I would go with the JBL
21 responses Add your response
That K2 is the product of hundreds of devoted passionate JBL lovers and live in a time when JBL defined Hi End. I have only dreamed of listening to the K2 the design alone looks loud and powerful .
The all horn Avante Garde is an aquired taste with active bass. I never enjoyed or became enraptured by integration of a shitty bash amp or those nasty car vbration amps made flat and Shake you with what I imagine an Elephant throwing fire F***s after eating a field of skunk cabbage would be.
No honestly all silliness aside the K2 is a monumental work. The avant Garde a precision instrument. I like the historical feature of the K@. It would be likw owning an original Hartesfield NOS preserved from its first year of manufacture 1957?
atmaspheres, Prcinka, Mechans ,
seems the votes are OVERWHELMING for the JBL K2 s9800 ....
however pardon me here ... but it seems most are overwhelm by its heritage and history n looks more than its ability?
not into changing my bat pre / power: vk32 / 55 and hence may nt prove sufficient to push the JBL K2s....
what do u think?
Never heard the JBLs, though at "only" 93 dB they'd not be an option for me and my 18 wpc amps. I'm sure that they are wonderful speakers.
Properly set up and amplified Duo Omegas do not have "slow" or "poorly integrated" bass, and at 108 dB sensitivity open up the possibility of low-power tube amps, which to my ears are the best of all worlds. To each his own.
Both are world class speakers and offer much.
I only heard the JBL's in a demo room and not a home situation so my impressions are thus biased. Dynamics were remarkable and they sounded mostly well balanced but I did not have as much of a musicians were in the room illusion that I hear with my Duo Omegas- Bass was powerful and maybe even a little bit aggressive to my ears despite not going as low as the AG's (35Hz-JBL's vs. 20Hz-Duo's). The Omegas are a significant step up from regular Duos and the bass is not slow or poorly integrated at all as Triode points out.
Good luck with your decision.
I have heard both speakers many times (though never in the same system - perhaps that disqualifies me). Both are excellent. They have different flavors. I agree with Triode in that when they are well set up, they don't have 'poorly integrated' bass, but that it takes more work to set them up than it would the K2s. I don't think either will be regarded as particularly good financial investments but either will provide a great amount of satisfaction. For some reason, and I am not sure why, I think the K2 does all things at a very high level, and the AGs do most things at a slightly lower level of perfection but some things even better than the K2s (Inman29's 'illusion'). I also like bass a bit further down than the JBLs can go, but that's me. The K2s' bass sounds really, really great.
About the keeping the BAT pre/power, my personal inclination is to say that the AGs really shine with a SET amp. The K2s need more juice than the AGs and your BAT amp is probably enough for the K2s (though if I were starting from scratch, I'd tend to want a bit more than 55W.
Art80342, I spent about a week listening to the K2, in a very controlled environment. My opinon comes from listening to both speakers, both with amps that I know and also those that I do not.
Either way, the K2 is an easier setup (it can be close to the rear wall), with greater coherence between the bass and the rest of the speaker (not surprising since the woofer is driven by the same amp that the midrange is). I found the speaker very easy to drive for 'only 93 db'. I think JBL is being conservative. The impedance curve is also easy for lower-powered tube amps. I found 60 watts to be nearly impossible to clip- literally so loud earplugs were required.