I know I shouldn't grumble but...

[YNWaN]

In reply tot the post to which this was a reply;

The amount of time available for listening surely is not a factor, however big or small that may be, what matters is the quality of experience when you re listening.

Sorry, but that doesn’t make any sense (I mean I cannot make head nor tail of it) to me and even less when referenced to my quote. In fact the whole premise of the thread makes no sense to me. You start by showing three speakers and bemoan that you can’t pick your favourite - I suggest you sell all three and buy a more expensive, but altogether better, speaker with the money made from selling the three pairs of speakers. Then you respond by saying you want the best speakers for £500.00 - well that doesn’t make sense because if you sold all three you would have more than £500. My subsequent comment was that even if one were limited to £500 then the three you show wouldn’t be on my shortlist - in other words, sell them and buy a better £500 speaker and pocket the rest of the money made.

[jandl100]

[tapid]

Sorry, but that doesn’t make any sense (I mean I cannot make head nor tail of it) to me and even less when referenced to my quote. In fact the whole premise of the thread makes no sense to me. You start by showing three speakers and bemoan that you can’t pick your favourite - I suggest you sell all three and buy a more expensive, but altogether better, speaker with the money made from selling the three pairs of speakers. Then you respond by saying you want the best speakers for £500.00 - well that doesn’t make sense because if you sold all three you would have more than £500. My subsequent comment was that even if one were limited to £500 then the three you show wouldn’t be on my shortlist - in other words, sell them and buy a better £500 speaker and pocket the rest of the money made.

Now THAT does make sense

[Edward]

Mark it is Lawrence who was deliberating on which speaker to stay with, but your post #41 to Pharos suggest that Pharos who was doing the deliberations.

[Lawrence001]

It has taken a rather surreal turn. I started a light hearted thread about the difficulty of choosing which pair of speakers one should keep when trying quite different ones out. It turns out some members of the forum believe that one should never have more than one pair of speakers in the house at any time as you should just spend the total cost of them all on one better pair. (Though how you would determine which one was the best without trying them first and comparing them is beyond me).

Furthermore, if one infers that argument holds for any other link in the hifi chain, then we should only have one of each component in our house at any time. I wonder how many other members of the forum adhere strictly to this rule

Sent from my POT-LX1 using Tapatalk

[Lawrence001]

Sorry, but that doesn’t make any sense (I mean I cannot make head nor tail of it) to me and even less when referenced to my quote. In fact the whole premise of the thread makes no sense to me. You start by showing three speakers and bemoan that you can’t pick your favourite - I suggest you sell all three and buy a more expensive, but altogether better, speaker with the money made from selling the three pairs of speakers. Then you respond by saying you want the best speakers for £500.00 - well that doesn’t make sense because if you sold all three you would have more than £500. My subsequent comment was that even if one were limited to £500 then the three you show wouldn’t be on my shortlist - in other words, sell them and buy a better £500 speaker and pocket the rest of the money made.

I did ask you earlier which ones would be on your list but you didn't say.

Sent from my POT-LX1 using Tapatalk

[montesquieu]

No harm in trying lots of approaches Lawrence, it's the best way to get a feel for what works for you..

Having said that, I do think the 'flog the lot and up the budget' approach has something in it. As did the Eatons recommendation. Or at least dual concentric Tannoys of some description.

[Pharos]

Has acid been slipped into our drinking water?

I'm not criticising anyone, but rather expressing my lack of understanding at not using resources to maximise one system, for the best possible quality.

[Lawrence001]

Thanks Tom the issue is I need the money in the long run for something else more important, especially given the amount of time I get to listen to music with my busy life. So if I can spare the funds for now to try a few options rather than have it sitting in the bank I might as well get some fun out of it.

I don't buy the argument that the less time I have to listen the more I should spend to enjoy that time the more. By that logic if I only had 5 minutes a week to listen I'd be spending about £20k on the speakers

Sent from my POT-LX1 using Tapatalk

[struth]

It has taken a rather surreal turn. I started a light hearted thread about the difficulty of choosing which pair of speakers one should keep when trying quite different ones out. It turns out some members of the forum believe that one should never have more than one pair of speakers in the house at any time as you should just spend the total cost of them all on one better pair. (Though how you would determine which one was the best without trying them first and comparing them is beyond me).

Furthermore, if one infers that argument holds for any other link in the hifi chain, then we should only have one of each component in our house at any time. I wonder how many other members of the forum adhere strictly to this rule

Sent from my POT-LX1 using Tapatalk

I've still got loads In My spare room, and I got rid of 3 sets recently. Damn things Breed.
Gonna have to do summat some day lol.
Yes u could sell the 3 and start again if you are not attached to any especially.
Alas I don't know there value.
But if say their combined value is 500 or so u should get something nice with change.
If your handy you could build some full range ones