Genelec Prices Going Up March 1, 2004

[Audy]

Just wanted to let everyone know that prices of Genelec speaker
systems will be going up on March 1, 2004 due to the weakness of the
US dollar against the Euro.

The price increase is roughly 9 to 10% depending on the system.

If anyone is interested in Genelecs, I would recommend you have your
dealer place the order before March 1 and take advantage of the
savings.

Best Regards,
Audy Kimura



Genelec Distributor / Radar 24 Dealer

[xy]

thanks for the info.

but has genelec updated their designs at all in the last 5 years?

they look the same as they did in 1997. seems weird to pay more for
technology that hasn't been updated in a long time.

[Fill X]

now i have a reason not to buy them, other than the sound of course...


P h i l i p

______________________________

"I'm too ****ing busy and vice-versa"

- Dorothy Parker

[Audy]

(xy) wrote in message >...
> thanks for the info.
>
> but has genelec updated their designs at all in the last 5 years?
>
> they look the same as they did in 1997. seems weird to pay more for
> technology that hasn't been updated in a long time.

Some products, yes, but not for the sake of change as some
manufacturers do. Their subs now use a new design which save space but
give the same or better performance. They've also added models but I
believe it is a tribute to their designs that they DON'T have to
change them after 5 years. It means they designed them correctly right
the first time.

Audy
Genelec Distributor/Radar 24 Dealer

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> but has genelec updated their designs at all in the last 5 years?
>
> they look the same as they did in 1997. seems weird to pay more for
> technology that hasn't been updated in a long time.

Yeah, you're right. Even the US has redesigned their $20 bills and
quarters in the last couple of years.

The reason given for the Genelec price increase was exchange rates of
money, not increased cost of parts, manufacturing, or shipping (which
I would expect to rise).



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[transducr]

(xy) wrote in message >...
> thanks for the info.
>
> but has genelec updated their designs at all in the last 5 years?
>
> they look the same as they did in 1997. seems weird to pay more for
> technology that hasn't been updated in a long time.

ummm...yeah, but...didn't he say that the reason was the exchange rate?

[hank alrich]

transducr wrote:

> genericaudioperson wrote>...
> > thanks for the info.
> >
> > but has genelec updated their designs at all in the last 5 years?
> >
> > they look the same as they did in 1997. seems weird to pay more for
> > technology that hasn't been updated in a long time.
>
> ummm...yeah, but...didn't he say that the reason was the exchange rate?

Who gives a rat's ass aboiut change for the sake of change? Anybody who
thinks _that_ approach represent "progress" ain't paying attention to
the results of that approach.

--
ha

[xy]

yeah, the exchange rate. but they must have long recouped their r&d
and manufacturing setup costs on these 7-10 year old designs. so they
should lower the prices or come out with new designs that take
advantage of new materials and new manufacturing abilities.

i remember most of these designs they are selling now being prominent
in 1997. I don't think audio playback reached an insurmountable
summit that year. It's not like we're frozen in time unable to
improve playback. In the audiophile world, something two years old
starts to look dated. 8 years is a long time to be fronting the same
technology and expecting full sticker.

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich > wrote:
>transducr wrote:
>> genericaudioperson wrote>...
>> > thanks for the info.
>> >
>> > but has genelec updated their designs at all in the last 5 years?
>> >
>> > they look the same as they did in 1997. seems weird to pay more for
>> > technology that hasn't been updated in a long time.
>>
>> ummm...yeah, but...didn't he say that the reason was the exchange rate?
>
>Who gives a rat's ass aboiut change for the sake of change? Anybody who
>thinks _that_ approach represent "progress" ain't paying attention to
>the results of that approach.

What? Are you implying the AKG C3000 doesn't sound as good as the old C12
or something?
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Tommi]

"xy" > wrote in message
om...
> yeah, the exchange rate. but they must have long recouped their r&d
> and manufacturing setup costs on these 7-10 year old designs. so they
> should lower the prices or come out with new designs that take
> advantage of new materials and new manufacturing abilities.

Which are...?

> i remember most of these designs they are selling now being prominent
> in 1997. I don't think audio playback reached an insurmountable
> summit that year. It's not like we're frozen in time unable to
> improve playback. In the audiophile world, something two years old
> starts to look dated.

Do you know much about speaker design?

If it's a good speaker, it lasts for like two decades unless you blow it up.


8 years is a long time to be fronting the same
> technology and expecting full sticker.


It's funny how computers have blinded some people thinking that "everything
older than a year is ****".
Nowadays half the industry "have to" update their softwares because they
"need"
the "newer, thus improved" versions of their original software. And, because
the new programs almost always require more processing power(mainly because
of the bad and lazy processor optimization), they have to update their
computers. Soon that way of thinking starts to creep into that person's
audio and video hardware considerations, etc..

[Scott Dorsey]

xy > wrote:
>yeah, the exchange rate. but they must have long recouped their r&d
>and manufacturing setup costs on these 7-10 year old designs. so they
>should lower the prices or come out with new designs that take
>advantage of new materials and new manufacturing abilities.

If technology today is so much better than it was ten years ago, how
come so few people are making anything that sounds half as good as
what Van Gelder was recording half a century ago?

No thanks. I'll take something that sounds good instead. Technology
for technology's sake is a disaster waiting to happen.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[transducr]

(xy) wrote in message >...
> yeah, the exchange rate. but they must have long recouped their r&d
> and manufacturing setup costs on these 7-10 year old designs. so they
> should lower the prices or come out with new designs that take
> advantage of new materials and new manufacturing abilities.
>
> i remember most of these designs they are selling now being prominent
> in 1997. I don't think audio playback reached an insurmountable
> summit that year. It's not like we're frozen in time unable to
> improve playback. In the audiophile world, something two years old
> starts to look dated. 8 years is a long time to be fronting the same
> technology and expecting full sticker.

i suppose...but if they are still able to charge the same amount and
consistently get it, what would their impetus be to lower their
prices? seems like basic economics to me. Classic Coke just keeps
rising in price...remember when a 12.oz can was a quarter? (i'm sure
many here remember when it was lower.) part of it is inflation (or in
this case, fluctuating exchange rates) and the other part is that
people consistently purchase their product at the asking price.
simple.

also, the audiophile world is completely different from the world of
pro audio. if audiophile companies can crank out 'better sounding'
speaker designs every two years and enthusiasts will buy them, then
bully for them. when it comes to studio monitoring, consistency,
repeatability and familiarity with your monitors is more important
than getting 'better' monitors every two years...that's why people
still use NS-10s. not because the technology is superior, not because
they sound sweeter, but because many people and studios have them and
many people understand what they're hearing (or seeing) on them and
have a better idea how that translates outside of the studio.

that being said there are a whole lotta 1030s and 1031s out there
already. i'm sure that has something to do with their ability to
continue selling them at their asking price. for lack of a better
term: compatibility?

take care
jon

[Tommi]

"transducr" > wrote in message
om...

> also, the audiophile world is completely different from the world of
> pro audio. if audiophile companies can crank out 'better sounding'
> speaker designs every two years and enthusiasts will buy them, then
> bully for them.


Absolutely. Now the "real" hifists want to buy speakers with a "new,
improved" frequency response and it has to to be flat in the 50-100 kHz
region! This they want because they want to take the "Full advantage" of the
new hi-res audio systems.

This is of course plain stupid since the point of DVD-A and SACD isn't in
the higher nyquist rate but more likely bit depth.
Generally the reproduction of ultrasonics takes away more than it gives;
they eventually bring heckloads of tartini tones etc.

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> yeah, the exchange rate. but they must have long recouped their r&d
> and manufacturing setup costs on these 7-10 year old designs. so they
> should lower the prices or come out with new designs that take
> advantage of new materials and new manufacturing abilities.

Or maybe they can start making some real money on their design instead
of ploughing their money into new designs so you'll feel like you have
to replace your speakers?

Prices don't come down on old products. And good products don't need
to be re-engineered.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> i suppose...but if they are still able to charge the same amount and
> consistently get it, what would their impetus be to lower their
> prices?

None, and why should they lower their prices? Perhaps the price was
based on continuing to sell the same design for some time after
engineering costs were amortized. If they have to lower the price then
they're losing money according to their business plan.

The impetus should be for them to develop new products, not lower the
price of their old one.

> seems like basic economics to me. Classic Coke just keeps
> rising in price...remember when a 12.oz can was a quarter? (i'm sure
> many here remember when it was lower.)

I remember when a 6-1/2 ounce bottle was a nickel. But the "product"
has been redesigned many times since then. No more dope, no more real
sugar, no more glass bottles except for the boutique version and in
some foreign countries.

> also, the audiophile world is completely different from the world of
> pro audio. if audiophile companies can crank out 'better sounding'
> speaker designs every two years and enthusiasts will buy them, then
> bully for them.

But do they? The crank out differently mediocre sounding speakers at
lower and lower prices each year. The serious audiophile world has
some frightfully expensive speakers, and yes, they DO change the
design every year or two, often for the better.

> when it comes to studio monitoring, consistency,
> repeatability and familiarity with your monitors is more important
> than getting 'better' monitors every two years.

This is true, so it's nice to have a company who isn't afraid to sell
the same old thing for ten years. However, there's room for new
products because there are always new customers. Some will buy the old
product because they may plan to work with other studios and clients
who are accustomed to a certain sound. Others will but the latest
thing and hope it catches on. Still others who are on a tighter budget
will buy something new and less expensive that wasn't avaiable last
year. That's "basic economics."

> that being said there are a whole lotta 1030s and 1031s out there
> already. i'm sure that has something to do with their ability to
> continue selling them at their asking price. for lack of a better
> term: compatibility?

That, for sure.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> hank alrich> wrote:
> >transducr wrote:
> >> genericaudioperson wrote>...
> >> > thanks for the info.

> >> > but has genelec updated their designs at all in the last 5 years?

> >> > they look the same as they did in 1997. seems weird to pay more for
> >> > technology that hasn't been updated in a long time.

> >> ummm...yeah, but...didn't he say that the reason was the exchange rate?

> >Who gives a rat's ass aboiut change for the sake of change? Anybody who
> >thinks _that_ approach represent "progress" ain't paying attention to
> >the results of that approach.

> What? Are you implying the AKG C3000 doesn't sound as good as the old C12
> or something?

Oh, no, it sounds much better. (Just ask Harvey!) For one thing it's
much crispier; and if you track the same source with one of each you'll
find the C3000 just gets you lots more stuff, all kinds of stuff that
the C12 misses. That extra stuff is called "information" and it's a
really big deal nowadays. Back when the C12 was designed they didn't
care so much about information.

The C3000 is actually 2988 better than the C12.

--
ha

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers wrote:

> Or maybe they can start making some real money on their design instead
> of ploughing their money into new designs so you'll feel like you have
> to replace your speakers?

I'm thinking 1031A's with 1957 Plymouth tail fins. Cool or what?

--
ha

[xy]

Every year it gets better. Converters get better, self noise on mics
drop. Quality trickles down to the lower price points.

In 1994 the project studio had 16 bit adats and mackie boards with
limited or automation. Now we all have 24 bit with 32 bit float
internal, unlimited track counts and pinpoint automation, all of which
can be had for thousands instead of hundreds of thousands. Practically
everything desirable from the near and recent past can be had on the
used market, plus there are tons of quality new products out there.
If you are in the upper bracket, you can still buy your SSLs, which
are now outfitted for surround sound and more advanced automation.
The Lexicon reverb boxes are more powerful, and have surround
capabilities. We now have higher resolution release formats: 24/96,
DSD. We have surround sound. It's definitely way better than 1994!

[hank alrich]

xy wrote:

> Every year it gets better. Converters get better, self noise on mics
> drop. Quality trickles down to the lower price points.

And advertising convinces those with no experience of the past that
whatever is advertised to be better and costs less this year thatn it
died last year must _be_ better. Read Bob Katz's .sig file.

> In 1994 the project studio had 16 bit adats and mackie boards with
> limited or automation. Now we all have 24 bit with 32 bit float
> internal, unlimited track counts and pinpoint automation, all of which
> can be had for thousands instead of hundreds of thousands. Practically
> everything desirable from the near and recent past can be had on the
> used market, plus there are tons of quality new products out there.
> If you are in the upper bracket, you can still buy your SSLs, which
> are now outfitted for surround sound and more advanced automation.
> The Lexicon reverb boxes are more powerful, and have surround
> capabilities. We now have higher resolution release formats: 24/96,
> DSD. We have surround sound. It's definitely way better than 1994!

None of which has anything much to do with speaker technology. The
convertors in my JBL 4315's still work fine, thanks.

What were you doing in audio in 1994?

--
ha

[Tommi]

"xy" > wrote in message
om...
> Every year it gets better. Converters get better, self noise on mics
> drop. Quality trickles down to the lower price points.

Nope,
speakers haven't changed that much.
"Every year it gets better" is simply not true. Most of the real improvement
in the past years has been in the digital domain, not speakers.

I would like to know what exactly makes you think Genelec should drop their
prices and what exactly makes you think they're not "advanced enough"?

Genelec's quality control is quite excellent according to my knowledge, and
they're not stupid enough to drop their prices without any reason. They have
a strong following, and know what their customers want.

Sound of a speaker is to some extent a matter of personal preference, but
many famous rock and pop albums have been mixed through Gens and I doubt a
company
with so strong market position would just sit on its ass. Genelec's r&d is
very active, and they released new subwoofers recently in order to minimize
the speaker dimensions and yet improving slightly the response.

Of course they will someday release new models, but they're not the sort of
company which'd rush out new models without any reason. The 1994 line is
still of high standard and not yet beaten by its newer competitors in the
same price range.
Mackie's HR628 and 824 are direct competitors of Genelec 1030/1031/1032,
they're newer, and yet most people prefer the sound of 1031 against 624 or
824.


> In 1994 the project studio had 16 bit adats and mackie boards with
> limited or automation. Now we all have 24 bit with 32 bit float
> internal, unlimited track counts and pinpoint automation, all of which
> can be had for thousands instead of hundreds of thousands. Practically
> everything desirable from the near and recent past can be had on the
> used market, plus there are tons of quality new products out there.
> If you are in the upper bracket, you can still buy your SSLs, which
> are now outfitted for surround sound and more advanced automation.
> The Lexicon reverb boxes are more powerful, and have surround
> capabilities. We now have higher resolution release formats: 24/96,
> DSD. We have surround sound. It's definitely way better than 1994!


The tools have generally improved from 1994, but most of the evolution is
related to digital processing and more channels. Speaker design isn't so
much a part of it.

[transducr]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote in message >...
> xy > wrote:
> >yeah, the exchange rate. but they must have long recouped their r&d
> >and manufacturing setup costs on these 7-10 year old designs. so they
> >should lower the prices or come out with new designs that take
> >advantage of new materials and new manufacturing abilities.
>
> If technology today is so much better than it was ten years ago, how
> come so few people are making anything that sounds half as good as
> what Van Gelder was recording half a century ago?
>
> No thanks. I'll take something that sounds good instead. Technology
> for technology's sake is a disaster waiting to happen.
> --scott

amen.

[Romeo Rondeau]

> If technology today is so much better than it was ten years ago, how
> come so few people are making anything that sounds half as good as
> what Van Gelder was recording half a century ago?

Actually there is the same amount of good things recorded, it's just that
now you have to wade through all the bull**** to get to it :-)

[xy]

regarding speakers, there's been a lot of new materials introduced
both in the drivers and the cabinets. also new designs. the
loudspeakers on display at AES had a number of traditional looking
designs, but also some radical new ones. i just don't think the
discovery/improvement process ended 10 years ago.

in 1994 I was renting time in 2" 24 track studios, playing live with
my band, fwiw.


> None of which has anything much to do with speaker technology. The
> convertors in my JBL 4315's still work fine, thanks.
>
> What were you doing in audio in 1994?

[Tommi]

"xy" > wrote in message
om...
> regarding speakers, there's been a lot of new materials introduced
> both in the drivers and the cabinets. also new designs. the
> loudspeakers on display at AES had a number of traditional looking
> designs, but also some radical new ones. i just don't think the
> discovery/improvement process ended 10 years ago.


Of course the improvement process doesn't ever "end" to anything.

However you stated that:

"It's not like we're frozen in time unable to
improve playback. In the audiophile world, something two years old
starts to look dated. 8 years is a long time to be fronting the same
technology and expecting full sticker."

So what does this have to do with Genelec speakers?
In the audiophile world, two year old speakers start to look dated, you
say?!

I think you should keep in mind that "newer" isn't automatically "better".
In the speaker world, it's not like more bits are better or something...

Many inventions once considered new are nowadays completely forgotten,
because
they didn't work. It's quite dangerous to jump to the "newer is always
better" ship because in that particular ship there are many unnecessary
inventions which will inevitably flop the year they are released.

[Scott Dorsey]

xy > wrote:
>regarding speakers, there's been a lot of new materials introduced
>both in the drivers and the cabinets. also new designs. the
>loudspeakers on display at AES had a number of traditional looking
>designs, but also some radical new ones. i just don't think the
>discovery/improvement process ended 10 years ago.

Sure, but how do they sound?

Do any of them sound as good as a 1965 Quad system?

There are lots of new designs and new materials coming out all the time, but
most of them don't stick around very long.

There are constant fads also. All the time there is a "latest big sound"
that everybody is into. Used to be we had natural tracking rooms, then
everyone was into making dead tracking rooms, and now folks are getting back
to a more live sound. Used to be everyone wanted horn monitors because they
wanted that big forward sound... now people don't like that and they want
small nearfields because they think they don't have to fix control room
acoustical problems with nearfield monitors. Who knows what will be popular
next year? I dunno, but I doubt it will sound as good as the 1965 Quads.
It might. I'm waiting.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[James Perrett]

Tommi wrote:
>
> "xy" > wrote in message
> om...

> > i remember most of these designs they are selling now being prominent
> > in 1997. I don't think audio playback reached an insurmountable
> > summit that year. It's not like we're frozen in time unable to
> > improve playback. In the audiophile world, something two years old
> > starts to look dated.
>
> Do you know much about speaker design?
>
> If it's a good speaker, it lasts for like two decades unless you blow it up.
>
> 8 years is a long time to be fronting the same
> > technology and expecting full sticker.
>

Have you looked at the prices of ls3/5a's recently? Not bad for a 30
year old design that is still being made.

My main monitors are over 20 years old and based on a design that is
over 40 years old. While audiophiles may be fooled into buying the
latest thing, audio professionals know that good sound is achieved by
attention to detail and basic science that hasn't changed for many
years.

The only real area of progress is in improving the sound and power
handling of smaller speakers.

Cheers.

James.

[xy]

below is a direct quote from Klaus at ADAM from another newsgroup:

Observe below how he is talking about *new designs* of the original
Heil driver, and *new materials* being used to optimize the
design(Kapton from Dupont for example). This is exactly the kind of
progress I'm talking about. Lots of people are raving how accurate
and translatable the Adam speakers are. People on *this* newsgroup
have reported that one or more models of Genelec speakers have an
"organ pipe resonance at 500hz". How can that be considered "a design
for all eternity"? Progress happens in *all* areas of studio
equipment, as plainly evidenced below:


[quote]
Hi there,

I am happy to see that much interest in the AMT, just the way I feel
about it.

The original Heil Air Motion Transformer made by ESS in Sacramento
impressed me a lot, so much that I always thought taming this great
idea would be a good reason to start a new speaker company, something
not urgently needed these days as I know.

The original design had 3 major weak points from my point of view:

1. There was a big magnetic structure in front of the diaphragm, big
enough to have a horn like influence on the sound and not desirable
insofar. Oskar, whom I had a chance to meet several times, was happy
with the high efficiency he obtained from the units and had no special
sense for the coloration that was introduced thereby.

2. The height of the diapgragm lead to a very limited vertical
dispersion, something not practical for general applications.

3. The diapphragm material (Mylar) was not very temperature resistive,
furthermore the consistency between different diaphragms was not good,
Impedances were varying between 3 and 8 Ohms (as I found when looking
at some units). All in all the units where made the "we will fix it
anyhow" way, but they sounded exiting.

As we have new materials now, Neodyme magnets to minimize magnet
volume, and Kapton from DuPont with more than double the temperattur
range, we have chances to make new transducers with better geometries
and more reliabilty and consistency between the different units. I
made the diaphragm somewhat smaller to have better dispersion, and
compensated for that by stronger (Neodyme) magnets.

My goal was to have this openness and clarity that I loved from the
original design and, on the other hand, make a unit with no weak
points from an engineering point of view. So many interesting
transducer designs showed up in the past 50 years besides the voice
coill machines, but they all disappearded because they had one or more
problems like efficiency or dispersion or reliability or very low
impedance or high resonance or price or…….

If there are more questions - please let me know.

Klaus


__________________
Klaus from ADAM Audio

[end quote]

[Scott Dorsey]

xy > wrote:
>
>Observe below how he is talking about *new designs* of the original
>Heil driver, and *new materials* being used to optimize the
>design(Kapton from Dupont for example). This is exactly the kind of
>progress I'm talking about.

Yeah, but it doesn't really sound any better. It has a lot better
power handling than the old Heils, and it can play a lot louder, but
it doesn't really sound much better. Possibly the improved dispersion
pattern from the improved mounting method gives some audible improvement.
But we aren't talking night and day differences here.

>Lots of people are raving how accurate
>and translatable the Adam speakers are. People on *this* newsgroup
>have reported that one or more models of Genelec speakers have an
>"organ pipe resonance at 500hz". How can that be considered "a design
>for all eternity"?

That was a deliberate design decision. That wasn't something that
couldn't be avoided because of limited technology, that was something
that wasn't avoided to save costs. You want to get rid of it, you
pay more money. This stuff is not due to technological limits.

MOST of the things wrong with audio products aren't due to technological
limits, but are due to attempts to save costs.

>Progress happens in *all* areas of studio
>equipment, as plainly evidenced below:

<quotes removed>

Yes, it's progress, but it's not necessarily important progress. I am
really happy to see the ESS designs coming back, but I suggest you go
and listen to some of the old ones before you claim there has been all
that significant progress in the past thirty years.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Tommi]

"xy" > wrote in message
om...

> Observe below how he is talking about *new designs* of the original
> Heil driver, and *new materials* being used to optimize the
> design(Kapton from Dupont for example). This is exactly the kind of
> progress I'm talking about. Lots of people are raving how accurate
> and translatable the Adam speakers are. People on *this* newsgroup
> have reported that one or more models of Genelec speakers have an
> "organ pipe resonance at 500hz". How can that be considered "a design
> for all eternity"? Progress happens in *all* areas of studio
> equipment, as plainly evidenced below:


However, how much of your opinion about Genelec's is based on what you've
heard or read about them from other people, and how much is based on what
you're really *hearing* when you're listening to them?

Why are you so confident that all Genelecs suck if you haven't even heard
their entire catalogue?

All I'm saying is that Genelec has a strong following and more than a couple
mixing engineers who have mixed some of the best-sounding rock and pop
albums today prefer Genelec speakers when working in near-field. Every
speaker has its own characteristics, and some may not like the "creaminess"
or the "sizzle" of Gens, but many do.
You can pinpoint flaws in just about every speaker, and Genelecs are no
exception.

It's kinda like saying that Logic sucks and Pro tools is better, especially
since the new version of Pro tools just came out and newer is better..

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Observe below how he is talking about *new designs* of the original
> Heil driver, and *new materials* being used to optimize the
> design(Kapton from Dupont for example). This is exactly the kind of
> progress I'm talking about.

And this was the reason why they decided to make the current line of
ADAM speakers - because they had what they felt was an improvement on
a design that would make a better speaker. But the price of the ADAM
didn't increase because of this technological advance because the
product (the complete speaker) didn't exist until they had what they
thought was a new product worth selling. There is nothing to compare
price against.

This discussion was about retail cost, and as was intitially
explained, is simply a result of monetary exchange rates. This doesn't
make any more profit for Genelec, only the black marketeers.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[xy]

thanks for all the wisdom posted on this subthread. i appreciate all
the insights that are based on substantially more cumulative and
individual experience than i have. but i'm sitting down, listening to
what my gut says, and it's telling me to look for a quality recent
design. i'll still audition the genelecs, but with some reservations.

[Karl Winkler]

(xy) wrote in message >...
> Every year it gets better.

According to whom?

> Converters get better,

I'll give you that one.

> self noise on mics drop.

You might be surprised to learn that a properly tuned M49 from 50
years ago is only perhaps a few dB noisier than today's best mics. But
part of the question is, "do you think today's high-tech, low noise
mics sound better than the classics from the last 5 decades?" and I
can tell you from experience that generally the answer is "no".

> Quality trickles down to the lower price points.

Unfortunately, as others have pointed out, advances in technology
often end up meaning that "good enough" products are made more
cheaply. However, once in a while true innovation is used to bring
very high quality to the market at very reasonable quality. Just not
often enough.
>
> In 1994 the project studio had 16 bit adats and mackie boards with
> limited or automation.

And it was a very dark time. This is really when the downward spiral
began, and equipment types (tape machines, consoles, etc.) that used
to "just work" and "sound f-ing great" became "well, sometimes it
works and it sounds pretty mediocre, but with version 2.3.01, we'll
have everything sorted out..."

> Now we all have 24 bit with 32 bit float
> internal, unlimited track counts and pinpoint automation, all of which
> can be had for thousands instead of hundreds of thousands.

And this improves the end product (music) how?

> Practically
> everything desirable from the near and recent past can be had on the
> used market, plus there are tons of quality new products out there.
> If you are in the upper bracket, you can still buy your SSLs, which
> are now outfitted for surround sound and more advanced automation.
> The Lexicon reverb boxes are more powerful, and have surround
> capabilities. We now have higher resolution release formats: 24/96,
> DSD. We have surround sound. It's definitely way better than 1994!

Again, according to whom?

Karl Winkler
Sennheiser
http://www.sennheiserusa.com

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
xy > wrote:
>thanks for all the wisdom posted on this subthread. i appreciate all
>the insights that are based on substantially more cumulative and
>individual experience than i have. but i'm sitting down, listening to
>what my gut says, and it's telling me to look for a quality recent
>design. i'll still audition the genelecs, but with some reservations.

Just try the S30 model. Skip the rest of the line.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Fill X]

i was just listening to sonny Clark's "cool struttin" and thinking, once again,
that recording hasn't improved one damn bit since the 50's.


P h i l i p

______________________________

"I'm too ****ing busy and vice-versa"

- Dorothy Parker