"paul packer" <packer@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:4354523a.816076@news.iprimus.com.au
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 19:42:19 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:


Except your statements above substantiate my claims
regarding your poor thinking skills.

Old news. There's one of several reasons why Weil's
business career topped out at waiting on tables in a
cheap bar. Another reason - his history of use of drugs.

Hmmm...that's pretty snotty even for you, Arnie.

Paul, and what do you call it when you jump into other
people's discussions like this? Oh, I get it - it not snot
when you do it!

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 19:42:19 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:


Except your statements above substantiate my claims
regarding your poor thinking skills.

Old news. There's one of several reasons why Weil's
business career topped out at waiting on tables in a
cheap bar. Another reason - his history of use of drugs.

Hmmm...that's pretty snotty even for you, Arnie.

I guess now I'll have to go back and see what sparked this most recent
snotstorm. He's taken a page from the trotsky handbook, which I find
pretty darned funny.

"dave weil" <dweil2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1un4l1dlm8iru2qnt5rghne6rbd0koj4k8@4ax.com...
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 17:51:53 GMT, "nyob123@peoplepc.com"
NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote:

Until I learned more about what a woofer should do, I was absolutely in
love
with them and I still have fond memories of how much impact they seemed to
have.

Shows EXACTLY how meaningless "objectivism" can be sometimes.

Who said I was an objectivist at that time?

How can
a speaker "seemingly" have impact? That's sort of like being "almost"
pregnant.

Like no subjectivist has ever used terms like bass slam or impact before.

It's amazing how psychoacoustics work. It even works AGAINST those who
tout white papers, specs and the like.

Exactly the point, thanks for conceding it. Because people have biases and
emotions that come into play when doing sighted evaluations, removing them,
so that all they use is their ears to evaluate equipment is a very good
idea, hence DBT.

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 10:09:56 -0500, dave weil
dweil2@bellsouth.net> wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 14:30:11 GMT, dizzy
dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 09:14:38 -0500, dave weil
dweil2@bellsouth.net> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 17:51:53 GMT,
"nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote:

Until I learned more about what a woofer should do, I
was absolutely in love with them and I still have
fond memories of how much impact they seemed to have.

Shows EXACTLY how meaningless "objectivism" can be
sometimes.

Wrong.

How can
a speaker "seemingly" have impact? That's sort of like
being "almost" pregnant.

That's really poor thinking, on your part.

It's amazing how psychoacoustics work. It even works
AGAINST those who tout white papers, specs and the
like.

Wrong again.

You're wrong on all accounts (two can play THAT game).

Except your statements above substantiate my claims
regarding your poor thinking skills.

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 17:51:53 GMT, "nyob123@peoplepc.com"
NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote:

Until I learned more about what a woofer should do, I was absolutely in
love
with them and I still have fond memories of how much impact they seemed to
have.

Shows EXACTLY how meaningless "objectivism" can be sometimes.

a speaker "seemingly" have impact? That's sort of like being "almost"
pregnant.

Like no subjectivist has ever used terms like bass slam or impact before.

It's amazing how psychoacoustics work. It even works AGAINST those who
tout white papers, specs and the like.

I have a pair of JBL L-65's , a 20 year old 3-way
speaker.

The Jubal (L-65) was last manufactured on or about 1978.

Boy, these were nice speakers when I first bought
them !!

Indeed. The cabinet is oiled walnut with a nice smoked

The woofers are 10 inch designs, and both need reconing.
The cost , with associated shipping, will be in the $450
range for the pair.

This speaker employs a 12" woofer, 5" mid-range

I am wondering if my investment would be in the right direction.
I know that speaker technology has advanced a lot in 20 years,
and that dollar for dollar, I would assume that you get more with
current purchases.

Speaker are incrementally better today. Your speakers

How much more than the $450 would I have to spend to
get something as good or better in today's market, and
what recommendation of speakers would you
suggest ?

"good or better"... please define?

"James" wrote

I have a pair of JBL L-65's , a 20 year old 3-way
speaker.

The Jubal (L-65) was last manufactured on or about 1978.
MSRP $462


Boy, these were nice speakers when I first bought
them !!

Indeed. The cabinet is oiled walnut with a nice smoked
glass top.


The woofers are 10 inch designs, and both need reconing.
The cost , with associated shipping, will be in the $450
range for the pair.

This speaker employs a 12" woofer, 5" mid-range
and either 1.4" tweeter (1978) or Comp. Driver
Horn (<1976).

I am wondering if my investment would be in the right direction.
I know that speaker technology has advanced a lot in 20 years,
and that dollar for dollar, I would assume that you get more with
current purchases.

Speaker are incrementally better today. Your speakers
were never designed to handle digital media. In addition
the material sciences involved in speaker building has
greatly benefitted from computerization which wasn’t
available in the 70's. Today we can build better
mouse traps but they often lack the aesthetics of the
Jubal, for example.

How much more than the $450 would I have to spend to
get something as good or better in today's market, and
what recommendation of speakers would you
suggest ?

"good or better"... please define?

Much would depend on your intended application? IMO
$450 might be better spent on new (modern) drivers and
crossovers, there are many source vendors. I recently
did this with a pair of 70's vintage Altec speakers with ok
(fair) results.

In article <wru3f.4222$1X5.662@fe05.lga>, "Powell" <nospam@noquacking.com
wrote:

"James" wrote

I have a pair of JBL L-65's , a 20 year old 3-way
speaker.

The Jubal (L-65) was last manufactured on or about 1978.
MSRP $462


Boy, these were nice speakers when I first bought
them !!

Indeed. The cabinet is oiled walnut with a nice smoked
glass top.


The woofers are 10 inch designs, and both need reconing.
The cost , with associated shipping, will be in the $450
range for the pair.

This speaker employs a 12" woofer, 5" mid-range
and either 1.4" tweeter (1978) or Comp. Driver
Horn (<1976).


Wow, I didn't know they veered from the slot horn.
I thought the whole idea of this speaker was to use the new slot horn.


I am wondering if my investment would be in the right direction.
I know that speaker technology has advanced a lot in 20 years,
and that dollar for dollar, I would assume that you get more with
current purchases.

Speaker are incrementally better today. Your speakers
were never designed to handle digital media. In addition
the material sciences involved in speaker building has
greatly benefitted from computerization which wasn’t
available in the 70's. Today we can build better
mouse traps but they often lack the aesthetics of the
Jubal, for example.

Digital media? I remember digital ready! But its hard to find woofers with
square
wire.



How much more than the $450 would I have to spend to
get something as good or better in today's market, and
what recommendation of speakers would you
suggest ?

The jubal played very loud. I'm sure they can handle "digital" media.
They were a bit bright, I thought at the time, so I didn't spend the $800
or so to buy a set. I was really impressed by the look and advertising sheet,
but not the sound.

greg


"good or better"... please define?

Much would depend on your intended application? IMO
$450 might be better spent on new (modern) drivers and
crossovers, there are many source vendors. I recently
did this with a pair of 70's vintage Altec speakers with ok
(fair) results.

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 14:30:11 GMT, dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 09:14:38 -0500, dave weil <dweil2@bellsouth.net
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 17:51:53 GMT, "nyob123@peoplepc.com"
NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote:

Until I learned more about what a woofer should do, I was absolutely in love
with them and I still have fond memories of how much impact they seemed to
have.

Shows EXACTLY how meaningless "objectivism" can be sometimes.

Wrong.

How can
a speaker "seemingly" have impact? That's sort of like being "almost"
pregnant.

That's really poor thinking, on your part.

It's amazing how psychoacoustics work. It even works AGAINST those who
tout white papers, specs and the like.

Wrong again.

You're wrong on all accounts (two can play THAT game).

And please do something about the comma abuse.

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 23:28:13 GMT, "nyob123@peoplepc.com"
NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote:


"dave weil" <dweil2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1un4l1dlm8iru2qnt5rghne6rbd0koj4k8@4ax.com...
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 17:51:53 GMT, "nyob123@peoplepc.com"
NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote:

Until I learned more about what a woofer should do, I was absolutely in
love
with them and I still have fond memories of how much impact they seemed
to
have.

Shows EXACTLY how meaningless "objectivism" can be sometimes.

Who said I was an objectivist at that time?

But you are one now. The word "seemed" is in reference to how you feel
NOW.

How can
a speaker "seemingly" have impact? That's sort of like being "almost"
pregnant.

Like no subjectivist has ever used terms like bass slam or impact before.

I don't get your point. My point is that it either has impact or it
doesn't. If it "seems" to have impact, how can it NOT have impact?

Mostly they were very loud, which makes them sound like they have more punch

It's amazing how psychoacoustics work. It even works AGAINST those who
tout white papers, specs and the like.

Exactly the point, thanks for conceding it. Because people have biases
and
emotions that come into play when doing sighted evaluations, removing
them,
so that all they use is their ears to evaluate equipment is a very good
idea, hence DBT.

So, you now think that dbts are useful for components that are
obviously different, like speakers, do you?

substantiate your statements, have you?

On speakers? No. I've enver had 2 sets of speakers that sounded simialr

"dave weil" <dweil2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:2h39l1p2lbo5dg8s98730gi8c1e6c19a8c@4ax.com...
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 23:28:13 GMT, "nyob123@peoplepc.com"
NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote:


"dave weil" <dweil2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1un4l1dlm8iru2qnt5rghne6rbd0koj4k8@4ax.com...
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 17:51:53 GMT, "nyob123@peoplepc.com"
NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote:

Until I learned more about what a woofer should do, I was absolutely in
love
with them and I still have fond memories of how much impact they seemed
to
have.

Shows EXACTLY how meaningless "objectivism" can be sometimes.

Who said I was an objectivist at that time?

But you are one now. The word "seemed" is in reference to how you feel
NOW.

How can
a speaker "seemingly" have impact? That's sort of like being "almost"
pregnant.

Like no subjectivist has ever used terms like bass slam or impact before.

I don't get your point. My point is that it either has impact or it
doesn't. If it "seems" to have impact, how can it NOT have impact?

Mostly they were very loud, which makes them sound like they have more punch
than they really do.

It's amazing how psychoacoustics work. It even works AGAINST those who
tout white papers, specs and the like.

Exactly the point, thanks for conceding it. Because people have biases
and
emotions that come into play when doing sighted evaluations, removing
them,
so that all they use is their ears to evaluate equipment is a very good
idea, hence DBT.

So, you now think that dbts are useful for components that are
obviously different, like speakers, do you?

No, nor did I imply such.

You've done dbts to
substantiate your statements, have you?

On speakers? No. I've enver had 2 sets of speakers that sounded simialr
enough to bother.
\

Null Stunde wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:39:37 GMT, "Margaret von B."
margaretvonbremovethis@satx.rr.com> wrote:


would be my choices if portability is not a big deal. The Koss Porta
Pro is one of the best values in audio today and supremely portable.
Sounds great



Porta Pro is very good but I prefer Sennheiser PX10.

Don't you mean The Senn PX100?

CD