SVS Expands Full-Range Speaker Lineup
- Thread starter Towen7
- Start date
I think I'll start caring about speakers again when my much loved and much used Paradigm setup finally wears out. I figure I've got another five to eight years before that happens. In the meantime, I'm all about the media server project. I never thought I'd say this, but I'm pretty much done bothering with lossless rips. Way too much hassle and I honestly can't tell the difference between a 256K AAC, a 320K MP3, a high bit-rate VBR MP3 and a Lossless file 99% of the time anyway. I'm also streaming more and more of my video content from services like Netflix, Hulu Plus, Amazon Prime and Vudu. The number of movies where I truly care about the modicum of superiority provided by Blu-Ray is really not that big. I guess I've been seduced by the power of convenient, pervasive content.
Maybe I need a speaker upgrade after all...
Maybe I need a speaker upgrade after all...
D
Deleted member 133
Guest
Boy were those the days!
At $2k per pair the Towers seem to fit competitively into that price range. Don't know that I'd go so far as to claim that they'd beat stuff costing way more - because there's really no need to pay way more. It would be neat to see them in a blind shoot-out the GoldenEar Technology's Triton Three (same price) and Atlantic Technology's AT-1 (more expensive but same general ballpark) to name the first two that come to mind.
Overall the SVS Towers look to be very well designed and manufactured. I personally love the anti-WAF approach!
I hope to hear them in someone's home some day.
Jeff
ps. Speaking of good old days...I can't help it but to remark that for $1k (and some effort) you can buy a pair of "old" Koss CM/1030 speakers and have them professionally fully-refurbished to like-new condition. Of course it won't be the same. Better? Worse? I doubt by very much either way. But size and spec-wise they are kissing cousins. And in going through that one-to-one comparison of claimed specs I was struck by how similar they both are - but with one exception: the CM/1030's 8dB of extra sensitivity. I bring this comparison up, in part, because I remain incredibly impressed by how an American company could, in 1977, design and manufacture (in America), a speaker that does not need to be shy in the company of today's offerings.
At $2k per pair the Towers seem to fit competitively into that price range. Don't know that I'd go so far as to claim that they'd beat stuff costing way more - because there's really no need to pay way more. It would be neat to see them in a blind shoot-out the GoldenEar Technology's Triton Three (same price) and Atlantic Technology's AT-1 (more expensive but same general ballpark) to name the first two that come to mind.
Overall the SVS Towers look to be very well designed and manufactured. I personally love the anti-WAF approach!
I hope to hear them in someone's home some day.
Jeff
ps. Speaking of good old days...I can't help it but to remark that for $1k (and some effort) you can buy a pair of "old" Koss CM/1030 speakers and have them professionally fully-refurbished to like-new condition. Of course it won't be the same. Better? Worse? I doubt by very much either way. But size and spec-wise they are kissing cousins. And in going through that one-to-one comparison of claimed specs I was struck by how similar they both are - but with one exception: the CM/1030's 8dB of extra sensitivity. I bring this comparison up, in part, because I remain incredibly impressed by how an American company could, in 1977, design and manufacture (in America), a speaker that does not need to be shy in the company of today's offerings.
How the mighty have fallen! We used to love SVS for their value and performance, but now we expect them to look good too?
If these speakers sound as good as more attractive models which sell for twice the price, that is a good thing. Gorgeous cabinetry costs a fortune, even in mass production, and it also has a high blemish rate which can become stunningly costly to the seller. I am not disappointed in the appearance - as long as they sound good.
Anyone heard them, yet?
If these speakers sound as good as more attractive models which sell for twice the price, that is a good thing. Gorgeous cabinetry costs a fortune, even in mass production, and it also has a high blemish rate which can become stunningly costly to the seller. I am not disappointed in the appearance - as long as they sound good.
Anyone heard them, yet?
yromj
Well-Known Member
Aren't you all assuming that when I said they remind me of Def Techs that was a slam? I merely stated my observation of their looks.
I'll admit that my enthusiasm around SVS has waned due to their more mass market appeal approach but I wouldn't mind giving these a listen. Am I panting w/ anticipation to do so? No. But then again I'm not panting w/ anticipation for any speaker right now.
John
I'll admit that my enthusiasm around SVS has waned due to their more mass market appeal approach but I wouldn't mind giving these a listen. Am I panting w/ anticipation to do so? No. But then again I'm not panting w/ anticipation for any speaker right now.
John
Huey said:
Towen7 said:
Huey said:
Flint said:
A lot of quotes, I know, bit I have to agree with Huey and John. They do look like a best buy speaker. The first thing I thought of was Mirage (nothing against any Mirage owners out there). They just look boring as hell. Look at some of Dynaudio's 'basic' MTM enclosure designs (like the Focals). How come they don't look as boring?
I disagree. The Dynaudio Focus enclosures are a complete bore. The Focal Chorus speakers we seemed to like a year ago have a tiny bit of silver around the tweeter but with the grills off are basic boxes otherwise. All I'm saying is that a speaker enclosure is a wood box with a hole in it. Best Buy sells wood boxes with holes in them so I guess you can say almost every speaker looks like a Best Buy speaker.
In a dedicated HT or listening room where you turn all the lights off, speakers can be f'n ugly or beautiful, but who cares about the appearance if you can't see 'em? In a living room, however, where the lights are rarely all off (at night) and which is used for other purposes, which would you rather have - a speaker with a boring/unobtrusive appearance or a speaker that draws attention to itself.
Which would you rather have, a speaker with mediocre performance in a beautiful cabinet, or a "boring" cabinet with great sound? All factors to be considered along with budget & WAF. Compromises most of us have to make in the process of selecting our toys. Whatever floats your boat, girls.
:twocents-mytwocents:
Which would you rather have, a speaker with mediocre performance in a beautiful cabinet, or a "boring" cabinet with great sound? All factors to be considered along with budget & WAF. Compromises most of us have to make in the process of selecting our toys. Whatever floats your boat, girls.
:twocents-mytwocents:
Flint said:
I didn't think that, nor do I think that about your new ones either.
Just to clarify, I'm not going to throw out a great sounding speaker just because of how it looks. The SVSs might sound amazing for all I know, but I just am not wowed by their appearances.
I share an opinion or two with each of you. I agree that the first (and perhaps only) consideration is that a speaker sound good. But you don't always have your eyes closed so why not make it attractive too? That said, I expected SVS Ultra speakers to look...um....better.
I think the '08 crash crippled their design plans for this speaker. That, coupled with WAF and the seemingly growing preference for smaller, slimmer, less noticeable speakers, forced their hand and this was the best they could come up with with those considerations. Had they brought their Ultra line of speakers to market in '06 or '07, I think it would've been superior in both looks and performance.
I think the '08 crash crippled their design plans for this speaker. That, coupled with WAF and the seemingly growing preference for smaller, slimmer, less noticeable speakers, forced their hand and this was the best they could come up with with those considerations. Had they brought their Ultra line of speakers to market in '06 or '07, I think it would've been superior in both looks and performance.
I don't even classify speakers as "best buy" speakers etc... They either SOUND & LOOK good or they don't (according to my tastes). All I care about is that they meet my expectations in all categories and if they don't, I move on. I don't particularly care for the SVS Ultra line, but Best Buy wasn't the first thing I thought of either. That being said, I don't like the looks of the SVSs enough to consider them if I were currently in the market.
yromj
Well-Known Member
I just actually looked at the specs for the towers. The specs show that the dual mid-range use a "Unique tapered midrange array miniimizes off-axis lobing and enhances radiated sound power into listening space." Off-axis in this case would be in the vertical plane. I guess I'm reading this w/ colored glasses but I see this as the kind of quasi-tech speak that typical companies use. This is the kind of thing we didn't see from SVS "before". That was one of the reasons I for one really liked and supported the company.
John
John