tmare --
Sorry if I rambled on a bit in above reply to you. I was trying to come about how the sonic "paradigm" or overall preference of review magazines/sites (especially Stereophile) seems not to favor the sound represented by speakers such as the bigger ATC models or JBL’s - let alone horns in general.
Reviewers may (secretly) like them, but you don’t really see it evidenced through their chosen review items (i.e.: the larger models by ATC, JBL or the likes are not chosen at all). A show report may give you a hint (I seem to remember Mr. Fremer of Stereophile expressing fondness of the D66000 Everest’s at some show report), but it’s a rarity, and usually never followed by an actual review.
Wouldn’t it have been something; a favorable review of the JBL Everest’s in Stereophile? I mean, them being pictured on the front cover would’ve required a larger format ;) This model, be it either the DD65-67000, is JBL’s all-out assault on the über-highend category - why are they not represented in the bigger magazines against the top models from the typical range of the reviewers darling-brands? ATC’s equivalent to the Everest’s would be the SCM300’s with two 15" bass drivers per side; fully active they’re actually cheaper than the (passive) Everest’s, but either the ATC’s or JBL’s are easily competitively priced compared to the competition and their biggest speaker models.
I one were to be perhaps slightly supersticious you would think that the ultimate, or perhaps rather the imprinting closer to a live, natural acoustic sound must not come too cheaply or too readily going by the will of the established hi-fi industry, if it’s even desired. And yet I find named models like the ones from ATC and JBL (and others) to do exactly that; I find they are closer to live, natural sound, and though they’re not cheap they are no more expensive than the competition - actually they are typically cheaper.
"Education" is a dangerous word here. Sometimes you must un-learn to get educated on certain matters. In this case I’d say your initial impressions in actual favor of the JBL’s and ATC’s, sans the views of a review magazine like Stereophile, are the ones to go for. You bought the B&W 800D’s based on what Stereophile think of them, and you went on to favor other speakers that are not backed by reviewers. What’s the conflict here? None, really. Go by your ears; not what’s recommended by Stereophile.
EDIT: going by your initial reply above it seems your understanding of "education" is actually getting to learn what you favor in sound reproduction, irrespective of review opinion, which is good. The conflict in you is yet a remnant of doubt over why what you favor in sound reproduction is not mirrored by, in this case, Stereophile. The education, as I see it, lies in your ability to ultimately distance yourself from external opinion, and go by what your ears and gut-feeling tells you.
Sorry if I rambled on a bit in above reply to you. I was trying to come about how the sonic "paradigm" or overall preference of review magazines/sites (especially Stereophile) seems not to favor the sound represented by speakers such as the bigger ATC models or JBL’s - let alone horns in general.
Reviewers may (secretly) like them, but you don’t really see it evidenced through their chosen review items (i.e.: the larger models by ATC, JBL or the likes are not chosen at all). A show report may give you a hint (I seem to remember Mr. Fremer of Stereophile expressing fondness of the D66000 Everest’s at some show report), but it’s a rarity, and usually never followed by an actual review.
Wouldn’t it have been something; a favorable review of the JBL Everest’s in Stereophile? I mean, them being pictured on the front cover would’ve required a larger format ;) This model, be it either the DD65-67000, is JBL’s all-out assault on the über-highend category - why are they not represented in the bigger magazines against the top models from the typical range of the reviewers darling-brands? ATC’s equivalent to the Everest’s would be the SCM300’s with two 15" bass drivers per side; fully active they’re actually cheaper than the (passive) Everest’s, but either the ATC’s or JBL’s are easily competitively priced compared to the competition and their biggest speaker models.
I one were to be perhaps slightly supersticious you would think that the ultimate, or perhaps rather the imprinting closer to a live, natural acoustic sound must not come too cheaply or too readily going by the will of the established hi-fi industry, if it’s even desired. And yet I find named models like the ones from ATC and JBL (and others) to do exactly that; I find they are closer to live, natural sound, and though they’re not cheap they are no more expensive than the competition - actually they are typically cheaper.
I wish I can confidently choose my next speakers, but I need more education...
"Education" is a dangerous word here. Sometimes you must un-learn to get educated on certain matters. In this case I’d say your initial impressions in actual favor of the JBL’s and ATC’s, sans the views of a review magazine like Stereophile, are the ones to go for. You bought the B&W 800D’s based on what Stereophile think of them, and you went on to favor other speakers that are not backed by reviewers. What’s the conflict here? None, really. Go by your ears; not what’s recommended by Stereophile.
EDIT: going by your initial reply above it seems your understanding of "education" is actually getting to learn what you favor in sound reproduction, irrespective of review opinion, which is good. The conflict in you is yet a remnant of doubt over why what you favor in sound reproduction is not mirrored by, in this case, Stereophile. The education, as I see it, lies in your ability to ultimately distance yourself from external opinion, and go by what your ears and gut-feeling tells you.