Lou Reed on Lou Reed played on Bose, Infinity, Klipsch, B&..

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

July 2004 issue of MONEY has an evaluation of Klipsch RB-75 @ $1200,
MartinLogan Clarity @ $2700, B&W 704 @ $2200, Infinity Primus 360 @ $660,
and Bose Acoustimass 5 Series III @ $500 speakers by Lou Reed listening to
his own (and other) music.

He loved the Klipsch, liked the MartinLogan (except they didn't work at high
volume), thought the B&W over-priced average speakers, dismissed the
Infinity's as "so so" but with little bass, and hated the Bose (no midrange
and he'd pay money NOT to hear them).

Final comment on the Klipsch was "Those Klipsch are f___ing unbelievable;
these things can do anything. For someone on a budget, it's not even a
contest." He especially liked their ability to play REAL LOUD without
break-up.

I wonder if Bose will sue him and Money.

- GRL

"It's good to want things."

Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, humorist, chemist,
Visual Basic programmer)

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

John A. Weeks III wrote:
> In article <aEOzc.28783$Hg2.25341@attbi_s04>, GRL
> <GLitwinski@CHARTERMI.COM> wrote:
>
>
>>July 2004 issue of MONEY has an evaluation of Klipsch RB-75 @ $1200,
>>MartinLogan Clarity @ $2700, B&W 704 @ $2200, Infinity Primus 360 @ $660,
>>and Bose Acoustimass 5 Series III @ $500 speakers by Lou Reed listening to
>>his own (and other) music.
>>
>>He loved the Klipsch, liked the MartinLogan (except they didn't work at high
>>volume), thought the B&W over-priced average speakers, dismissed the
>>Infinity's as "so so" but with little bass, and hated the Bose (no midrange
>>and he'd pay money NOT to hear them).
>>
>>Final comment on the Klipsch was "Those Klipsch are f___ing unbelievable;
>>these things can do anything. For someone on a budget, it's not even a
>>contest." He especially liked their ability to play REAL LOUD without
>>break-up.
>>
>>I wonder if Bose will sue him and Money.
>
>
> For what, telling the truth?
>
> I have a set of the Klipsch reference speakers for my home theatre
> system. While I don't prefer them for normal 2.0 music, they really
> sound great for 6.1 stuff.
>
> -john-
>

A lawyer I know told me that the truth of a public hurtful statement is
no bar to a successful libel suit. The only question is the intent to
utter something hurtful. Even if it's true!

-Sean

Dude, is everybody in Italy as ignorant as you? Let us dissect how an incredibly well respected musician, song writer and producer who spent a lifetime evaluating not only the sound of his own instrument but that of every instrument on a record he produced in a studio with better sounding sound equipment than you will ever own. Hmmmm, now how can a guy like this possibly be qualified to evaluate speakers...(that was dripping with sarcasm, btw.) He is obviously better qualified than some over the hill chump with over the hill ears on some obscure forum. He is also probably better qualified than some critic for Stereophile mag who is more concerned that a negative review means he will not get a discount on those Nautilus speakers or worse, no more advertising money from B&W. You really think you are better qualified to judge the sound of a guitar than Lou f*cking Reed? I think not Gino. I can only assume you own a pair of the B&W's. Sucks to be you.

I bought a pair of the RB-75's and tend to agree with Lou. The RB-75 smoked a pair of Martin-Logan electrostatics. Seriously, man. After the crap you wrote you must know, like, well, 0 real musicians and no the boys in the Twisted Sister cover band down the street your sister is sleeping with do not count. Lou Reed is a legend, you are an ass face that has listened too much sh*tty Italo-disco on your sh*tty over-priced average sounding B&W's. No, you did not read the article, linguine breath. Reed actually seemed genuinely disappointed as he said that B&W make some of his favorite speakers. He simply said that next to the Klipsch loudspeakers the 705's sounded average, which is absolutely true. The excuse of the B&W rep was the same old blah blah BS about amp matching and cables. BTW, enjoy your B&W's. Maybe you can trade them with someone owning a pair of Klipsch's

this is some extreme thread resurrection, i am sure the guy is really going to read something sfour years too late on a website he is not a member of.

I have to disagree about the Klipsch RB-75 and the lack of detail. They are incredibly dynamic speakers... no argument... but their dynamic ability also allows them to convey a level of detail that other loudspeakers with lower sensitivity at this price pint cannot touch, and more expensive speakers cannot match unless driven by over the top amplification. This may have been why the 705's fared so poorly with Lou Reed. Not everyone is lucky enough to have that much to spend on amplification though. That is the beauty of Klipsch. You buy a pair of RB-81's (which I have also own) and a mid-fi amp from Arcam, NAD or Cambridge with 30 watts per channel and you have a very good sounding rig. Buy two 80 Watt per channel amps, try a little horizontal stereo biamplification and now you have your speakers by the balls, with those leading you to sonic bliss.

The lack of imaging with the RB-75 is also nonsense (IMHO) if the speakers are set up properly. Off axis... yeah, a different story, as a horn is obviously directional. I give you that. I like to sit in my sweet spot though (I did not spend this much cash for electronic eye candy), and let me tell you that with eyes closed and foot tapping the sound stage is spooky good. I spent the time to set up the speakers and it paid off. Even with the Klipsch RB-81 this was evident. Some would no doubt claim they are forward sounding, but I find that is only true based on how the music was produced. They seem to convey the sense of space between the recording equipment and whatever being recorded very well. Most of the time when I hear people say speakers convey the depth of the music I feel they are mistaking depth with distance. Speakers that make you feel like you are in the sitting well back from the performance are not conveying "depth", unless that of course is where the microphones were located.

I would make the point that a dynamic speaker is also by definition detailed. A speaker that can effortlessly convey the difference between the softest and loudest passages in a piece of music is conveying a very important detail. It was one that even more expensive speakers struggle with even when properly amplified. This is simply less of an issue with a loud speaker with very high sensitivity. The part about the speaker playing loudly cleanly is also very true, but the Klipsch speakers I have heard play clearly and cleanly at ANY volume. I have had speakers from Energy, B&W, AR and JBL and all of them having been a pale shade of the Klipsch at the low late night volumes. The B&W speakers were not as guilty of this as some of the others.

Let me finish by saying this much. More than in any other Audio segment (except for maybe turn table cartridges, tube manufacturers and interconnects) loud speakers are a totally subjective pursuit capable of turning a civil discussion ugly in a hurry. You stick with what sounds good to YOU. I was just completely offended by the pizza prince in the previous post implying that all musicians are half-deaf metal heads. It someone four years to call him the ass that he is.

Ok... just one more question. If a musician is not good judge of the quality of music being reproduced from a chain of audio equpment, than who is? An investment banker spending his not so hard earned bonus? A mag reviewer worried about antagonizing the source of their advertising money? I think using musicians to review audio gear is a stroke of freakin' genius and would love to see more of it.

Arguing over which speakers are "better" is a flawed battle at best. The only applicable person to judge is the person buying them.

I personally prefer the bright punch and bass of my JBL's played loudly (not the crap found at Best Buy), while others may prefer the richness of Polk, Boston, etc.