Is sound only in the mind?

[Akira]

An interesting topic came up in another post.
To quote a very renowned recording engineer Bruce Swedien, (Quincy Jones, Michael Jackson, Ella Fitzgerald)

"Don't EVER confuse a JBL 4310 with a JBL 4311. Very different! The 4311 is pure Dog-doo... In the photo on page 158 that is one of my JBL 4310's. I had at least three pairs of JBL 4310's at the time. I eventually wore them all out!!! Of course I had two on top of the console, at the time..."

In response BMWCCA said it best:

So, since the only visible change was ditching the raised baffle and changing the tweeter and, according to the history on this site, the baffle made no difference, why did the JBL engineers make a change for the worse (as many imply) when there was really no cost-savings involved? At the time, apparently, the changes were considered an improvement so who's right and who's wrong? How and why are the latter considered dog-doo by an acclaimed producer and the former considered "gold" even though few here have much respect for either. Is there really such a dichotomous difference in two such similar boxes? Or is it all in what one got used to, or just bad memory?

So is sound just in the mind. JBL are definitely a love em or hate em product. Is it any coincidence that the majority of the forum members are about the same age, meaning...getting up there.

[johnaec]

Is it any coincidence that the majority of the forum members are about the same age, meaning...getting up there.

I think what happened is that most of us first experienced JBL during its heyday, when the best of both home and pro speakers were generally JBL. We were all duly impressed, but couldn't acquire the speakers we wanted at the time, most likely for financial reasons. No we can, and here we are.

Younger people coming into their first sound "awareness" about 20 years later didn't have the same exposure to JBL, since by that time JBL was pushing "cookie-cutter" models out of places like Best Buy, and unlike those of us that had experienced earlier JBL's, these newcomers had no idea of what "quality" JBL's sounded like, and I imagine many of them just put audio on the low-priority list because of this. Hence - fewer younger people here...

John

[Mannermusic]

Roger that, John - interesting commentary. And don't forget that in the days of "Hi Fi" we were all listening to mainly Jazz and symphonic material. Serious, difficult stuff. That all changed in 1957 with Rock around the Clock, Bill Haley and the Comets. The entire focus moved from music to entertainment - loud, raunchy, whatever blows your dress up! People in strange costumes, explosives going off, guitar amps purposely driven to distortion. Maximum commercial appeal. Who needs Hi Fi for that? But, if you were born later, chances are you never suspected what happened. So it goes. Like Plato said in his, The Republic. Whoops, nobody digs that anymore either. Mike

[rj2077]

no it isnt... i spent some time in lo/mid FI, not knowing any better. i surrounded myself with items i thought were good. many on other sites would argue that those are good speakers, but compared to my 4343, L-250, 4430, there is no comparison, NONE.... now, i cant get rid of that stuff fast enough. because i am a blue collar worker, i have to do much saving and much overtime to raise the funds. but it is well worth it!! as far as comparing the speakers you talk about; i wouldnt know. there has to be a point where one really cant tell if one item is better than another. hell, i was running a skill saw all day, with no ear plugs. so after a while they all might sound the same...lol...

regards
by the way, by talking about my hobby, you would be surprised at how many people get interested in it....