Dbld: My Father was not only a "happy owner" of Legacies, he had been led to believe that what he was listening to was also very accurate and well designed. It wasn't until he was shown otherwise, both in terms of visible design flaws and the sonic byproducts that resulted, that he was forced to change his opinion. Prior to that, he had been living in "ignorant bliss", simply because he didn't know any better or been exposed to better designs. Did this make him dumb? No. It only made him misled and gullible. Now that he knows the difference, he's not only happier with his system, but also less likely to be taken advantage of again anytime in the near future.
I think that most of this was due to being lulled into a state of self-confidence due to all of the poorly conducted "professional" reviews. The same goes for several other Legacy owners that i've modified speakers for that shared similar results. They could not believe how much better their speakers could sound using the same basic components even though "Legacies are some of the very best" prior to these modifications. As such, i had to ask them "if these were some of the best, how come there was SOOO much room for improvement in SOOO many different areas?". The only logical conclusion is that the original product wasn't nearly as good as they had been led to believe.
As such, i'm simply trying to help educate people BEFORE they make such a costly mistake and / or help them to understand why they are experiencing certain situations with said product if they've already bought it. If someone is happy with what they have and aren't interested in improving both the accuracy and the enjoyment of their system, so be it. They know what they have, they know what they like and my comments won't alter their opinion one iota. Then again, i would have to assume that MOST people that are reading this and other audio forums on a regular basis ARE interested in both learning and bettering their systems, otherwise they wouldn't be here.
As far as Legacy products go, consider me "done" on the subject. As you've pointed out, there's a multitude of reference material in the archives both here and at AA for those interested in finding out such info. The only reason that i responded to this thread again was that i had saw that Chad had responded and was making an apples to oranges comparison of two very different, yet somewhat similar products. As such, i wanted to point out that comparisons of products is only fair when the comparisons are conducted in a fair manner.
What he was doing would be equivalent to putting a 50 year old Cassius Clay in the ring with Mike Tyson in his prime. Obviously, the results are somewhat predictable even though one was a FAR more skilled and well-rounded performer than the other, but you would never know it because that performer was also well past the point of prime operation. This is why Component A beats Component B hands down, why Component B beats Component C hands down, yet Component C beats Component A. The bottom line is unequal comparisons with less than accurate judging or criteria. Sean
>
