Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'll go out and say the set up in our '09 Pilot is the best stock stereo I've owned by far. Our '07 CRV wasn't bad either but it didn't have the sub like the Pilot does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tstone
On the other hand GM stereos always leave a lot to be desired.
I agree 100% on this. Especially the mid 80's/90's Delco stereos. Funny thing is you will see people on eBay asking a ton for them and you'll even see people on some of the car boards asking almost as much for one as you'd ask for a used aftermarket unit.
The "Shaker" system (I think they still called it Shaker then) I had in my 1998 Mustang was pretty good. It was loud and clear, but not as 'nuanced' as other systems.
The best overall was the BOSE system in my 2004 Audi A6. I know a lot of audiophiles don't like the BOSE car systems, but they seemed to get it right in that Audi. We also had a BOSE system in my wife's Avalanche LTZ and that was...meh, at best.
The one I was most surprised by recently was the optional system in the Hyundai Veloster. There were a couple of kids sitting in one that was parked next to my car. They had the system up LOUD and it sounded really good. I had to ask the owner and he said it came with the car and even he was impressed with it.
Best stock stereo was my 1991 Dodge Stealth twin turbo, with the premium 6 speaker Infinity setup. Back then, NO cars had 6 speakers, you had 4. It also came with a CD player, which was still something of a rarity for cars then, plus a cassette player. It even had a front panel Aux input, so 20 years later, you can plug your Ipod/Iphone directly into it, VERY cool. I don't remember the wattage... I want to say it was rated at 280w? Maybe 260. Had two 6x9's, two 5.5" in the doors, and two 3" in the dash. Three band EQ (another rarity, most cars just had bass and treble) and fader adjustment. CD player would even play CDR's (which my 2002 Porsche 911 Turbo could only do about half the time, ugh.)
Sounded great at any speed, but I eventually replaced the head unit with one that could play MP3 burned discs.
For those who rave about the Bose systems-one reason the Bose systems sound good to some of you has almost nothing to do with the speakers. Bose drivers, which are mainly midranges, are just about the cheapest that can be found. As an example, from their home audio-
What Bose has done is to EQ certain vehicles. They've mapped the acoustic properties of those vehicles, then designed equalizer settings to maximize performance for those specific vehicles. It's the same thing they do with their home audio products that have built-in amplification. And that's also why if you were to take out the head unit in a Bose equipped vehicle and replace it with an aftermarket unit (assuming you'd want the expense and trouble of integrating with the Bose) it won't sound good at all. Bose does not paly well with others is one of numerous industry cliches for their products.
The other reason people rave about Bose is brainwashing...err...I mean...advertising. I can give several examples of this. One is when I asked my then-65 year old mother what speakers she would buy me for a present. I've been in the A/V business for over 25 years, so this was a test. She immediately responded with "I've heard Bose is the best". This, coming from a woman who enjoyed the single speaker and AM radio in her car up until the late 90's. She had no knowledge of anything audio related besides advertising. Another example is what some people said when I asked them about what speakers they had heard and liked or disliked. Most of the time, it was some version of "I had/heard/owned 'x' speakers, and they sounded good/bad/bassy/tinny/terrible/etc." But with Bose, and only with Bose, the answer often was "Bose is the best" as if that was an absolute fact, not an opinion. It almost sounds like a mantra, such as "I must kill the Prime Minister of Malaysia". How else do you think that Bose convinced millions of people that "cubes" sound better than a decent sized floorstanding speaker? Advertising. They spend more on advertising than the next 20 manufacturers behind them combined.
If you enjoy it, great, but don't get caught up in the hype.
As for me, the only vehicle I've owned that I would have expected to have a good sound system in was the '93 Mark VIII I bought in 2000. It was OK, but my expectations were low, and since I've replaced the system in every vehicle I've owned, it was short lived.
For those who rave about the Bose systems-one reason the Bose systems sound good to some of you has almost nothing to do with the speakers. Bose drivers, which are mainly midranges, are just about the cheapest that can be found. As an example, from their home audio-
What Bose has done is to EQ certain vehicles. They've mapped the acoustic properties of those vehicles, then designed equalizer settings to maximize performance for those specific vehicles. It's the same thing they do with their home audio products that have built-in amplification. And that's also why if you were to take out the head unit in a Bose equipped vehicle and replace it with an aftermarket unit (assuming you'd want the expense and trouble of integrating with the Bose) it won't sound good at all. Bose does not paly well with others is one of numerous industry cliches for their products.
The other reason people rave about Bose is brainwashing...err...I mean...advertising. I can give several examples of this. One is when I asked my then-65 year old mother what speakers she would buy me for a present. I've been in the A/V business for over 25 years, so this was a test. She immediately responded with "I've heard Bose is the best". This, coming from a woman who enjoyed the single speaker and AM radio in her car up until the late 90's. She had no knowledge of anything audio related besides advertising. Another example is what some people said when I asked them about what speakers they had heard and liked or disliked. Most of the time, it was some version of "I had/heard/owned 'x' speakers, and they sounded good/bad/bassy/tinny/terrible/etc." But with Bose, and only with Bose, the answer often was "Bose is the best" as if that was an absolute fact, not an opinion. It almost sounds like a mantra, such as "I must kill the Prime Minister of Malaysia". How else do you think that Bose convinced millions of people that "cubes" sound better than a decent sized floorstanding speaker? Advertising. They spend more on advertising than the next 20 manufacturers behind them combined.
If you enjoy it, great, but don't get caught up in the hype.
As for me, the only vehicle I've owned that I would have expected to have a good sound system in was the '93 Mark VIII I bought in 2000. It was OK, but my expectations were low, and since I've replaced the system in every vehicle I've owned, it was short lived.
This is what I was referring to. Customizing a sound system to a specific car and/or partially customizing the car to the sound system does more for overall sound quality than you can ever do with higher end equipment. You can stick a $15,000 system in a car with an engineered Bose system and it will not sound as good as the stock system did, unless it was specifically engineerd for that car. It will be louder, but louder is not better sound quality, it is just louder.
Bose was once near top of the line for home audio. The 900 series were decent speakers if you had enough power and couldn't afford really high end stuff, however they went mass market and went downhill. I remember going to buy that Bose Amzing loudspeaker surround sound system and the stero store people telling me it was crap. They said I could get far far better quality for less money with other brands (Pioneer Elite with Digial Audio, or Digital Technology (I forget which) speakers). It was hundreds of dollars cheaper and the sound quality was clarly superior even to my wife whose attitude was that paying thousands for a stereo system is just plain stupid. Clearly they were not trying to upsell me since they pushed me to buy something cheaper. They had a giant BOSE sign on their store, but walk in and they tell you "Bose is junk" It was funny.
In car audio I am not certian any particular brand is universally better than other name brands. Some brands are garbage, but when you get into the decent companies there may be some variation from one particular model of speaker or system, but no universal "one company is better than another." At least not from what I have heard listening to peoples systems from various makers. Some way expensive systems sound like crap and some cheap systems sound great. The same is true from brand to brand. Sometimes Bose systems sound better than HK or some other brand, sometimes other brands sound better. It all depends ont he model, the system configurationa nd the car.
When I was a kid, one of the cheapest brands - Audiovox - made the car components for many of the high end car stereo companies. Thus, you could pay $550 for a Blaupunkt or buy the same thing with Audiovox written on it for $125. (Not sure of the brand names anymore, just plucked one form the sky it was too long ago). You could also get the excact same CD player from Sony or AV who invented the CD player jointly, but the price difference was 500%. Is that still the case? Does one manufacturer make the compnents for most of the other companies?
Last edited by Coldjensens; 10-09-2012 at 02:31 PM..
This is what I was referring to. Customizing a sound system to a specific car and/or partially customizing the car to the sound system does more for overall sound quality than you can ever do with higher end equipment. You can stick a $15,000 system in a car with an engineered Bose system and it will not sound as good as the stock system did, unless it was specifically engineerd for that car. It will be louder, but louder is not better sound quality, it is just louder.
Bose was once near top of the line for home audio. The 900 series were decent speakers if you had enough power and couldn't afford really high end stuff, however they went mass market and went downhill. I remember going to buy that Bose Amzing loudspeaker surround sound system and the stero store people telling me it was crap. They said I could get far far better quality for less money with other brands (Pioneer Elite with Digial Audio, or Digital Technology (I forget which) speakers). It was hundreds of dollars cheaper and the sound quality was clarly superior even to my wife whose attitude was that paying thousands for a stereo system is just plain stupid. Clearly they were not trying to upsell me since they pushed me to buy something cheaper. They had a giant BOSE sign on their store, but walk in and they tell you "Bose is junk" It was funny.
In car audio I am not certian any particular brand is universally better than other name brands. Some brands are garbage, but when you get into the decent companies there may be some variation from one particular model of speaker or system, but no universal "one company is better than another." At least not from what I have heard listening to peoples systems from various makers. Some way expensive systems sound like crap and some cheap systems sound great. The same is true from brand to brand. Sometimes Bose systems sound better than HK or some other brand, sometimes other brands sound better. It all depends ont he model, the system configurationa nd the car.
When I was a kid, one of the cheapest brands - Audiovox - made the car components for many of the high end car stereo companies. Thus, you could pay $550 for a Blaupunkt or buy the same thing with Audiovox written on it for $125. (Not sure of the brand names anymore, just plucked one form the sky it was too long ago). You could also get the excact same CD player from Sony or AV who invented the CD player jointly, but the price difference was 500%. Is that still the case? Does one manufacturer make the compnents for most of the other companies?
A modern $300 head unit has as much ability to tune the system to a given vehicle's interior as a Bose system, just like any decent surround receiver can perform a similar function in your living room. I've told people for many years that for what a "premium" factory sound system costs I could and install a system that will perform far, far better than any factory sound system, in just about any vehicle.
Bose was, and is, the best advertised product of its type. But I completely disagree that is was ever top of the line. Consider that almost all other speaker manufacturers (more than 300 individual companies) use technologies and manufacturing techniques that are 180 degrees opposed to what Bose uses. If the 901s, whose tech is to spray the music everywhere rather than control its dispersion, (and not use tweeters), were so good, why doesn't any other company do it? Why do no other companies strongly suggest and promote their speakers as being best placed up high on a wall or even hung from the ceiling? In modern terms, if "little cubes" actually sounded better than a full size speaker, as Bose has spent hundreds of millions of dollars telling us, why are all the high end speakers full sized? 901s, without their EQ, sound terrible. Do you know of any other home audio speakers that must use an EQ to sound decent? I don't, and I've been in the A/V business since the mid 80s.
That being said, I respect some of the Bose electronics products, although they are generally overpriced for their build and sound quality. Their noise-cancelling headphones and home theater products serve some people very well.
Sony and Philips co-invented the CD. To my knowledge Audiovox had nothing to do with it. Sony built the CD mechanisms for most of the early CD players, with other companies adding their own electronics, just as is done today, best known in flat panel TVs. Eventually the CD tech was licensed out, and now most companies build their own. Blaupunkt is a German company, with no association with Audiovox that I'm aware of. The one in my GTO doesn't say anything but Blaupunkt on it, and I don't remember seeing it on any of the hundreds I pulled out of older Mercedes, Porsches and other vehicles when I was doing mobile audio. Just an FYI.
Most better companies build their own stuff now, but certainly they are buying components from many other companies. It's best to not assume that "X makes y" just because y uses a part that x makes. The OEM business has confused this as well.
As for brands, that's as much opinion as anything. There are extremely few brands in consumer audio that produce great products in all categories. Sony makes decent to very good electronics (home and car) but I have no use for any of their speakers. Most of the better amp and speaker companies don't even make head units. In broad general strokes, the better speakers (home and car) are North American and European, while Asian speakers are not known for their sound quality. But it comes down to individual models, not just brands or countries of origin. Many companies make crap and great gear, for sale in different outlets. As you said, going mass market has hurt the rep and quality of many product lines.
Design and setup are critical to any system sounding great, so maybe some of the better gear you've heard isn't set up correctly. I get into homes and cars weekly that could sound a lot better than they do. Sometimes I can make that happen. Sometimes people are happy with their mess.
I've owned a few vehicles with good sound systems, but my current car (2011 Jaguar XF with 525-watt, 17-speaker B&W system) has the best I've heard yet. True sound across any genre I've listened to, and digital/satellite radio sounds wonderful.
A modern $300 head unit has as much ability to tune the system to a given vehicle's interior as a Bose system, just like any decent surround receiver can perform a similar function in your living room. I've told people for many years that for what a "premium" factory sound system costs I could and install a system that will perform far, far better than any factory sound system, in just about any vehicle.
Bose was, and is, the best advertised product of its type. But I completely disagree that is was ever top of the line. Consider that almost all other speaker manufacturers (more than 300 individual companies) use technologies and manufacturing techniques that are 180 degrees opposed to what Bose uses. If the 901s, whose tech is to spray the music everywhere rather than control its dispersion, (and not use tweeters), were so good, why doesn't any other company do it? Why do no other companies strongly suggest and promote their speakers as being best placed up high on a wall or even hung from the ceiling? In modern terms, if "little cubes" actually sounded better than a full size speaker, as Bose has spent hundreds of millions of dollars telling us, why are all the high end speakers full sized? 901s, without their EQ, sound terrible. Do you know of any other home audio speakers that must use an EQ to sound decent? I don't, and I've been in the A/V business since the mid 80s.
That being said, I respect some of the Bose electronics products, although they are generally overpriced for their build and sound quality. Their noise-cancelling headphones and home theater products serve some people very well.
Sony and Philips co-invented the CD. To my knowledge Audiovox had nothing to do with it. Sony built the CD mechanisms for most of the early CD players, with other companies adding their own electronics, just as is done today, best known in flat panel TVs. Eventually the CD tech was licensed out, and now most companies build their own. Blaupunkt is a German company, with no association with Audiovox that I'm aware of. The one in my GTO doesn't say anything but Blaupunkt on it, and I don't remember seeing it on any of the hundreds I pulled out of older Mercedes, Porsches and other vehicles when I was doing mobile audio. Just an FYI.
Most better companies build their own stuff now, but certainly they are buying components from many other companies. It's best to not assume that "X makes y" just because y uses a part that x makes. The OEM business has confused this as well.
As for brands, that's as much opinion as anything. There are extremely few brands in consumer audio that produce great products in all categories. Sony makes decent to very good electronics (home and car) but I have no use for any of their speakers. Most of the better amp and speaker companies don't even make head units. In broad general strokes, the better speakers (home and car) are North American and European, while Asian speakers are not known for their sound quality. But it comes down to individual models, not just brands or countries of origin. Many companies make crap and great gear, for sale in different outlets. As you said, going mass market has hurt the rep and quality of many product lines.
Design and setup are critical to any system sounding great, so maybe some of the better gear you've heard isn't set up correctly. I get into homes and cars weekly that could sound a lot better than they do. Sometimes I can make that happen. Sometimes people are happy with their mess.
I guess we will just disagree on the first point. You have no abuility to change the design of the car to ensure better acostical surfaces for hte sund to bounce off of, nor can you change the shape or direction of sound from standard speakers that are not designed specifically for a given car. Besides, I was talking about systems that sound better not systems that perform better. Lots of systems have superior lab measurements but sound like crap in a poor listening environment that is not designed for that system. It is not about EQ, it is about acoustics. I am interested in sound quality in being able to hear every nuance of the music and vocals, not in bouncing quarters of the roof of my car, trying to impress a girl three miles away when she hears my awesome bass, or adding to the permanent hearing damage excessivley loud music from my youth imparted on me. But hey there is nothing wrong with a good old disargeement.
You cannot disagree that Bose is the top of the line. You can say they are not top of the line, but you would not be disagreeing with me if you did. Please try reading again.
901 technology is out of date. That is why you do not see it anymore. Why did they not copy it? Becasue they did nto want to get sued by Bose for patent infringement. It was not the best avialable, but for what it was it was a very good deal for the price. Remarkable accurate speakers. Sure there were lots better, but not many at that price level. 901s produced execellent sound. At their price level there was not much competition. Depening on how broadly you define price level, Klipsch had some competitive speakers.
Perhaps it was Phillips and I misrememebred, or perhaps Audiovox was invovled somehow as well. It was what? 25 - 30 years ago? I might still have that old first CD player somewhere in the basement, not sure. It is probably right under the Nakamichi Dragon which is out of date, broekn and no longer worth using or fixing, but it was just too cool th throw away. I will go look if i rememeber, but I will probably not remember. Regardless it does not matter which name. The point is the Not Sony producer of early CD players sold them for about one fifth the price charged by Sony for the exact same thing. It was just paying for a brand. Paying more does not get you anything better in many cases.
When I have had kids come display their "awesome" $15,000 car sound systems to me, they are generally much louder than other systems, but not much better or often not better and in fact sound worse that cheaper systems. The stupid thing about spending that much is with modern sound equipment you very quickly hit the point where 99.999% of listeners cannot hear the difference between a $3000 system and a $10,000 system except in voume capability. Actually I think the break point is much lower than that now days. Even around $1000 you are getting to the point where you have bought the best sysem you can hear the difference in. We won a Sony surround systems a while back with a retail value of about $800, it sounds nearly as good as our component system that cost thousands. It is very dfficult to hear the differences and the Sony system is much much easier to use. Most people are far better off spending the money on room acoustics or possibly a specialist to test room acoustics and determine the best speaker types and locations for a room.
Last edited by Coldjensens; 10-10-2012 at 11:37 AM..
I guess we will just disagree on the first point. You have no abuility to change the design of the car to ensure better acostical surfaces for hte sund to bounce off of, nor can you change the shape or direction of sound from standard speakers that are not designed specifically for a given car. Besides, I was talking about systems that sound better not systems that perform better. Lots of systems have superior lab measurements but sound like crap in a poor listening environment that is not designed for that system. It is not about EQ, it is about acoustics. I am interested in sound quality in being able to hear every nuance of the music and vocals, not in bouncing quarters of the roof of my car, trying to impress a girl three miles away when she hears my awesome bass, or adding to the permanent hearing damage excessivley loud music from my youth imparted on me. But hey there is nothing wrong with a good old disargeement.
You cannot disagree that Bose is the top of the line. You can say they are not top of the line, but you would not be disagreeing with me if you did. Please try reading again.
901 technology is out of date. That is why you do not see it anymore. Why did they not copy it? Becasue they did nto want to get sued by Bose for patent infringement. It was not the best avialable, but for what it was it was a very good deal for the price. Remarkable accurate speakers. Sure there were lots better, but not many at that price level. 901s produced execellent sound. At their price level there was not much competition. Depening on how broadly you define price level, Klipsch had some competitive speakers.
Perhaps it was Phillips and I misrememebred, or perhaps Audiovox was invovled somehow as well. It was what? 25 - 30 years ago? I might still have that old first CD player somewhere in the basement, not sure. It is probably right under the Nakamichi Dragon which is out of date, broekn and no longer worth using or fixing, but it was just too cool th throw away. I will go look if i rememeber, but I will probably not remember. Regardless it does not matter which name. The point is the Not Sony producer of early CD players sold them for about one fifth the price charged by Sony for the exact same thing. It was just paying for a brand. Paying more does not get you anything better in many cases.
When I have had kids come display their "awesome" $15,000 car sound systems to me, they are generally much louder than other systems, but not much better or often not better and in fact sound worse that cheaper systems. The stupid thing about spending that much is with modern sound equipment you very quickly hit the point where 99.999% of listeners cannot hear the difference between a $3000 system and a $10,000 system except in voume capability. Actually I think the break point is much lower than that now days. Even around $1000 you are getting to the point where you have bought the best sysem you can hear the difference in. We won a Sony surround systems a while back with a retail value of about $800, it sounds nearly as good as our component system that cost thousands. It is very dfficult to hear the differences and the Sony system is much much easier to use. Most people are far better off spending the money on room acoustics or possibly a specialist to test room acoustics and determine the best speaker types and locations for a room.
Perform = sound quality in any conversation I'm having. What else could it mean? It has nothing to do with lab measurements. And high volume or anything beyond accurate bass response are never a concern in my conversations either. Volume and boom are easy and cheap. I'm all about SQ.
Cars are not designed around sound systems. Sound systems are designed around cars, with few exceptions. I don't recall seeing or reading about any commentary regarding special materials being used in a car to enhance the performance, specifically, of the sound system itself. There's nothing special about the placement of Bose in a car, not are the drivers themselves anything beyond stock sizes and configurations. The same model car without a Bose upgrade will have the same locations for speakers, and any standard speaker system could be installed. The Alpine head unit in my pickup, which was probably around $350 8 years ago when I put it in, has numerous time alignment and EQ functions. Modern units have even more ways to tailor the sound to a given environment. The branded systems seen in cars are doing very little that an aftermarket head unit and processor can't, especially when price is factored in.
No reputable manufacturer ever copied the 901s, for good reasons, as I suggested. A simple variation on the design would have avoided patent infringement, but yet that design was and is only seen from Bose. Bose still makes 901s which are essentially the same as they were in 1968 when they came out. They are far beyond outdated, since their original design that while innovative, did little to recreate actual music. Accuracy has never been a claim of Bose, nor has any reviewer said their products are accurate. Testing has shown they don't reproduce anything close to the full human hearing range, and their response is peaky rather than smooth, so there's a couple objective points that says they can't be accurate. Specs do tell some of the story, even though Dr Bose doesn't give them out.
Rather than waste a lot of electrons arguing the point, I will simply say that I vehemently disagree with any suggestion that most people can't tell a difference between a cheap system and an expensive one. I've proven this many times. I also vehemently disagree that $1000 gets one anywhere close to the limit of an audible difference. That's simply ludicrous. Outside of HTIBs and non-Bose plastic box speaker systems coupled with an entry level receiver, packaged to hit a low price point, it becomes a challenge to put together any sound system for less than $1000, let alone something that sounds musical. Anything in that range is definitely considered to be entry level. I'm glad you enjoy yours. No offense intended.
As an example of $1000 not going very far, I have a buddy who up until recently was enjoying his cheap 30 year old stereo systems, thinking they sounded great. I helped him pick out some Klipsch tower speakers (from their entry level series) at Best Buy, and without me prodding him upped himself to the $700 pair, because he appreciated the difference from the lesser pair. Between that and the Sony stereo receiver he bought, he was at $850. No surround capability, only one pair of speakers, $850. That was the least expensive reputable receiver I could find for him, and it did what he needed it to do. Making that extremely modest setup into the same level of surround sound would have doubled his investment, but he didn't need it. Still, $1000 is a lot less than $1700.
Acoustics play a huge role in sound quality, but no one spending the small amount of money you've talked about for a system is going to spend what it takes to make the slightest difference in the acoustic signature of their room. If they can't hear a difference between $1K, $3K, and $10K, they will have no appreciation for acoustic improvement.
Here's another personal example of the power of Bose. The last complete surround system I had would have retailed for about $13K, for just the audio. I had a timbre matched Martin Logan 5.1 system, with Cambridge Audio, Adcom and B&K electronics. Better than what most people are aware of, but far from high end. My neighbor has the Bose cube system and an Onkyo receiver. Total retail price of about $1500. When she first moved in with her boyfriend a few years ago, I had them over for drinks. They saw the speakers, which don't look anything like conventional speakers, and asked about them. I explained a few things unique to my speakers, to which she replied "Well I have Bose, and I haven't heard anything that sounds as good". That said a lot about her experience and how she had consumed the Bose Kool-Aid, and I could see where this was headed. I played a couple audio demo tracks. About 8 seconds into the 1st one she told me her Bose had more bass. After the second one she asked me why my system didn't play any louder. After the surround demo, which I played loud enough that the amps were causing the minimal lighting in my living room to dim, she told me again her Bose was louder. Now I know for a fact that my system specs out far better than hers, and that anyone who listens with an open mind would have laughed at any of her comments, but she is absolutely convinced that her cubes outperform my gear. We never got into any of the subtleties of imaging, depth, detail, etc. It was all lost on her.
When our JL Audio rep heard the modest system in my car, he didn't believe that it was what I told him. I opened the trunk and showed him, and he made a point of saying that within the confines of the gear it sounded excellent. When my neighbor heard it, she compared it very unfavorably to the Bose in her 10 year old Benz. I didn't bother to refute her opinion.
I've done countless A/B demos in the store between the Bose cubes and other sub/sat systems, many of which were less expensive. I was always careful to simply point out what people should be listening for. 8-9 out of 10 would choose the system other than the Bose. I changed nothing when I switched. But even given that, some people still wanted the Bose. One referral, after choosing the alternate 6 out of 6 times after these A/B demos, left my store and went to buy Bose at Circuit City. His son told me he was embarrassed to admit that he still wanted the Bose after having chosen the other speakers every time. That is Kool-Aid unlike any other I've ever seen.
We are obviously at very different places in training, experience, education, and mindset. I lived all of this for over 25 years, both in mobile and home A/V, with thousands of systems designed, sold and installed. I'm speaking from a wide variety of experience, and have developed my attitudes and opinions through countless hours of training, experimentation, and ownership. We will never come close to agreeing on most of this, so maybe we just need to agree to disagree. I didn't post all this to insult you or prove you wrong. I did it to support my statements. Other readers can take what they want from our discussion.
Your Dragon may be worth some serious money, BTW. You may want to look into it if you have no reason to keep it. They're on ebay for $1400+ in some cases. Audiogon has one for $1700.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
