July 2004 issue of MONEY has an evaluation of Klipsch RB-75 @ $1200,
MartinLogan Clarity @ $2700, B&W 704 @ $2200, Infinity Primus 360 @ $660,
and Bose Acoustimass 5 Series III @ $500 speakers by Lou Reed listening to
his own (and other) music.

He loved the Klipsch, liked the MartinLogan (except they didn't work at high
volume), thought the B&W over-priced average speakers, dismissed the
Infinity's as "so so" but with little bass, and hated the Bose (no midrange
and he'd pay money NOT to hear them).

Final comment on the Klipsch was "Those Klipsch are f___ing unbelievable;
these things can do anything. For someone on a budget, it's not even a
contest." He especially liked their ability to play REAL LOUD without
break-up.

I wonder if Bose will sue him and Money.

- GRL

"It's good to want things."

Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, humorist, chemist,
Visual Basic programmer)

In article aEOzc.28783$Hg2.25341@attbi_s04, GRL
wrote:

July 2004 issue of MONEY has an evaluation of Klipsch RB-75 @ $1200,
MartinLogan Clarity @ $2700, B&W 704 @ $2200, Infinity Primus 360 @ $660,
and Bose Acoustimass 5 Series III @ $500 speakers by Lou Reed listening to
his own (and other) music.

He loved the Klipsch, liked the MartinLogan (except they didn't work at high
volume), thought the B&W over-priced average speakers, dismissed the
Infinity's as "so so" but with little bass, and hated the Bose (no midrange
and he'd pay money NOT to hear them).

Final comment on the Klipsch was "Those Klipsch are f___ing unbelievable;
these things can do anything. For someone on a budget, it's not even a
contest." He especially liked their ability to play REAL LOUD without
break-up.

I wonder if Bose will sue him and Money.

For what, telling the truth?

I have a set of the Klipsch reference speakers for my home theatre
system. While I don't prefer them for normal 2.0 music, they really
sound great for 6.1 stuff.

-john-

--
================================================== ==================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ==================

John A. Weeks III wrote:
In article aEOzc.28783$Hg2.25341@attbi_s04, GRL
wrote:


July 2004 issue of MONEY has an evaluation of Klipsch RB-75 @ $1200,
MartinLogan Clarity @ $2700, B&W 704 @ $2200, Infinity Primus 360 @ $660,
and Bose Acoustimass 5 Series III @ $500 speakers by Lou Reed listening to
his own (and other) music.

He loved the Klipsch, liked the MartinLogan (except they didn't work at high
volume), thought the B&W over-priced average speakers, dismissed the
Infinity's as "so so" but with little bass, and hated the Bose (no midrange
and he'd pay money NOT to hear them).

Final comment on the Klipsch was "Those Klipsch are f___ing unbelievable;
these things can do anything. For someone on a budget, it's not even a
contest." He especially liked their ability to play REAL LOUD without
break-up.

I wonder if Bose will sue him and Money.


For what, telling the truth?

I have a set of the Klipsch reference speakers for my home theatre
system. While I don't prefer them for normal 2.0 music, they really
sound great for 6.1 stuff.

-john-


A lawyer I know told me that the truth of a public hurtful statement is
no bar to a successful libel suit. The only question is the intent to
utter something hurtful. Even if it's true!

-Sean

GRL wrote:
July 2004 issue of MONEY has an evaluation of Klipsch RB-75 @ $1200,
MartinLogan Clarity @ $2700, B&W 704 @ $2200, Infinity Primus 360 @
$660, and Bose Acoustimass 5 Series III @ $500 speakers by Lou Reed
listening to his own (and other) music.

He loved the Klipsch, liked the MartinLogan (except they didn't work
at high volume), thought the B&W over-priced average speakers,
dismissed the Infinity's as "so so" but with little bass, and hated
the Bose (no midrange and he'd pay money NOT to hear them).

Final comment on the Klipsch was "Those Klipsch are f___ing
unbelievable; these things can do anything. For someone on a budget,
it's not even a contest." He especially liked their ability to play
REAL LOUD without break-up.

I wonder if Bose will sue him and Money.

- GRL

Hah, how can a musician with a damaged hearing judge loudspeakers? It is
like a half-blind evaluating video-cameras just because he is an actor seen
in some films.
I also have made the experience that most musicians are not really
interested in high quality reproduction, because they listen only to those
instruments they are playing. And I know from years of mixing live-acts,
that all what counts for a rock musician is volume, the more the better.
Now I have not read the mag, but what you write somehow corresponds to the
above said. And if Bose gives him a bag of coke, he will love those
speakers, they are just not smart enough!
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy

Sean Fulop wrote:

John A. Weeks III wrote:
In article aEOzc.28783$Hg2.25341@attbi_s04, GRL
wrote:


July 2004 issue of MONEY has an evaluation of Klipsch RB-75 @ $1200,
MartinLogan Clarity @ $2700, B&W 704 @ $2200, Infinity Primus 360 @
$660,
and Bose Acoustimass 5 Series III @ $500 speakers by Lou Reed listening
to
his own (and other) music.

He loved the Klipsch, liked the MartinLogan (except they didn't work at
high
volume), thought the B&W over-priced average speakers, dismissed the
Infinity's as "so so" but with little bass, and hated the Bose (no
midrange
and he'd pay money NOT to hear them).

Final comment on the Klipsch was "Those Klipsch are f___ing
unbelievable;
these things can do anything. For someone on a budget, it's not even a
contest." He especially liked their ability to play REAL LOUD without
break-up.

I wonder if Bose will sue him and Money.


For what, telling the truth?

I have a set of the Klipsch reference speakers for my home theatre
system.* While I don't prefer them for normal 2.0 music, they really
sound great for 6.1 stuff.

-john-


A lawyer I know told me that the truth of a public hurtful statement is
no bar to a successful libel suit.* The only question is the intent to
utter something hurtful.* Even if it's true!

I suspect you misunderstood him. By that definition, anything spoken in a
political campaign about one's opponent would be libelous. That's absurd.

To be libelous, something must, at the very least, be both untrue and
defamatory. If the object of the libel is a "public figure," the intent of
the writer/publisher is also relevant--the plaintiff must prove not only
that the statement is untrue and defamatory, but also that the
writer/publisher knew or should have known that it was untrue.

Now, there are other torts (e.g., invasion of privacy) where you could
conceivably sue successfully over something that was true. But that's not
libel.

As for Money and Mr. Reed, I haven't read the whole article, and I'm not a
lawyer (just an ex-journalist with, shall we say, an intimate knowledge of
libel law), but I'd guess that if a manufacturer were to bring a lawsuit
over comments such as those reported above, the aim would be to intimidate,
not to win.

I'm also curious about what point Money was trying to make in comparing a
$500 Bose system to ML.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/...ave/direct/01/