wolfshead's Hartsfield

[SEAWOLF97]

. Seawolf spills more money from his pocket than you make in a month.

run out of meds ??? ....

[BMWCCA]

...and a number of publications focusing on a BMW's only.

I understand. I was the editor of one...

How many 10 or 12 cylinder cars has been reviewed in Consumers Report ?

Fringe cars. Never met a 12-cylinder BMW I'd want to try to keep operational for any length of time, or even one that was worth it. I wrote a review of the E60 M5 (V-10) after driving it at Lime Rock Park. Pretty amazing for a 4-door sedan, but pricey, temperamental, and now discontinued. The turbo V8 is apparently the future for the M5. The V12 is used only in the 760 and the Rolls Royce, not really volume products and neither performs better than the simple V8 in the M3 or the 550i sedan. In fact, the 6-cylinder 135i is quicker than most of those 0-60 if you believe the magazines and not the pecking-order-influenced stats that BMW quotes.

I believe Wofie professed to own one of those bloated 12-cylinder 850i's that never could figure out if it was a Thunderbird or a castrated Porsche 928. Only the six-speed-manual model or the M-tuned Csi were worth a second look a few years after introduction. The rest were all style and little function. Sort of like a Hartsfield? Probably looks nice in the garage at the retirement home. I'd rather drive my 2.3L 2002 with its Korman Stage-IV engine with dual Weber 45s. Enhanced but fun. I was even thinking of asking BMW if they'd re-finish it with walnut veneer...

[Harvey Gerst]

Anybody else notice he's often actually quoting Don? Quote: In 1959, there was a significant redesign of the bass horn in the Hartsfield. The stated purpose was to simplify the horn path to result in a smoother response. However, it was likely that the greater motivation was monetary since the redesign resulted in a simplified construction that significantly reduced manufacturing costs.
Anybody know where Don got the info for this page?

http://www.audioheritage.org/html/pr...hartsfield.htm

je

Please note the boldfaced words in the above quote.

The "stated purpose" is what's known as a fact, or at least "an official statement issued by the company", while the words "was likely" are simply speculation on the part of the writer.

[JBL 4645]

70 something or not, you understand exactly what you say, and you are not the LAST word on the subject, even IF you do own two Hartsfield speakers.

Scotty
So far we've only seen one lousy picture for an excuse close up. What about a wide shot of the room. Or least standing next to it for that pose.

Most of us here are very capable of taking more than one lousy picture even with a cheap camera like mine that looks like an SLR image compared to his.

[JBL 4645]

Please, SPARE us from the continual oversize graphic spamming off the topic ... its just annoying, ok?

That is not oversize it’s the smallest one I can find of "the duke".

[Fred Sanford]

Please note the boldfaced words in the above quote.

The "stated purpose" is what's known as a fact, or at least "an official statement issued by the company", while the words "was likely" are simply speculation on the part of the writer.

Absolutely understood- it just seems that some phrases from Don's article have been repeated verbatim by Wolfshead, I was wondering if the source for both might be the same old magazine interview.

To me, if a design change brings improvements in performance, and increases in ease of assembly + efficiency, with a by-product of a reduction in manufacturing costs, that pretty much sums up into effective engineering. :dont-know

je

[Sam Cogley]

Absolutely understood- it just seems that some phrases from Don's article have been repeated verbatim by Wolfshead, I was wondering if the source for both might be the same old magazine interview.

To me, if a design change brings improvements in performance, and increases in ease of assembly + efficiency, with a by-product of a reduction in manufacturing costs, that pretty much sums up into effective engineering. :dont-know

je

11 pages and this is by far the most logical, insightful and informative post. Thanks for finally injecting some rationality into the sea of bickering.

[wolfshead]

Absolutely understood- it just seems that some phrases from Don's article have been repeated verbatim by Wolfshead, I was wondering if the source for both might be the same old magazine interview.

To me, if a design change brings improvements in performance, and increases in ease of assembly + efficiency, with a by-product of a reduction in manufacturing costs, that pretty much sums up into effective engineering. :dont-know

je

Like it or not cost is a major factor in any business ! Otherwise there would not be high end and low end products.
Why doesn't most men wear John Lobb shoes or Richard Green shoes ?
Cost ! John Lobb and Richard Green shoes are the finest shoes for men manufactured.

Rolls Royce is the finest luxury car in the world. Patek Philippe is the finest watch. Brioni and Kiton are the finest suits off the rack manufactured.
My point is there are cost reasons why most men don't buy these products.

I am sure JBL wished to make fine high end speakers to compete with other high end speaker companies in the audio industry.
Cost was a factor. The Hartsfield was the most expensive speaker at the time when introduced. Was there a market ? especially with stereo.
Was there a way in which the manufactoring cost could be reduced if not than the cost would have to be passed on to the consumer. With large speakers in decline what was Lansing to do ?

Reduce the cost or discontinue the Hartsfield. Lansing tried reducing manufacturing cost , no success. Even with a reduction in manufacturing cost the speaker could not be saved. Cost increased.

The Hartsfield whent the same route as Concert Grands , Churchills , Patricians, Imperials , etc. etc, To expensive to produce and to large for stereo. Few homes could either afford or was willing to except a pair of monster speakers in their living rooms.

Next sell the idea that smaller was better. It worked ! After all rock is better than classical, Elvis is better than Sinatra and a Timex keeps better
time than a Rolex and they all cost less to produce.

Does design change always bring improvement or in many cases reduce
cost ?

[wolfshead]

I understand. I was the editor of one...


Fringe cars. Never met a 12-cylinder BMW I'd want to try to keep operational for any length of time, or even one that was worth it. I wrote a review of the E60 M5 (V-10) after driving it at Lime Rock Park. Pretty amazing for a 4-door sedan, but pricey, temperamental, and now discontinued. The turbo V8 is apparently the future for the M5. The V12 is used only in the 760 and the Rolls Royce, not really volume products and neither performs better than the simple V8 in the M3 or the 550i sedan. In fact, the 6-cylinder 135i is quicker than most of those 0-60 if you believe the magazines and not the pecking-order-influenced stats that BMW quotes.

I believe Wofie professed to own one of those bloated 12-cylinder 850i's that never could figure out if it was a Thunderbird or a castrated Porsche 928. Only the six-speed-manual model or the M-tuned Csi were worth a second look a few years after introduction. The rest were all style and little function. Sort of like a Hartsfield? Probably looks nice in the garage at the retirement home. I'd rather drive my 2.3L 2002 with its Korman Stage-IV engine with dual Weber 45s. Enhanced but fun. I was even thinking of asking BMW if they'd re-finish it with walnut veneer...

BMW stopped producing the V12 coupes because of decling sales.
Mercedes dropped their V12 coupes for the same reasons. The Porsche
928 coupe was also discontinued. Reasons the 1990's was the recession decade. Cars costing in excess of $90,000 was no longer selling.
The V12 BMW coupe and the V12 Mercedes coupe both sold for $100,000
or more in recession years.

The big V12 coupes are image cars ! One would be a fool to compare a
V12 coupe with a 2002 ! or any other BMW car , different market.
Like the Hartsfields the V12's are not for everyone. Expensive to buy and
operate.

I own a 1994 BMW 850 csi. Gets 8-15 mpg ! Upkeep very expensive as in
any high end German car. No different than a Rolex or Brioni suit in upkeep.
I will repeat V12 coupes and Hartsfields are not for everyone !
As for as retirement homes many of the cars there are in better condition than some of the cars parked in many driveways and newer!!!

[wolfshead]

Scotty
So far we've only seen one lousy picture for an excuse close up. What about a wide shot of the room. Or least standing next to it for that pose.

Most of us here are very capable of taking more than one lousy picture even with a cheap camera like mine that looks like an SLR image compared to his.

You want to see more travel ! Come to the states , there will be an audio meeting in south St. Louis March 20th. I will be there and if any one wishes to visit my home and see my system , they are welcome.You to.
Otherwise that is all you will see !!

I have visited your island on several occasions. London is one of my favorite cities. A very good friend of mine is English , still a citizen of Great Britain. An auto engineer , worked with Jaguar before retirement. Knew
Sir Lyons.
Look forward to meeting you.

[Harvey Gerst]

I am sure JBL wished to make fine high end speakers to compete with other high end speaker companies in the audio industry. Cost was a factor. The Hartsfield was the most expensive speaker at the time when introduced. Was there a market ? especially with stereo. Was there a way in which the manufactoring cost could be reduced; if not, than the cost would have to be passed on to the consumer. With large speakers in decline, what was Lansing to do ?

Reduce the cost or discontinue the Hartsfield. Lansing tried reducing manufacturing cost , no success. Even with a reduction in manufacturing cost the speaker could not be saved. Cost increased.

The Hartsfield went the same route as Concert Grands , Churchills , Patricians, Imperials , etc. etc, Too expensive to produce and to large for stereo. Few homes could either afford or was willing to accept a pair of monster speakers in their living rooms.

Next sell the idea that smaller was better. It worked !

Except your time line is skewed; the Hartsfield was redesigned during the "mono" era - on Fletcher Drive, not on Casitas Ave. And when "stereo" came in, yeah, we went way smaller - with the Paragon!! And of course, that was super easy to build.

[edgewound]

Except your time line is skewed; the Hartsfield was redesigned during the "mono" era - on Fletcher Drive, not on Casitas Ave. And when "stereo" came in, yeah, we went way smaller - with the Paragon!! And of course, that was super easy to build.

Keepin' it real, Harvey.

This thread, like a fine JBL, has been very revealing.

[Sam Cogley]

Except your time line is skewed; the Hartsfield was redesigned during the "mono" era - on Fletcher Drive, not on Casitas Ave. And when "stereo" came in, yeah, we went way smaller - with the Paragon!! And of course, that was super easy to build.

Wasn't the Paragon intended to be a center channel unit between two Hartsfields?

[Audiobeer]

You're not serious are you?

[Harvey Gerst]

Wasn't the Paragon intended to be a center channel unit between two Hartsfields?

I think that was Col. Ranger's suggestion, but it was never really pursued after we heard the Paragon prototype.