# What's wrong with this picture?



## Richsul (Apr 17, 2016)

A $250,000.00 set of speakers. Could you make do it better for less? What I see is ridiculous. 










--Dick Sullivan


----------



## Tonto (Jun 30, 2007)

You've heard the saying, "What separates the men from the boys is the price of their toys!" 

From the looks of things, I doubt it matters to this guy what they cost. It is a beautiful set up! Anybody know what those amps are?


----------



## theJman (Mar 3, 2012)

MBL's are statement pieces, in the same vein as a Bugatti Veyron is. For someone looking at those speakers - or the Veyron, for that matter - price isn't a consideration. Not everything falls into the "best bang for the buck!" category thankfully (not that I could afford them, of course).


----------



## FargateOne (Mar 3, 2015)

Tonto said:


> You've heard the saying, "What separates the men from the boys is the price of their toys!"
> 
> From the looks of things, I doubt it matters to this guy what they cost. It is a beautiful set up! Anybody know what those amps are?


I think they are MBL 

http://www.mbl.de/monostereo-power-amplifier-mbl-9008-a/?lang=en


----------



## theJman (Mar 3, 2012)

Tonto said:


> You've heard the saying, "What separates the men from the boys is the price of their toys!"
> 
> From the looks of things, I doubt it matters to this guy what they cost. It is a beautiful set up! Anybody know what those amps are?


Those are MBL amps as well.


----------



## Richsul (Apr 17, 2016)

And other one from Liberace:

"He who dies with the most toys wins."

OK, first off the room effect there remove $248,000.00 quality from the loudspeakers. It's playing in a great big bathtub... boom boom boom --more reverb than the Cologne Cathedral, like 13 seconds? 15 foot ceiling, approx 30 feet wide, and a guess, 45 foot deep. 15x30x45=20,000+ sq ft. Not bad, those amps can push that much, and presumably the speakers can take the power, but sheese, all that glass, and no carpets? And the ceiling is flat and looks like plaster. Nothing there to break up standing waves. That appears to be a flat panel TV in the center. It's maybe a 65" pano but the seating area is back in binocular country, around 20 feet away. I wouldn't want to watch a subtitled movie from. 

Now about the windows. There does appear to be some light screening and filtering going on, like a fain screen over the glass, but I guess stops around 1/2 a stop, but that is not going to cut much light during the day, so perhaps the flat panel is what is called an outdoor tv, if not, this is going to be an after dark event watching movies.

After a certain price level, quality reaches limit and it then becomes "what is your favorite cocktail?" You may like a Manhattan, me a Sidecar, and our friend over there an, old fashion, but it is hard to say one is better than the other. I don't know where that price level is, but I can say for sure it is a lot lower than a quarter million.

It's clearly a marketing shot, designed to tweak someone who has money, the issue is the buy (Sell?) the very best, and conspicuously so. That it does. I kind of like the looks, slightly French Belle Epoque.

_I remember the old joke about hi-fi from the 60's.

Question: What is the biggest problem in hi-fi?

Answer: "You are going to put those where?"
_

--Dick Sullivan


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

theJman said:


> MBL's are statement pieces, in the same vein as a Bugatti Veyron is. For someone looking at those speakers - or the Veyron, for that matter - price isn't a consideration. Not everything falls into the "best bang for the buck!" category thankfully (not that I could afford them, of course).


Couldn't agree more, some people simply have disposable income like that. They simply want something that looks amazing in the space they have. 
The flat screen display is a 2,35:1 aspect so they are not cheap either. I bet classical and jazz sound amazing on those MBLs, agree the room is not ideal but the type of music those speakers are designed for they would do well in a large space like that. The MBLs are not "rock and roll" speakers although in the right environment I'm sure would do well with that as well.


----------



## TheHills44060 (May 15, 2014)

theJman said:


> MBL's are statement pieces, in the same vein as a Bugatti Veyron is. For someone looking at those speakers - or the Veyron, for that matter - price isn't a consideration. Not everything falls into the "best bang for the buck!" category thankfully (not that I could afford them, of course).


Precisely. When my friend graduated from high school and signed with the New York Yankees there wasn't a single set of speakers or amps he couldn't afford. He wasn't a avid audiophile but he always saw me drooling over audio gear, so what did he do?... He went out and bought the most expensive Martin Logan electrostats and Mark Levinson amps the dealer had with his signing bonus.

Money was of no concern. Some people are just in a position like that.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

I would probably want a bigger TV but the owners have it setup just the way they want it so I have no criticism towards anything there.
It looks very nice.


----------



## robbo266317 (Sep 22, 2008)

chashint said:


> I would probably want a bigger TV but the owners have it setup just the way they want it so I have no criticism towards anything there.
> It looks very nice.


I agree, even if they were purchased purely for the "Bling" value, they are probably more than adequate for what they want in the audio department.

Unfortunately, I don't have a room large enough to accommodate that setup.


----------



## Richsul (Apr 17, 2016)

I fully agree with the conspicuous consumption issue these speakers raise, and yes, if I were Bill Gates I might build a home theater of top gear too. However I would certainly pay more attention to room effects. If there is one thing I am learning after about a decade of limping along with half dead Hogan's Goat system, it is what room effects can do. Software wizards can do much to "fix" bad rooms and placements, but only so far. 

I have been in too many college lecture halls where it was impossible for anyone to hear what was being said over the pa system. (And some that were superb as well!) Most of the time it was a "multi purpose room," perhaps doubling as a basket ball court of gymnasium, hard floors, and flat high ceiling. 

The gear is spectacular looking and likely sounds OK, but is all show. Clearly only a stereo set-up, with no surround and not well suited for watching movies. 



--Dick Sullivan


----------



## kevin360 (Oct 4, 2012)

If I had the disposable cash, I'd buy that system (but I wouldn't have it in that room and $1M systems are _way_ out of my reach). I've heard the little brother to those Radialstrahlers, and they are _superb_ transducers in every respect. Those amps are equally impressive (after 16 hours of driving a 101E at insane volumes, each was barely warm), as is the entire MBL line. I'm very happy with a ridiculously pedestrian system, by comparison, but I don't look at those unreachable grapes and think, "Ah, well, they're probably sour, anyway."


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

Looks great. Probably sounds like a 1k HTIB(loudness notwithstanding) with about 5 minutes of decay in the room. I'd guess the open magazine on the table provides the most absorption of any surface in there. Room is gorgeous though. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tesseract (Aug 9, 2010)

Richsul said:


> A $250,000.00 set of speakers. Could you make do it better for less? What I see is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If I had the money, these would probably be mine. They handled everything thrown at 'em, rock music was not a problem in the least. The MBLs are not silly, over-priced jewelry, they are a purpose built statement piece that completely live up to their asking price.

I'd work on the room, it is likely the room pictured in the OP has an interior decorator's touch. The 2016 Axpona exhibitor room was painstakingly tuned, which certainly accounted for much of what we heard.

http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...-north-america-axpona-2016-show-report-3.html


----------



## theJman (Mar 3, 2012)

The picture is taken from MBL's website, so it might just be for appearances sake and not someone's actual setup.


----------



## shawnlim (May 3, 2016)

theJman said:


> The picture is taken from MBL's website, so it might just be for appearances sake and not someone's actual setup.


Yup, it could be from the showroom.
There's nothing wrong with this picture, just luxury living, and some expensive speakers. :grin2:
Too bad I don't have enough space to do this.


----------



## Richsul (Apr 17, 2016)

I agree.

And of course, they are not selling to a knowledgeable market, at least not as theater and sound systems go. This also tells you that the system may not be that much better than say one that sells for perhaps, $12,000.00. I believe that at a certain point it's the "cocktail" that counts, not some supposed quality issue. In fact, a system that reproduced a "perfect" replication of the original sound may not be one that is preferred. Is it a good system? Yes. And it is powerful enough to fill the room --and pretty too. Would I like to have one? <Drool>

There used to be a 15 to 1 ratio of cost of manufacture to sales price for speakers, but today it may be different. Back when, that only applied to systems a normal human being could afford. Here it is a market where cost is of no concern. (One I'd like to be in!)


----------



## Richsul (Apr 17, 2016)

Well I admit one of the benefits of a system installed like this is I wouldn't have to turn on the "Arena" reverb function on my cheapo AV receiver, I would get the real thing here. Audessy or REW could remove a lot of the room effects here, but still, the room effects are going to be a real problem.

Then there is the point of diminishing returns where the curve flattens out, and then it becomes a "what is your cocktail effect." The conspicuous consumption, the WOW effect is certainly at play here, and big time. Would I like a system like this? You bet. But only if someone gave me a set. I would venture to say that many here, could for one tenth the $250,000.00 build a system that could egual this one in a double blind crossover test, and especially in this room. Double that and it is a done deal. The visual effect of the speakers is stunning, and it is interesting to note that all of the promo pics show the covers off. I do believe that they might move into the area of intrinsic value as art objects. A real Vermeer is priceless, one that takes serious scientific testing to determine it is a forgery, not so much. 

--Dick Sullivan


----------



## tesseract (Aug 9, 2010)

Richsul said:


> I agree.
> 
> And of course, they are not selling to a knowledgeable market, at least not as theater and sound systems go. This also tells you that the system may not be that much better than say one that sells for perhaps, $12,000.00. I believe that at a certain point it's the "cocktail" that counts, not some supposed quality issue.


You should frame that as opinion, instead of a sweeping generalization.

I am confident enough of my knowledge in this market to know that I have plenty to learn. The more you know, the more you understand what is left to know. 



> In fact, a system that reproduced a "perfect" replication of the original sound may not be one that is preferred. Is it a good system? Yes. And it is powerful enough to fill the room --and pretty too. Would I like to have one? <Drool>


So you have heard these particular speakers? 



> There used to be a 15 to 1 ratio of cost of manufacture to sales price for speakers, but today it may be different. Back when, that only applied to systems a normal human being could afford. Here it is a market where cost is of no concern. (One I'd like to be in!)


You can either afford the cost of admission, or not. This system is not for "normal" humans. It is for those that want and can afford the state of the art.


----------



## RTS100x5 (Sep 12, 2009)

Why do most ppl hate what they can't afford ?


----------



## JBrax (Oct 13, 2011)

RTS100x5 said:


> Why do most ppl hate what they can't afford ?


 I don't know jealousy I suppose. I personally think it looks very clean and classy. I don't care how it sounds looks alone it's stunning.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

I don't understand the negative comments either.
I have listened to $12k speakers and I have listened to $60k speakers.
The $12k speakers sounded great and the $60k speakers sounded even better, actually a lot better.
I also would not presume that anyone that can afford the entire setup in the picture (location / view included) knows nothing about what they are buying.
Is the room acoustically optimal, probably not, but that does not mean you should put an AM radio in the corner and call it good enough.


----------



## Lumen (May 17, 2014)

My 2-ch HeManRig sports speakers in the $20k range (MSRP). I could not really afford them, and did not purchase them lightly. They provided the next leap in performance I craved which - to the best of my knowledge and experience at the time - could not be obtained through continual "upgrading" in the same speaker class and price range. I am still satisfied with them over 10 years later, and still feel no need to upgrade. Have I heard more expensive speakers? No! Do I want to? No! Why not? Because that might raise the bar, leaving me dissatisfied with a system I could ill-afford to upgrade a second time. One thing I don't do, though, is trash-talk a potential improvement; even if it is the stuff of Kings.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FargateOne (Mar 3, 2015)

Lumen said:


> My 2-ch HeManRig sports speakers in the $20k range (MSRP). I could not really afford them, and did not purchase them lightly. They provided the next leap in performance I craved which - to the best of my knowledge and experience at the time - could not be obtained through continual "upgrading" in the same speaker class and price range. I am still satisfied with them over 10 years later, and still feel no need to upgrade. Have I heard more expensive speakers? No! Do I want to? No! Why not? Because that might raise the bar, leaving me dissatisfied with a system I could ill-afford to upgrade a second time. One thing I don't do, though, is trash-talk a potential improvement; even if it is the stuff of Kings.
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I agree totally especially this:"Have I heard more expensive speakers? No! Do I want to? *No!* Why not? Because *that might raise the bar*, leaving me dissatisfied with a system I could ill-afford to upgrade a second time. "
lddude:


----------



## Richsul (Apr 17, 2016)

Over and over again double blind tests have shown that we hear what we want to hear, that is, if we know what we are listening to.

Of course, at the very bottom end, there is a difference, and likely what one could call a quality difference. Eventually the curve flattens out and differences tend to be what I refer to as "what's your favorite cocktail?" The fun begins when trying to determine where the curve flattens out. In some cases there is not much of a curve, say comparing a $20.00 cable vs a $200.00 cable. I suspect it flattens out at $19.95.

Technologically usually flattens out at some point. Take for example automobiles. Back when I was a kid with my first car, a 1949 Chevy, (in 1956) after 100,000 miles you needed a complete overhaul: rings, valves, etc. Now that is just an oil change and some adjustments. Sales pitches, tv ads, etc. for new cars is all about creature comforts, blind spot video, auto seat adjustments, and so forth. The difference between a $40,000.00 car and a $20,000 one is the add-ons, the basic guts are pretty much the same. 

Little has changed in the basic technology of the transducers -- speakers and mics -- since the 60's, -- perhaps excepting Howard Roger's patent for compression guide. But transducers are based on mass moved by a magnetic field. Technology has built in limits, once you arrive and "near perfect" reproduction, then tweaks tend to squirt out somewhere in the reproduction, causing an endless series of tweaks and more blips on the screen, or if you will, coloring the sound ever so slightly.

Anecdotal evidence is extremely poor, and in most cases, worthless. I too could tell the >>difference<< between a $20,000.00 speaker set vs a $60,000.00 set. Because no two sets will sound the same, due to those final tweaks which adds "color" to the system. Ala -- the cocktail. Which is the best? A Martini, a Side Car or an Old Fashion, it's a silly question, it's which do you like best. 

Judgement is always colored by circumstances. One study showed that people rated the video projection quality superior when there was great sound accompanying the projection. Just some slight tweaks to the sound, a subwoofer added and some surround, and the focus group rated the video quality better though it remained the same. I would guess that the mere sight of those spectacular looking MBL speakers completely bias the sound they produce. 

--Dick Sullivan


----------



## showcattleguy (Jun 30, 2011)

You must not have attended AXPONA. Listening to the MBL 101 X-tremes was a... dare i say... life changing event. For the first time i listened to a piano recording and had to look twice to make sure there wasnt a Steinway in the room. The realism and "being there" factor was off the charts. They played Thriller on 1/2 inch master tape and the volume was at 11 (my Galaxy S5 SPL meter app said 98db however accurate that is) but it was so clean and crisp... like i have never heard it before or since. My stereo is no slouch a pair of B&W 802 Diamonds with 600w Monoblocks and i listen to music now and feel a little dissapointed for no other reason than the MBLs are flat out in a different universe. I am done gushing now but i truly meant what i said about the sound being life changing. Hopefully if im patient a pair will show up on the secondary market at a more reasonable price.


----------



## Richsul (Apr 17, 2016)

Showcattleguy,

I don't doubt for a minute that it was a stunning experience listening to those speakers.

Certainly being able to produce enough SPL in a very large room takes some very good design and engineering.

Lots of things make up the "experience." I recall taking my 17 year old son to hear The Who at the LA Coliseum in 1982. It was my first time at a stadium concert and the sound was awesome, though I doubt from all of the reverb etc that it was really that good, considering. That much good sound in that big of a space was awesome in itself. Because a slight fog moved in from the Pacific which caused something of an inversion layer holding in the smoke from the stadium which also added to the experience -- second hand smoke, if you will.

There are built in design limitations that peak out at a certain point. For instance how much weight is in the cone material. Too light and thin it will distort, to heavy and you can't stop and move it back forth without inertia setting in. The magnetic field has a lag in reversing itself. In the 60's there was a speaker system that used ionized helium moved magnetically as a tweater. Yes, it needed tanks of gas! I don't think they ever got to building middies or woofers with this system as you would likely need a Hindenburg parked out front provide the gas. The object here was to have a very lightweight mass to move. There are many physical limitations involved and once you hit the wall with those then you start having to teak things and one tweak fixing one problem almost always creates two more. 

The next issue is the human element. We are all influenced by all our perceptions including the "mental" one. Knowing what it is one is listening to is a very biasing variable. That is why the best way for mere mortals to evaluate or compare systems is by a double blind test. And there are, many many double blind tests out there that are varied in quality that show how flawed our perceptions are when it comes to sound. And visual too as we all know! Like optical illusions as well, which leads me to question whether or not a similar phenomenons can exist in sound. 

If I were MBL I certainly would not want this system tested in a double blind test against, say a very good system costing one forth as much? Or maybe even 10% of $250,000.00!

All of that said, I would not turn down an offer of a free set from my media room.

--Dick Sullivan


----------



## showcattleguy (Jun 30, 2011)

While i do agree with some of your points i have a stereo that approaches 25% the cost of the X-tremes (total equip cost so if you wanted to spec a full MBL stereo then im just above the 10% mark) and it cannot hold a candle to the experience i received in an unfamiliar hotel conference room without any prior knowledge about MBL other than they looked expensive. I dont claim to be knowledgeable about how the speakers work although i did watch the youtube video that does a decent job explaining the tech. I can only attest to the emotional connection... like the speakers got out of the way of the music if that makes sense. Either way it doesnt matter. For what its worth they also had the another pair of MBLs at a more pedestrian $70,000/pair at AXPONA and they had none of the magic the X-tremes did. Just my experiences YMMV.


----------



## tesseract (Aug 9, 2010)

Richsul said:


> Anecdotal evidence is extremely poor, and in most cases, worthless.


As are car analogies. 

The MBL X-treme Axpona room used painstaking, objective measurements, room treatments and verification of the effects of these treatments. I suspect that had much to do with what we heard.


----------



## 86eldel68-deactivated (Nov 30, 2010)

I'd spend $30K on a good-looking, good-sounding A/V set-up and pocket $220K. But that's just me.


----------



## tesseract (Aug 9, 2010)

eljay said:


> I'd spend $30K on a good-looking, good-sounding A/V set-up and pocket $220K. But that's just me.


If I were a multimillionaire or billionaire, I wouldn't think twice about it, just treat it like the tool it is and soak in some of the best sound I've ever heard.

But, the 101 X-treme isn't for you and me, unfortunately.


----------

