treatments and eq are much easier but the sq/detail of the loudspeakers is critical.
post #233 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMK! View Post

A dedicated 2 channel setup is a different animal. Much easier to get great sound, imaging at one position. Although still factors, room treatments and eq are much easier but the sq/detail of the loudspeakers is critical.

You should try something equiped with Trinnov. It has been a wonderful addition to my room, especially for HT and multichannel music.
post #234 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by cschang View Post

You should try something equiped with Trinnov. It has been a wonderful addition to my room, especially for HT and multichannel music.

I've been following the Trinnov tech. Awesome stuff. The ability to acoustically shift speaker position really separates it from Audyssey. I haven't seen enough to judge its EQ ability, but by all accounts its outstanding and it certainly has solid results in its pro applications.

From what I've seen it could be the superior choice to Audyssey particularly for multichannel setups since they are more likely to have challenges to speaker placement compared with stereo setups.
post #235 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post

I've been following the Trinnov tech. Awesome stuff. The ability to acoustically shift speaker position really separates it from Audyssey. I haven't seen enough to judge its EQ ability, but by all accounts its outstanding and it certainly has solid results in its pro applications.

From what I've seen it could be the superior choice to Audyssey particularly for multichannel setups since they are more likely to have challenges to speaker placement compared with stereo setups.

Doc....read this thread...in particular, the more current pages:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1179978

The Sherwood R972 has its quirks/issues, mostly surrounding HDMI handshaking, but if those issues do not come up in your setup....it is a steal on the current closeout pricing that can be found! There is nothing else with Trinnov until you hit at least $5K.
post #236 of 280
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cschang View Post

You should try something equiped with Trinnov. It has been a wonderful addition to my room, especially for HT and multichannel music.

Interesting but I just purchased the Integra 80.3 with XT32. Very happy with this version of Audyssey EQ. If it ain't broke ...
post #237 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by cschang View Post

The Sherwood R972 has its quirks/issues, mostly surrounding HDMI handshaking, but if those issues do not come up in your setup....it is a steal on the current closeout pricing that can be found! There is nothing else with Trinnov until you hit at least $5K.

Curtis,

I'm glad to hear you are enjoying the R-972 and Trinnov. I was so tempted to buy the R-972 but I really am a bit hesitant due to the quirks/issues that might pop up.

Bill
post #238 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMK! View Post

Interesting but I just purchased the Integra 80.3 with XT32. Very happy with this version of Audyssey EQ. If it ain't broke ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Mac View Post

I'm glad to hear you are enjoying the R-972 and Trinnov. I was so tempted to buy the R-972 but I really am a bit hesitant due to the quirks/issues that might pop up.

Guys, completely understood.

If it wasn't so relatively inexpensive, I would not have done it either, but with the 30 day trial, and full warranty, it was an easy gamble. To top it off, none of the "gotchas" have really gotten me.

....and Bill...I have been looking at your SACD collection. I just got my SACD and DVD-A capabilities back...so happy!
post #239 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMK! View Post


Interesting but I just purchased the Integra 80.3 with XT32. Very happy with this version of Audyssey EQ. If it ain't broke ...

Nice choice!
post #240 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by cschang View Post

Doc....read this thread...in particular, the more current pages:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1179978

The Sherwood R972 has its quirks/issues, mostly surrounding HDMI handshaking, but if those issues do not come up in your setup....it is a steal on the current closeout pricing that can be found! There is nothing else with Trinnov until you hit at least $5K.

Yep, been following that thread. Too bad about the bugs, but hopefully they all get resolved. I'm confident any Trinnov issues will be addressed given their involvement in the thread, but the HDMI handshake issues are troublesome. Not in the market for an AVR currently(focus is on my DIY build), but hopefully there are more Trinnov options in the future to choose from when upgradeitis hits again .
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Most Important Aspect of an Audio System