Originally Posted by Scott Simonian
I'm sure it's a new speaker but it's still a small conventional speaker with little drivers and dome tweeters. It will never live up to the capability of a proper cinema sized JBL Pro type system. Ever.
I'm open minded, so I'm curious, because I'm willing to believe that I might learn something if I take the time to understand the perspectives and opinions of others.
So, your position is that JBL Pro type speakers that are properly tuned to play reference level from 20 Hz to 20 kHz at reference level in a 2,000 - 3,000 cubic foot room will be more capable than another system comprised of speakers which have smaller drivers in the floor and overhead speakers but are still properly tuned to play reference level from 20 Hz to 20 kHz?
I've not been a big fan of horn speakers, but mainly because I did some extensive listening back in the 90's with many speaker brands, and the Klipsch were my least favorite of the bunch (also the only horn speakers of the bunch). Since that time, I've (perhaps unfairly) equated that undesirable sonic quality with horns.
By the way, what's the retail price of the JBL's? I'm seeing about $1,600 for one JBL 4722, is that about right? If so, I guess you're out of the realm of reality for this enthusiast. That said, the MK Sound S300's reportedly go for $3,500 each, so as long as I'm in this fantasy world where spending $20,000 on speakers...
I'd like to better understand where you're coming from. Is it the character of the sound coming from the compression driver/tweeter that you like vs. that of a dome tweeter?
Originally Posted by richmagnus
The new 300's are in a different league compared to the original 150's
From this review by Dave Vaughn in June 2014
, it definitely appears that the 300's are shooting much higher than the S-150's that came before it (which were $1,500 / pair). Those speakers were no slouch, as another writer for Sound & Vision wrote in a review of that system in 1997
However, it would seem that it's a matter of taking a system that is perhaps a 9.5/10 and taking it to 9.7/10. For some, that increase is more than worth any expense. For others, not so much. Is it possible that we're discussing miniscule advantages, and not "night and day" differences?
Originally Posted by Stoked21
I've always DESPISED horns. I think back to 1990s Klipsch like someone else said. I vowed to never buy a horn or listen to one again unless I was forced at gun point.
I've heard carp's JTR coax comp horns (though not with music). I've also heard another local guys JTR compression horns. I was warned going into it that we are not talking about the typical "yeuch" horns of the past (or the cheap ones we are expecting to hear). So I walked in prepared to hate them regardless of how they sounded.
We are talking about completely different things here. They sound absolutely amazing. So much so that I'm looking into switching to them....I wish we could have gotten around to some music but I already took up a lot of his time. I have no doubt they would sound just as awesome.
Get out there a bit buddy and try to find someone near you with a great hi-end pair. You will be surprised.
Originally Posted by Molon_Labe
the horse is dead. Everyone enjoy whatever speakers you have. No need to discuss it further in the Atmos thread. There are plenty of threads on people who have migrated to high-efficiency speakers vs traditional.
I agree that sound is subjective. Yeah, the JBL M2 (horn) is definitely known for it's poor fidelity industry wide
Most horns people have heard are the entry level Klipsch, which can be a harsh and fatiguing speaker to a lot of people. That stereotype is widely held and was my actual thoughts for many years after owning Klipsch RFs. It was my biggest fear when I bought the 4722s without being able to hear and demo them.
Last post for me on the topic, we can discuss in other threads. I want to avoid making any more folk's ignore lists.
So, now it seems that we've moved from the size of midrange drivers to the type of tweeters. So it's not the size of the midrange anymore?
I guess I'm stuck on the idea that as long as the system as a whole can reproduce the entire frequency range (near-)flat at reference levels without distortion, how they go about doing it is largely a matter of choice by the manufacturer and a preference on the characteristic of the high range (tweeter/horn) that is most pleasing to the buyer.
I'm fine with the fact that some people prefer horns and some prefer traditional domes, but preference is different than measurable performance, and that's what got this conversation started in the first place. I would welcome the chance to audition these fine horn-based speakers that you guys are happy with. Maybe it would make me a believer, too.
Perhaps this makes me guilty of pummeling a deceased equine, but the purposes of people here trying to determine whether they have to put an 8" speaker in/on their ceiling or suffer the consequences of unsatisfactory results are served by drawing a distinction between preference and performance.
For myself, I'll be quite happy if I can have a speaker that reaches down to 80 Hz (-3dB) and has a tweeter that matches well with my floor level speakers.