Bose 802 Series III
Jon Dansby
advice. I am aware that Bose has apparently murdered some of your family
members because how else could there be such vitriolic hatred from some
against Bose in past posts? I am not interested in hearing from people who
have a personal vendetta against Bose. Nor do I want to hear from those who
haven't actually heard the speakers. Please just let me know what you think
of the speakers as they sound, taking into account my needs.
If I buy them, then I guess I'll have to get the Panaray System Digital
Controller to make them sound right, unless that thing is a scam.
Here are the factors germane to my purchase:
1. We need a set of portable speakers that can be raised on poles. We don't
have a stage or anything to raise
2. The size of the group will generally be from 75-200 people.
3. We will be using the speakers for acoustic guitar music and vocals,
therefore we want a lot of mid-range. For this reason normal 2-way speakers
are not desired. If we don't get the Bose, then we would probably look at
some kind of 3-way speaker. Unfortunately, 3-way speakers are pretty heavy
and thus, not very portable, nor can they generally be lifted onto poles to
project above the audience.
4. We usually meet in a room the size of a hotel meeting room. Maybe 75' x
150'. The sound system we had before was too directional to hit everybody
(it was a Fender Passport...yikes).
If I get these, should I power them with a Crown CE1000 or a Crown CE2000?
Those are really my only two options.
I am open to NOT buying the Bose system as well. If you know of a good set
of 3-way speakers that aren't bigger than a human, can be lifted onto poles
and are priced around $750 each or less, then please let me know.
Thanks a ton,
Jon
Tim S Kemp
> I am considering purchasing the Bose 802 Series III speakers
Don't.
> Here are the factors germane to my purchase:
>
> 1. We need a set of portable speakers that can be raised on poles. We
> don't have a stage or anything to raise
Any self-powered plastic box will work for that situation and you'll get
biamped and nice compression driveers giving high end clarity and good
midrange too
> 2. The size of the group will generally be from 75-200 people.
no problem
> 3. We will be using the speakers for acoustic guitar music and vocals,
> therefore we want a lot of mid-range. For this reason normal 2-way
> speakers are not desired. If we don't get the Bose, then we would
> probably look at some kind of 3-way speaker. Unfortunately, 3-way
> speakers are pretty heavy and thus, not very portable, nor can they
> generally be lifted onto poles to project above the audience.
Why not 2-way? Many very high class systems are 2-way, L-Acoustics Arcs,
Turbo TQ310, Nexo PS10/PS15 are all top-notch and 2 way. Listen to PS15s and
tell me you still want Bose (possibly too expensive though but a good
listening exercise)
> 4. We usually meet in a room the size of a hotel meeting room. Maybe
> 75' x 150'. The sound system we had before was too directional to hit
> everybody (it was a Fender Passport...yikes)
Then buy something a little wider. Remember that 802s don't throw - if your
room is 75 deep by 150 wide then maybe OK, if its 150 deep by 75 wide then
they will give no clear sound toward the rear of the room due to reflection
off the sides.. Don't judge everything by the sound of the passport
>
> If I get these, should I power them with a Crown CE1000 or a Crown
> CE2000? Those are really my only two options.
I used to run a Pulse 1100 into them. They need lots of power so the 2000 is
the better bet.
#
> I am open to NOT buying the Bose system as well. If you know of a
> good set of 3-way speakers that aren't bigger than a human, can be
> lifted onto poles and are priced around $750 each or less, then
> please let me know.
Just don't think 3 way, think 2 way.
DB Opera 412 (12" (415 15" not as sweet but a bit more beefy and not much
more money) self powered 2 way GBP750 / pair, easily as good as 802s if a
little bass light - I own these and I own 802s as well. For your budget you
could buy four, and use two for monitors... HK Elias sub and top set (very
small and easy to move around, self powered) GBP 1900 for a full set, again
no amps required so cheaper than 802/controller/amp combination and
effectively a 3 way setup (15" 10" + horn) and they sound good and are a
doddle to set up, they even come with poles!
You could also get Turbosound TXD 12" tops with the single 15" subs for your
money, all passive, use a 1k/channel amp into them and you've got a great
sounding system - very bright and crisp. If you don't need a lot of volume
Nexo PS10 system is excellent if a little expensive, try them with the
matched amp and one sub and you'll be stunned especially if you can a-b them
with the bose, just plug your guitar in and you'll wonder where the sound is
coming from.
All I ask is that you try some of these. I often do gigs your size using a
pair of DB412s and one JBL SRX4718 sub (running off a bridged
Maccro 1200) as that all fits in my car without folding the seats (with
cables, mics, 01V, multicore and a pair of 412s for monitors) run 4 piece
band (drums/keys/lead/bass) for over 300 people with that no problem.
Joel Foner
> If I buy them, then I guess I'll have to get the Panaray System Digital
> Controller to make them sound right, unless that thing is a scam.
The Bose design strategy is to use a set of the same drivers, over and over
again in most of the product line, and then compensate and adjust their
behavior with the digital signal processor ("the controller"). It is part of
the system. You can convince yourself of this by getting a demo and having
them bypass the controller to see what they sound like without it... By the
way, the positive side of using the same speaker drivers is that they have
refined the manufacturing to the point that they are quite consistent and
have a very low failure rate. On the other side of things, the cabinets are
very low efficiency compared to other options, which means that you will
either need a larger amplifier than with other options, or that they will
distort at lower volumes, or that you will need to run your PA at lower
volumes in order for it to not sound overloaded.
> Please just let me know what you think
> of the speakers as they sound, taking into account my needs.
> 3. We will be using the speakers for acoustic guitar music and vocals,
> therefore we want a lot of mid-range.
802's have that.
For this reason normal 2-way speakers
> are not desired.
This logic doesn't follow for me. If what you mean is that you want the
smoothest midrange possible, then yes, a three-way system will be better
than a two-way "in general". There are, however, 2-way systems that sound
pretty reasonable.
> If we don't get the Bose, then we would probably look at
> some kind of 3-way speaker. Unfortunately, 3-way speakers are pretty heavy
> and thus, not very portable, nor can they generally be lifted onto poles
> to
> project above the audience.
If you care enough about midrange quality to insist on 3-way conventional
cabs, I strongly urge you to compare (real audition - yourself) the Bose
side by side (not in two separate places) with a few cabinets. Even though
you have categorically discarded two way systems, you may want to try the
JBL MPro 412 or 415, which has a much smoother mid and less horn "honk" than
many of the two way systems. With a touch of eq, you'll have higher musical
accuracy in the upper frequencies (guitar strings will really sound like
guitar strings) and much higher efficiency.
By the way, I don't know where you would find a 3-way speaker system of
reasonable quality for this application for under $750 each - they may be
out there, just not any that I've seen.
If you care more about light weight than anything else, then the Bose are an
ok choice. They set up fast and are rugged. They are not, however, the
clearest sounding speakers you can get. The other restriction you have put
on the decision set is the price point - this is one of the other primary
advantage of the 802's - they are inexpensive. If you were to, however,
compare them against the higher end EAW, JBL etc etc touring cabs they don't
hold a candle to them (in my opinion). At the same time, these other systems
are in the $1-2k each range. (Someone will also probably jump in and say
"well for $2k you can get the PAS column system". True enough.
I think SLS has a ribbon-based speaker in that price range, and they sound
-very- good on vocals - both the really smooth mids and extended clear
highs.
By the way, I'm often using 3-way speakers that weigh 80-100 pounds each,
and with two people it's a 15-second snap to get these up on stands.
> The sound system we had before was too directional to hit everybody
> (it was a Fender Passport...yikes).
ALMOST ANYTHING will outperform a Passport by a wide margin... (this is not
vitriolic ranting - it is just not even in the same category as anything
else we've been talking about)
NOTE: If you are in a hotel meeting room, and the stage is "into the room",
and the room is side the wide way (75' to back wall, 150' side to side) I
don't think any speaker system will cover the whole space with one per side.
There are too many people out at the far left and right, and often people
directly off of stage right and left - and those folks wouldn't be anywhere
near the pattern of most speakers. For this application it sounds to me like
you need two cabinets per side, no matter what they are.
Also, although the 802, and most Bose products, are fairly wide
directionality in the mids, the high frequencies drop off at about the same
point as other cabs in terms of angle from "straight in front". Although the
intelligibility specs and various research says this doesn't matter too
much, I find that if you want even response across a wide angle you will
still need more than one per side with 802's. (Just because you have
intelligibility - i.e. you can understand the words - doesn't mean it sounds
as good or anywhere near the same out at the edges...)
Regards and hope this helps,
Joel
Dan Gruner
"Tim S Kemp" <ne...@timkemp.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8Jqcnfw1s_o...@karoo.co.uk...
Yes, I echo much of what Tim has said here. In a way, I can see your
reasoning for going for the Bose, but I think that after you have looked at
your options again and listened to several other speakers, then you will
wonder why you even considered the Bose. My suggestion is to have a listen
to the EV Rx-112, which is about £800 a cab. I have the Rx-115's, which is
a 15" driver and are simply stunning, the mid-range is smooth and well
projected. For your application, you may not need the 15" driver, so the
12" version, the Rx112 will be more compact and lighter.
Dan
Dave Andrews
<< I am aware that Bose has apparently murdered some of your family
members because how else could there be such vitriolic hatred from some
against Bose in past posts? >>
Welcome to Bedlam.
<< If I buy them, then I guess I'll have to get the Panaray System Digital
Controller to make them sound right, unless that thing is a scam. >>
It's a 2 x 4 mini-DSP with 7 filters, high and low pass crossover filters with
different slopes available, compression/limiting and delays. It is also
programmable to optimize it for use with other combinations of speakers,
whether Bose or not.
<< Here are the factors germane to my purchase: >>
802's will do the job very well based on your application profile that I
snipped. You will need to do comparative listening to make your own subjective
value judgements.
<< If I get these, should I power them with a Crown CE1000 or a Crown CE2000?
Those are really my only two options. >>
Both will work fine. The CE2000 will give you 2 extra dB of headroom. At $100
more per dB of headroom, you'll have to decide whether or not that's worth it
to you. Long term power handling on an 802-III is 240 watts making a CE1000
(at 275 watts) a nearly perfect match. Many would prefer a 480 watt per
channel amp (or larger) for 3 dB of dynamic peak headroom, but your application
profile seems to indicate that you aren't pushing the SPL envelope anyway. If
you were, you'd probably be looking at higher sensitivity box with a control
pattern horn.
<< I am open to NOT buying the Bose system as well. If you know of a good set
of 3-way speakers that aren't bigger than a human, can be lifted onto poles
and are priced around $750 each or less, then please let me know. >>
Any device that has a control pattern horn for highs (or mids and highs) will
have a much more "in your face" sound than an 802. In my never-to-be-humble
opinion, these devices sound best when you are located more than *at least* 30
feet away from them. Up close, they have all the subtlety of a
gastro-intestinal event in church.
<< Thanks a ton,
Jon >>
Free advice, Jon. Worth every dime.
P.S. Before I induce mass hysteria around here, I'm a Bose rep. That means my
opinion doesn't count as much as some others who sell or own other certain
brands. For some reason, their opinions are more neutral and they have no axes
to grind. The logic for this phenomonen escapes my ability to explain, but
then again, I try not to play in this sandbox too often. The erudition is too
lofty. ;-)
--
With All Due Respect,
Dave Andrews
D. W. Andrews Associates
Church Music System Specialists
"Two Hacks Working Out Of A Garage"
Disclaimer: If there are two ways to take my words,
always assume I was after the cheap laugh.
Dave Andrews
<< Any self-powered plastic box will work for that situation and you'll get
biamped and nice compression driveers giving high end clarity and good
midrange too >>
Having measured a number of these type devices, I discovered that there is
invariably a predominant peak in these devices centering around 10k to 12.5k
Hz, above which they roll off like water off a duck's back. This gives the
illusion that they have more "clarity". Smoothness is also a reasonable
performance goal. But if you prefer this sort of "clarity" you can program an
EQ or the Bose Panaray System Controller to mimic the profile of one of these
boxes. This will make it equally as irritating.
<< Then buy something a little wider. Remember that 802s don't throw - if your
room is 75 deep by 150 wide then maybe OK, if its 150 deep by 75 wide then
they will give no clear sound toward the rear of the room due to reflection
off the sides.. Don't judge everything by the sound of the passport >>
If he's mounting speakers on stands and you're going to throw 150 feet, be
prepared to give hearing aids to the people in back and ear plugs to the people
in front.
The spherical spreading of sound (inverse square law) dictates what you can and
cannot do with speakers mounted down low, close to listeners ears. You either
run multiple delays, or you fly cabinets *way* overhead. Even ground stacked
line sources will not do that kind of distance with acceptable uniformity.
<< I used to run a Pulse 1100 into them. They need lots of power so the 2000 is
the better bet. >>
2 dB. Approximately $100 US for each extra dB.
Ain't my money.
Tim S Kemp
> "Tim S Kemp" ne...@timkemp.karoo.co.uk wrote:
>
> << Any self-powered plastic box will work for that situation and
> you'll get biamped and nice compression driveers giving high end
> clarity and good midrange too >>
>
> Having measured a number of these type devices, I discovered that
> there is invariably a predominant peak in these devices centering
> around 10k to 12.5k Hz, above which they roll off like water off a
> duck's back. This gives the illusion that they have more "clarity".
> Smoothness is also a reasonable performance goal. But if you prefer
> this sort of "clarity" you can program an EQ or the Bose Panaray
> System Controller to mimic the profile of one of these boxes. This
> will make it equally as irritating.
Oddly enough, I bought the dBs on the back of the smooth sound off axis -
agreed on axis many cheaper horn / waveguide loaded compression drivers have
nasty peaks in response but the operas are to my ears the best of a bad
bunch. Art 300s are quite good in that respect too.
> If he's mounting speakers on stands and you're going to throw 150
> feet, be prepared to give hearing aids to the people in back and ear
> plugs to the people in front.
Depends very much on the height of the room (as you state below)
> The spherical spreading of sound (inverse square law) dictates what
> you can and cannot do with speakers mounted down low, close to
> listeners ears. You either run multiple delays, or you fly cabinets
> *way* overhead. Even ground stacked line sources will not do that
> kind of distance with acceptable uniformity.
>
> << I used to run a Pulse 1100 into them. They need lots of power so
> the 2000 is the better bet. >>
>
> 2 dB. Approximately $100 US for each extra dB.
From memory (my 802s have been lying idle for three months) they sound way
better, more punchy and more usable when driven within inches of their lives
by the pulse 1100 than they do with my Macro 1200 (IIRC the 1100 is 500/ch
into 8ohm and the 1200s are 350/ch into 8ohm) - not a big difference in
headroom but they just sound better. I am never afraid to use the 802s where
appropriate, and am still loathed to sell them (might sell two of them and
keep two) because they have given good service, it's just that they are no
longer my weapon of choice for most of my work. Still OK for speech stuff
but I like the convenience of not lugging amps, and if I'm lugging amps I
prefer the sound of the martins....
Dave Andrews
<< On the other side of things, the cabinets are
very low efficiency compared to other options, which means that you will
either need a larger amplifier than with other options, or that they will
distort at lower volumes, or that you will need to run your PA at lower
volumes in order for it to not sound overloaded. >>
I will agree that there are plenty of more efficient choices, and I will agree
that they are not designed to go above their full rated power without risking
distortion -- which is the same way it happens with every other speaker known
to mankind -- but distorted at lower volumes? I have a pair here that say
you're full of baloney, Joel. ;-)
<< I strongly urge you to compare (real audition - yourself) the Bose
side by side (not in two separate places) with a few cabinets. >>
This is good advice. Not everybody likes the same things.
<< If you care more about light weight than anything else, then the Bose are an
ok choice. They set up fast and are rugged. They are not, however, the
clearest sounding speakers you can get. >>
Balderdash. They are quite hi-fi sounding which by definition implies clarity.
<< The other restriction you have put
on the decision set is the price point - this is one of the other primary
advantage of the 802's - they are inexpensive. If you were to, however,
compare them against the higher end EAW, JBL etc etc touring cabs they don't
hold a candle to them (in my opinion).>>
The 802 is a speaker on a stick solution. It is not a "touring cab".
<< Also, although the 802, and most Bose products, are fairly wide
directionality in the mids, the high frequencies drop off at about the same
point as other cabs in terms of angle from "straight in front". >>
Click on "product info", then click on one of the two Panaray polar plot links
which will take you to PDF's of the coverage. When compared to most other
speakers (please look over their polar plots as well) you will see that the 802
is quite exceptional in its wide dispersion characteristics -- a definite
advantage for a speaker on a stick solution.
<< Although the intelligibility specs and various research says this doesn't
matter too much, I find that if you want even response across a wide angle you
will
still need more than one per side with 802's. (Just because you have
intelligibility - i.e. you can understand the words - doesn't mean it sounds
as good or anywhere near the same out at the edges...) >>
I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here, Joel.
Dave Andrews
<< Oddly enough, I bought the dBs on the back of the smooth sound off axis -
agreed on axis many cheaper horn / waveguide loaded compression drivers have
nasty peaks in response but the operas are to my ears the best of a bad
bunch. Art 300s are quite good in that respect too. >>
I was making a generalization on the genre, Tim. I have not measured every
brand, but given the EV's, JBL's and EAW's that I have either measured or
listened to critically, they always sound best when you get pretty far away
from them. I have not measured or listened to the dB's, but I did run into a
pair of RCF Art 300's about 6 weeks ago in a church where I was doing a Bose
double stacked MA-12 line array demo. The Art 300's sounded terrible by
comparison -- all acoustic wash -- but this was not a reflection on the speaker
sound as much as it was a situation where the room was not huge (@15m x 22m
with a 7m average -- multi-height stepped ceiling and all hard reflective
surfaces. Any kind of spherical radiator in there would have sounded like a
reverberant wash and the line sources were clear because they took most of the
bad room characteristics out of the equation. I did not listen to the Art
300's for other characteristics like dispersion, EQ, however. I just volume
balanced them with my rig out of the same mixer for the A/B comparison, made my
point and packed up and left. I'm sure they do a nice job for you -- you're in
a good position to know. And yes, self-powered can certainly be convenient.
<< From memory (my 802s have been lying idle for three months) they sound way
better, more punchy and more usable when driven within inches of their lives
by the pulse 1100 than they do with my Macro 1200 (IIRC the 1100 is 500/ch
into 8ohm and the 1200s are 350/ch into 8ohm) - not a big difference in
headroom but they just sound better. >>
Check out the sensitivity of your amps, Tim. I'll bet you dollars to donuts
that the amp you preferred had a higher sensitivity (maybe .775v versus 1 or
1.5v for full rated output), or that it had more gain to it. Like maybe 28 or
30 dB versus 26 (which seems to be sort of a Crown norm). We were through this
on some of our equipment and discovered that one of our Carver OEM amps has 32
dB of gain versus 26 on a Crown Macro. Some of the folks thought the Carvers'
were noisy, but they were listening to circuit noise ahead of the amp.
Adjusting gain structure corrects this.
<< I am never afraid to use the 802s where
appropriate, and am still loathed to sell them (might sell two of them and
keep two) because they have given good service, it's just that they are no
longer my weapon of choice for most of my work. Still OK for speech stuff
but I like the convenience of not lugging amps, and if I'm lugging amps I
prefer the sound of the martins.... >>
To each his own. That's why I agree that Jon should just listen to see what
floats his boat. I like the crossoverless design on the Bose for most aps
where long throw & high power is not imperative but nobody has to agree with
me.
Tim S Kemp
> I was making a generalization on the genre, Tim. I have not measured
> every brand, but given the EV's, JBL's and EAW's that I have either
> measured or listened to critically, they always sound best when you
> get pretty far away from them. I have not measured or listened to
> the dB's, but I did run into a pair of RCF Art 300's about 6 weeks
> ago in a church where I was doing a Bose double stacked MA-12 line
> array demo. The Art 300's sounded terrible by comparison -- all
> acoustic wash -- but this was not a reflection on the speaker sound
> as much as it was a situation where the room was not huge (@15m x 22m
> with a 7m average -- multi-height stepped ceiling and all hard
> reflective surfaces. Any kind of spherical radiator in there would
> have sounded like a reverberant wash and the line sources were clear
> because they took most of the bad room characteristics out of the
> equation. I did not listen to the Art 300's for other
> characteristics like dispersion, EQ, however. I just volume balanced
> them with my rig out of the same mixer for the A/B comparison, made
> my point and packed up and left. I'm sure they do a nice job for you
> -- you're in a good position to know. And yes, self-powered can
> certainly be convenient.
Hmm - now in a reverbrant room Bose's only current clever product (the MA12)
is quite a clever little system. I've listened to them and they seem to do
exactly what they say on the tin. Mission's FS2 pro is another good one but
more suited to voice than music.
Art 300s are one of the best plastic boxes, they don't try to do bass so
they don't flap around like JBL boxes do, and they are quite smooth.
Reverberant spaces are potential nightmares for PA as we all know... and a
we're talking about 802s a reverberant space would get well excited by
them...
Dave Andrews
<< Hmm - now in a reverbrant room Bose's only current clever product (the MA12)
is quite a clever little system. I've listened to them and they seem to do
exactly what they say on the tin. Mission's FS2 pro is another good one but
more suited to voice than music. >>
I've read the blurbs on several of the speaker lines that use the flat panel
technology from NXT, and I'm still totally incredulous as to the claims made
regarding great intelligibility in highly reverberant spaces over wide
listening areas and long distances. I admit that I know enough about chaos
theory to be dangerous, but unless they've found a way to make reflections
bounce off walls out of phase at all frequencies with the incoming direct
signal (a very cute trick that as far as I know is impossible) then I'm going
to assume that the marketing enthusiasm extends beyond the engineering
capabilities. But this is just my educated hunch. I'd like to listen to an
installation with them in a really tough room to make a final determination as
to what they may or may not be able to do.
<< Reverberant spaces are potential nightmares for PA as we all know... and a
we're talking about 802s a reverberant space would get well excited by
them... >>
No question about that, Tim. Spherical radiators all operate with the same set
of advantages and disadvantages, so the 802's would have been as bad or worse
than the Art 300's in that room. Same old story -- application is still king.
Joel Foner
On 8-Feb-2004, dwas...@aol.comnospam (Dave Andrews) wrote:
> << On the other side of things, the cabinets are
> very low efficiency compared to other options, which means that you will
> either need a larger amplifier than with other options, or that they will
> distort at lower volumes, or that you will need to run your PA at lower
> volumes in order for it to not sound overloaded. >>
>
> I will agree that there are plenty of more efficient choices, and I will
> agree
> that they are not designed to go above their full rated power without
> risking
> distortion -- which is the same way it happens with every other speaker
> known
> to mankind -- but distorted at lower volumes? I have a pair here that say
> you're full of baloney, Joel. ;-)
I said "they will distort at lower volumes" in the context of if they are
lower efficiency, you will hear distortion at lower volumes given the same
size of amplifier. As you would like to say, this is technical fact. You can
argue that perhaps I should have clarified the wording to say that "you will
hear distortion at lower volumes", since it is not the speaker itself
distorting in this case, but I treat it as a system in this discussion
(which is also something you advocate on a regular basis). I stand by the
statement that with the same amplifier a lower efficiency cabinet will
produce more distortion at lower volumes than a higher efficiency cabinet.
It turns out in this case that the distortion is amplifier-based, but as a
system it doesn't really matter which element generated it - the lower
efficiency makes the system hit the wall at a lower volume, which was the
original point.
> << If you care more about light weight than anything else, then the Bose
> are an
> ok choice. They set up fast and are rugged. They are not, however, the
> clearest sounding speakers you can get. >>
>
> Balderdash. They are quite hi-fi sounding which by definition implies
> clarity.
Huh? My statement was subjective and yours is also. Balderdash? Clear is not
one of those phrases that has been evaluated with some analytic precision
from what I've ever seen.
With that aside, I often listen to systems side by side with either with a
CD or with some recorded raw tracks (I am quite fluent with Pro Tools, have
an HD system, and have a lot of raw material on hand to use as reference
"live and uncompressed" material for this type of thing). Listening with a
dense mix shows which speakers can reproduce this type of material with
"clarity" fairly easily. Some speakers maintain the detail at running
volume, while others return far less detail - creating volume at the right
frequency ranges, but not in a way that you can hear what is going on. With
tracks that have long reverb tails, there is often a distinct difference in
how much of the reverb tail you can hear at various points in the tunel. Is
this caused by narrow frequency response peaks? Impulse smearing? IM
distortion? dynamic compression? Is it resonances? Some of all of them? Not
sure, but the differences between some systems are pretty easy to hear.
> << The other restriction you have put
> on the decision set is the price point - this is one of the other primary
> advantage of the 802's - they are inexpensive. If you were to, however,
> compare them against the higher end EAW, JBL etc etc touring cabs they
> don't
> hold a candle to them (in my opinion).>>
>
> The 802 is a speaker on a stick solution. It is not a "touring cab".
... and then I went on to say that these other options are much more
expensive, i.e. not a direct comparison, but you snipped this in your
response.
> Click on "product info", then click on one of the two Panaray polar plot
> links
> which will take you to PDF's of the coverage.
I had no idea that Bose published any specific technical info in terms of
polars, frequency response plots and such. I will take a look. When I have
previously looked at the site it's been hard to find anything past the basic
power/size info. Thanks for pointing out the home of 'the real information
page'.
Ok, now having looked at the specs this can be a much more direct
discussion. The direct link to the PDF I am looking at is:
http://www.bose.com/pro/dd/product/pdfs/panaray_octave/3_Polar802.pdf
On page three, there are a set of polars showing the frequency range of
2000-8000 Hz. As we go up through the frequency range, we see some very
pronounced lobing in the response (dips at certain angles, I'm guessing due
to interference laterally between the drivers in the 8-driver matrix). This
seems worst in the 2-4k region, and matches what I've subjectively been
saying for a while - that these speakers have a "hot spot" in front. As it
turns out it's not a hot spot in front, but a drop-off of over 10 dB at
about 30 degrees on either side of center in the 2-4k range. At 4k it
appears that at 30 degrees off axis the output is down by about 15 dB
relative to straight on.
This deep drop in output at about 30 degrees off axis is likely why I keep
thinking of these as pretty typical 60-90 degree useful dispersion, not the
120 claimed. I guess that the 120 degree spec is based on the next lobe that
seems to carry from about 30 degrees or so to 45 degrees off axis.
In the 5k-6.3k range there is a distinct lobe at the front, with response on
axis that is 5dB higher than even 5 degrees off axis. Given that the
response.
By the time we get to 8kHz, the response is starting to look pretty ragged,
and only a range of +/- 40 degrees seems to be engaged fully. At 30-40
degrees there is a steep drop-off in output to about -10 dB relative to on
axis.
These plots correlate very well with my subjective reactions to the systems.
I still think of these as really more like a 60-90 degree dispersion cabinet
(above the range where they are close to omni), and the polars seem to
indicate that this is a pretty reasonable conclusion if you want smooth
coverage. The additional side lobes can makes this tricky though, since it
seems that if you try to splay a pair of cabinets you can't avoid either a
pretty steep hole or hot spot - if you splay them at 60-90 degrees the
additional side lobes will play games with the "other" cabinet, and if you
splay them farther apart you live with the 30-40 degree notches.
From these plots, I now see how the 120 degree dispersion claim is made, but
I am still unconvinced that for even coverage they should be treated as 120
degree cabinets. For the original stated application, -if- the room is
"sideways" (150' wide) it still seems like the right choice would be to use
more than one pair to get broad enough dispersion near the stage without
having a response hole down in front.
> << Although the intelligibility specs and various research says this
> doesn't
> matter too much, I find that if you want even response across a wide angle
> you
> will
> still need more than one per side with 802's. (Just because you have
> intelligibility - i.e. you can understand the words - doesn't mean it
> sounds
> as good or anywhere near the same out at the edges...) >>
>
> I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here, Joel.
I am trying to say that intelligibility is only one specification. "Sounding
good" and intelligibility are not necessarily the same thing. There are
plenty of spoken word installed systems that have high intelligibility
numbers that do not sound very good from a musicality perspective.
Also, on a previous post you mentioned that many horn loaded systems have a
large peak at 10k followed by a precipitous drop (don't have the exact text
in front of me, sorry for paraphrasing). I have used analyzers for years,
and have a Smaart system at every show. For curiosity's sake I run an
analysis of any of the small boxes that I end up in front of and have never
seen this response pattern.
There are plenty of smaller systems that have a couple of peak in the 3-5k
region - this is what yields the "in your face" as well as "ouch" sound with
them. A judiciously placed cut in that range (where depends on the product -
JBL and Mackie seem to be on the lower end, and EV on the higher end of that
range) can do wonders both for closer up use and for overall use. The EV
300's in particular have a pretty strong peak (and likely resonance) farther
up than that, but they also have a notch below the horn, at about 1k or so.
Fixing a few of these things yields a much better sounding system. At the
same time, most horn systems will need a boost at the extreme top -if- what
you want is closer to flat response -however, I have not seem them "fall off
like a rock". Typically a few dB at 16k+ on a graphic is plenty.
Regards,
Joel
Tim S Kemp
> "Tim S Kemp" ne...@timkemp.karoo.co.uk wrote:
>
> << Hmm - now in a reverbrant room Bose's only current clever product
> (the MA12) is quite a clever little system. I've listened to them and
> they seem to do exactly what they say on the tin. Mission's FS2 pro
> is another good one but more suited to voice than music. >>
>
> I've read the blurbs on several of the speaker lines that use the
> flat panel technology from NXT, and I'm still totally incredulous as
> to the claims made regarding great intelligibility in highly
> reverberant spaces over wide listening areas and long distances. I
> admit that I know enough about chaos theory to be dangerous, but
> unless they've found a way to make reflections bounce off walls out
> of phase at all frequencies with the incoming direct signal (a very
> cute trick that as far as I know is impossible) then I'm going to
> assume that the marketing enthusiasm extends beyond the engineering
> capabilities. But this is just my educated hunch. I'd like to
> listen to an installation with them in a really tough room to make a
> final determination as to what they may or may not be able to do.
Speak to your mission distributor, they were very eager over here to loan
gear out for trial, bear in mind they do not throw and in reverberant spaces
the recommended application is to wall mount them in quite large numbers,
making them a nearfield device - sound levels do fall rapidly away as you
move away from the panel, as if it actually becomes destructive.
They are very odd in operation but sound great for voice reinforcement and
background music - the lack of bass output probably helps things too.
Pooh Bear
< snip >
> The 802 is a speaker on a stick solution. It is not a "touring cab".
Yup !
I saw them used on a tour once. Must have been mid 70s. LMAO ! Bose amps too. Clip
leds constantly on ( more or less ) and the PA was only ( wisely) being used for
vocals.
Graham
Pooh Bear
> "Joel Foner" joel....@fonerxyzassoc.com wrote:
< snip >
> << If you care more about light weight than anything else, then the Bose are an
> ok choice. They set up fast and are rugged. They are not, however, the
> clearest sounding speakers you can get. >>
>
> Balderdash. They are quite hi-fi sounding which by definition implies clarity.
You may be right. I've never had the pleasure sadly.
Every Bose 802 I've heard has been ineptly specced for a rock ' n roll application
and is driven to buggery.
Any chance of discerning fidelity in such a scenario disappeared a long time back.
You should see the *wall* of 802s that's there any time you visit Wembley
Loudspeakers' reconing facility too.
Why don't Bose stick to punting the 802 for speech and light acoustic
re-inforcement use ?
It's not as if pros hate the horrors without good reason you know.
Graham
Tony
> "Joel Foner" joel....@fonerxyzassoc.com wrote:
>
><< On the other side of things, the cabinets are
>very low efficiency compared to other options, which means that you will
>either need a larger amplifier than with other options, or that they will
>distort at lower volumes, or that you will need to run your PA at lower
>volumes in order for it to not sound overloaded. >>
>
>I will agree that there are plenty of more efficient choices, and I will agree
>that they are not designed to go above their full rated power without risking
>distortion -- which is the same way it happens with every other speaker known
>to mankind -- but distorted at lower volumes? I have a pair here that say
>you're full of baloney, Joel. ;-)
I may be off base here, but I took the original statement to mean "because of
the lower efficiency, the acoustic volume at which the power amp starts to clip
(distort) will be lower than with high efficiency speakers.
Tony (remove the "_" to reply by email)
Tim S Kemp
> Why don't Bose stick to punting the 802 for speech and light acoustic
> re-inforcement use ?
I think they do don't they? Nowhere on their site do you see them punted in
more than stacked pairs (I've run 4/side and 6/side before, it's a law of
diminishing returns)
Dave Andrews
Your explanation makes far more sense application-wise than the other blurbs I
read before, Tim. I'm not sure if it was Mission or one of the other companies
licensing the NXT technology, but they were claiming great intelligibility over
long throw distances in reverberant rooms with an SPL roll-off less than you
might expect from a line source. I rolled up my pants figuring it was too late
to save my shoes. But you are correct -- a nice low Q device used in a
reverberant space where speaker to listener distances are very short can be a
good solution. I've done it before with good success.
Dave Andrews
<< I said "they will distort at lower volumes" in the context of if they are
lower efficiency, you will hear distortion at lower volumes given the same
size of amplifier. As you would like to say, this is technical fact. You can
argue that perhaps I should have clarified the wording to say that "you will
hear distortion at lower volumes", since it is not the speaker itself
distorting in this case, but I treat it as a system in this discussion
(which is also something you advocate on a regular basis). I stand by the
statement that with the same amplifier a lower efficiency cabinet will
produce more distortion at lower volumes than a higher efficiency cabinet.
It turns out in this case that the distortion is amplifier-based, but as a
system it doesn't really matter which element generated it - the lower
efficiency makes the system hit the wall at a lower volume, which was the
original point. >>
=========================================
Time out, Joel. "Splain this to me". Are you talking about crossover
distortion or "notch distortion"? If you are, I'm at a loss as to understand
your logic, because the higher efficiency cabinet playing at lower volumes
would use very low power amounts. At these levels, any crossover distortion in
a class B amp would be a higher percentage of the signal and thus more audible
(if it ever really could be). But then again, even at incredibly low levels,
this is a negligible amount of distortion (read not discernible by human ears)
.
=========================================
<< Huh? My statement was subjective and yours is also. Balderdash? Clear is not
one of those phrases that has been evaluated with some analytic precision
from what I've ever seen. >>
=========================================
If a device is acceptably linear over a wide range of frequencies with low
distortion, it is clear. This has very little to do with subjectivity, it is
much more an objective statement than you are giving creedence to. Some less
educated audiophiles will disagree based on amounts of their perceived clarity,
but they also buy $100 per foot cables. When I run into one of these guys, I
have the strongest urge to ask: "If you're so rich, how come you're not smart?"
=========================================
<< With that aside, I often listen to systems side by side with either with a
CD or with some recorded raw tracks (I am quite fluent with Pro Tools, have
an HD system, and have a lot of raw material on hand to use as reference
"live and uncompressed" material for this type of thing). Listening with a
dense mix shows which speakers can reproduce this type of material with
"clarity" fairly easily. Some speakers maintain the detail at running
volume, while others return far less detail - creating volume at the right
frequency ranges, but not in a way that you can hear what is going on. With
tracks that have long reverb tails, there is often a distinct difference in
how much of the reverb tail you can hear at various points in the tunel. Is
this caused by narrow frequency response peaks? Impulse smearing? IM
distortion? dynamic compression? Is it resonances? Some of all of them? Not
sure, but the differences between some systems are pretty easy to hear. >>
=========================================
Your descriptors are now delving into the world of subjectivity. I don't
intend to go there. We're talking SR and not studio monitors, and what is
clear is a quantifiable measurement in the context of a real world application
using STI or without the context of an acoustical space, frequency response &
distortion. You and I have also discussed this before.
=========================================
> << The other restriction you have put
> on the decision set is the price point - this is one of the other primary
> advantage of the 802's - they are inexpensive. If you were to, however,
> compare them against the higher end EAW, JBL etc etc touring cabs they
> don't
> hold a candle to them (in my opinion).>>
>
> The 802 is a speaker on a stick solution. It is not a "touring cab".
... and then I went on to say that these other options are much more
expensive, i.e. not a direct comparison, but you snipped this in your
response.
=========================================
Relevance, Joel. When discussing a passenger van, it is not relevant to insert
the attributes of a bus.
=========================================
<< I had no idea that Bose published any specific technical info in terms of
polars, frequency response plots and such. >>
We make available a lot of data to contractors and consultants. This is not
the same Bose that you may have made large assumptions about.
=========================================
<<Ok, now having looked at the specs this can be a much more direct
discussion. The direct link to the PDF I am looking at is:
http://www.bose.com/pro/dd/product/pdfs/panaray_octave/3_Polar802.pdf
On page three, there are a set of polars showing the frequency range of
2000-8000 Hz. As we go up through the frequency range, we see some very
pronounced lobing in the response (dips at certain angles, I'm guessing due
to interference laterally between the drivers in the 8-driver matrix). This
seems worst in the 2-4k region, and matches what I've subjectively been
saying for a while - that these speakers have a "hot spot" in front. As it
turns out it's not a hot spot in front, but a drop-off of over 10 dB at
about 30 degrees on either side of center in the 2-4k range. At 4k it
appears that at 30 degrees off axis the output is down by about 15 dB
relative to straight on. >>
=========================================
Take a look at the one octave polars, Joel. The zero degree plots are the
horizontal dispersion, the 90 degree plots are the vertical dispersion, and the
rest of them have to do with rotating the "yaw" through various angles. The
divisions are in 6 dB increments. There appears to be a discrepancy between
the data for one octave bands and one third octave bands, and I will have to
look into this.
=========================================
<< This deep drop in output at about 30 degrees off axis is likely why I keep
thinking of these as pretty typical 60-90 degree useful dispersion, not the
120 claimed. I guess that the 120 degree spec is based on the next lobe that
seems to carry from about 30 degrees or so to 45 degrees off axis. >>
=========================================
The nominal response in the 1kHz to 4kHz bands ( 6 dB down points) is as
advertised in the octave plots. As we also discussed before, this stat is an
industry standard measurement. The polars tell more of the story in bands
outside this spec. As for the anomalies in the one third octave plots that are
out of sync with the one octave plots -- it beats me. They may have
mislabelled the deviations on the one third octave chart. It could be that the
one third plots are using a 2dB per deviation standard instead of the 5 dB as
labelled -- this would make the two charts align themselves and it would be in
keeping with the 802 Series II polars that I have here on another earlier
published tech data sheet.
=========================================
<< I am trying to say that intelligibility is only one specification. "Sounding
good" and intelligibility are not necessarily the same thing. There are
plenty of spoken word installed systems that have high intelligibility
numbers that do not sound very good from a musicality perspective. >>
=========================================
Sounding good is not measurable. STI, Frequency response, distortion, are all
measurable. In the context of this discussion, you have introduced
descriptors and other subjective analyses that are not relevant to this issue.
Even STI is not relevant in this context, since it is application specific
(installed in a given room) and this is a portable system. Therefore, clarity
is a function of frequency response and distortion only. You might consider Q
(dispersion) as an application dependent criteria (it is clear over an
acceptable angle) but whether you think it is as clear as another speaker, that
would be a totally subjective assessment.
==========================================
<< Also, on a previous post you mentioned that many horn loaded systems have a
large peak at 10k followed by a precipitous drop (don't have the exact text
in front of me, sorry for paraphrasing). I have used analyzers for years,
and have a Smaart system at every show. For curiosity's sake I run an
analysis of any of the small boxes that I end up in front of and have never
seen this response pattern. >>
==========================================
EV, JBL, Peavey, to name a few. Many if not most of the two ways exhibit this,
but various manufacturers trade off compressions driver sizes and crossover
frequencies to make the system better behaved in one respect while in another,
they tank.
==========================================
<< There are plenty of smaller systems that have a couple of peak in the 3-5k
region - this is what yields the "in your face" as well as "ouch" sound with
them. A judiciously placed cut in that range (where depends on the product -
JBL and Mackie seem to be on the lower end, and EV on the higher end of that
range) can do wonders both for closer up use and for overall use. The EV
300's in particular have a pretty strong peak (and likely resonance) farther
up than that, but they also have a notch below the horn, at about 1k or so.
Fixing a few of these things yields a much better sounding system.>>
==========================================
Some anomalies cannot be fixed with EQ or positioning due to cancellations at
the frequencies around the crossover (especially with less severe slopes --
i.e. most passive crossovers). There is also the issue of surface reflections
cancelling out the main signal at some frequencies as it exits the horn. All
solutions have trade-offs.
==========================================
<< At the same time, most horn systems will need a boost at the extreme top
-if- what
you want is closer to flat response -however, I have not seem them "fall off
like a rock". Typically a few dB at 16k+ on a graphic is plenty. >>
==========================================
I don't want flat. I want a THX curve for speech and/or perhaps a full range
1-1/2 dB per octave roll-off. But never flat. The horn systems I have tried
to optimize for clients have all exhibited the anomalies I stated here and in
the previous post.
Dave Andrews
<< Why don't Bose stick to punting the 802 for speech and light acoustic
re-inforcement use ? >>
I think that's basically the message that we have tried to advance for lo these
many years.
<< It's not as if pros hate the horrors without good reason you know. >>
I understand exactly what you are saying, but we can't repossess speakers from
people that choose to misapply them. We try to educate, but sometimes to no
avail. They sound nice and full and powerful at lower SPL's, so people make
the assumption that they will do the same at very high SPL. If you need ear
splitting SPL, or want to throw long distances, we make very impressive LT
cabinets that, properly applied, can be as deafening as anything else in the
industry -- and generally speaking, with more finesse. But they aren't cheap,
either. The 802's are, as I said before, a speaker on a stick solution for
small to medium sized venues of mostly lower to moderate volume levels. If
someone needs high SPL and they insist on using 802's, then you can get line
source behavior out of them if you stack 8 per side. If you also stack up
about 16 MB-4's to support the low end to allow the 802's to do everythinbg
from about 150 Hz on up, you have the makings for a religious experience.
Joel Foner
On 10-Feb-2004, dwas...@aol.comnospam (Dave Andrews) wrote:
> Time out, Joel. "Splain this to me". Are you talking about crossover
> distortion or "notch distortion"? If you are, I'm at a loss as to
> understand your logic, because the higher efficiency cabinet playing at
> lower volumes
> would use very low power amounts. At these levels, any crossover
> distortion in a class B amp would be a higher percentage of the signal and
> thus more
> audible (if it ever really could be). But then again, even at incredibly
> low
> levels, this is a negligible amount of distortion (read not discernible by
> human
> ears)
I think Tony understood and restated what I meant (thanks!). I'll try again.
I am not talking about crossover or notch distortion. High efficiency
speakers will get louder on the SAME power amp than lower efficiency
speakers since the amplifier will be driven to clipping at a lower SPL on
the lower efficiency speakers. Thus, on the same "reference amplifier" lower
efficiency cabinets such as the 802's will start to emit a distorted signal
(due to amplifier clipping) at a lower SPL than higher efficiency cabinets.
Hopefully this is clearer. If not, I'll have to pass and have Tony
interpret!
Ok, so I guess there is one place that we're not going to get around. I try
to bring subjectivity into the discussion, in any form, and it seems that
you counter that the only thing that counts is measurable facts. If
measurements are available that define quality (any axis you prefer), then
why do people prefer different systems? You seem to think that any mention
of subjectivity is irrelevant and to be discarded. I disagree. There are
plenty of metrics in this business. I do agree that there are folks that go
off the dial on subjectivity (the $200 wooden volume control knob took the
cake on that one for me!). At the same time I don't see that the "true model
of sonic quality" has yet been determined - where all of the various factors
have been correlated together. Bose may have such computational models
internally, and wouldn't be surprising to me given the genesis of the
company. At the same time, if the Bose design model were a universal
representation of quality and preferences, everyone else would be out of
business.
> If a device is acceptably linear over a wide range of frequencies with low
> distortion, it is clear.
Ah. So this is your definition of clarity. Ok, so we have different
definitions. That explains a lot.
When you say "linear", do you mean in terms of frequency response or impulse
response? What frequency range is required to be linear in order to be
"clear"? I think I remember you saying that impulse (time) response doesn't
matter for live sound. In rethinking this I had to wonder. If that is true,
then why can one hear the difference of time alignment between elements of a
3-5 way system in a live venue? Moving things around by milliseconds
certainly plays with the time response, and if not set up correctly creates
a sharp frequency-related time response anomaly. If time response doesn't
matter, we wouldn't be able to hear this, right?
> Take a look at the one octave polars, Joel. The zero degree plots are the
> horizontal dispersion, the 90 degree plots are the vertical dispersion,
> and the rest of them have to do with rotating the "yaw" through various
> angles.
> The divisions are in 6 dB increments. There appears to be a discrepancy
> between the data for one octave bands and one third octave bands, and I
> will have
> to look into this.
Ok. If the 1/3 octave charts are wrong, they're wrong. I figured I'd look
through the 1/3 octave plots with no idea that they might not line up...
Still and all, even if the deviations are not as strong as indicated, they
correlate in terms of geometry with what I've heard working with 802's.
> Sounding good is not measurable.
This is what I've been saying! (Yes, I know you were trying to make the
opposite point with this, in terms of logic, but I couldn't resist showing
that we're not really saying different things... ;)
> STI, Frequency response, distortion, are
> all measurable. In the context of this discussion, you have introduced
> descriptors and other subjective analyses that are not relevant to this
> issue.
Hmm. Yes, they're measurable, but what is "good" frequency response? Which
variations are preferable, and which are not? Freq response is not some
monolithic thing that is either good or bad... I've never seen an
interpretation of frequency response that is non-subjective, when it comes
right down to it. Any time you say "well this dip is ok, but that one is
not" it's a subjective reaction. Saying that "only some folks hear to this
frequency, and thus it doesn't count, is "bias in the survey" as it were.
Thus almost every comparison of any pair of loudspeakers is subjective.
Otherwise we'd have to say they all sound the same, since if two speakers
are nominally the same in terms of overall frequency response integrity they
can still sound different due to other factors.
> Even STI is not relevant in this context, since it is application specific
> (installed in a given room) and this is a portable system.
STI only matters in installs. Hmm. Please excuse my attempt at humour here,
but "don't people try to understand spoken word in situations where the
system is a portable system?" (remember your tagline for interpreting my
comment here ;) STI is measurable with portable systems - the results are
just not nearly what one would like to crow about!
> Therefore, clarity is a function of frequency response and distortion
> only. You might
> consider Q (dispersion) as an application dependent criteria (it is clear
> over an
> acceptable angle) but whether you think it is as clear as another speaker,
> that would be a totally subjective assessment.
This pretty much makes my point - there are many, many specs, with many
poles and axes to consider, and there is no one universal formula that
correlates it all into "the listening experience" with one nice tidy magic
number. Specs are important, and they are one of the few tools that
designers have, but the choices of specs and priorities assigned to
interpreting them creates subjectivity !!! The choice of which
specifications are of what importance, and how to to assign importance to
variation from "purity" is in itself an engineering decision, aka
subjectivity. What one designer thinks is most important is not always what
another designer thinks should be optimized.
> Some anomalies cannot be fixed with EQ or positioning due to cancellations
> at the frequencies around the crossover (especially with less severe
> slopes
> -- i.e. most passive crossovers). There is also the issue of surface
> reflections cancelling out the main signal at some frequencies as it exits
> the horn.
> All solutions have trade-offs.
Agreed. I didn't mean to say that these systems can be completely fixed with
EQ, but the big issues can be mitigated to a reasonable degree for some
applications. The same thing goes for the 802's to the same degree.
Nothing's perfect. And I guess the part we'll not agree on is that everybody
has yet to find the perfect list and prioritization of specifications for
describing "great sound". There are plenty of specs that "help", but there
are lots of variables involved, and it's not clear how the human brain
decides which set of variables is "best".
Dave - I have to say - I suspect that if we could get past this "anything
that sounds like subjectivity is out of bounds" thing we might find that we
agree more than we disagree on the issues. Oh well. Another interesting
exchange.
To whomever started this thread, I hope you don't count this as vitriolic
exchange - I guess that Dave and I just come at this from very different
viewpoints.
Regards,
Joel
Dave Andrews
<< I think Tony understood and restated what I meant (thanks!). I'll try again.
I am not talking about crossover or notch distortion. High efficiency
speakers will get louder on the SAME power amp than lower efficiency
speakers since the amplifier will be driven to clipping at a lower SPL on
the lower efficiency speakers. Thus, on the same "reference amplifier" lower
efficiency cabinets such as the 802's will start to emit a distorted signal
(due to amplifier clipping) at a lower SPL than higher efficiency cabinets.
Hopefully this is clearer. If not, I'll have to pass and have Tony
interpret! >>
Okay, I understand now. I was looking for something else more esoteric in your
words, because if an amplifier distorts before the speaker does, it is
underpowered and the wrong choice for the application. Sorry about the
confusion.
<< Ok, so I guess there is one place that we're not going to get around. I try
to bring subjectivity into the discussion, in any form, and it seems that
you counter that the only thing that counts is measurable facts. If
measurements are available that define quality (any axis you prefer), then
why do people prefer different systems? >>
Please understand me -- I'll try this again. I do not discount subjective
opinion at all -- it's what brought me to Bose in the first place almost 20
years ago when I was looking for a solution to making my church music systems
installations (analogue & digital organs, keyboards, etc.) sound more like the
natural acoustical instruments that they were trying to emulate. The reason
that I do my best to avoid it here is because stating your own personal
preference is irrefutable and just fodder for ignorant rebuttals or allegations
of prejudice from the peanut gallery. Your ears are your ears and what you
hear or prefer to hear cannot be critiqued by another person. Therefore, to
make empirical sounding statements on personal listening experiences is to set
yourself up for a "kick me" sign on your backside. On a more insidious note,
how many people fail to listen to another product because of a condemnation by
someone here who tried to use a given product in a non-optimal fashion and
experienced a crash and burn? If someone has a specific application profile in
mind, and a device like a Mackie mixer happens to fit, why go off like a loaded
gun on how it really stinks when in fact it might be a logical choice for the
person looking? If I say instead, that the specs are great but if you plan on
doing live sound for live sound, and the power supply in the VLZ design cannot
support the current demands of multiple channels running close to the zero dB
reference line without running out of gas -- then I have offered something far
more useful. If the person needs high quality, low noise preamps, is on a very
tight budget, rarely runs more than a few channels for any given application,
and doesn't need lots of channel strip tweaking power -- a Mackie compact VLZ
mixer might be a good choice for them. They should check it out for themselves
rather than to listen to George rant and consequently eliminate it from
consideration.
As for me, I don't like Mackie mixers, either. So what?
<<When you say "linear", do you mean in terms of frequency response or impulse
response? What frequency range is required to be linear in order to be
"clear"? I think I remember you saying that impulse (time) response doesn't
matter for live sound. In rethinking this I had to wonder. If that is true,
then why can one hear the difference of time alignment between elements of a
3-5 way system in a live venue? Moving things around by milliseconds
certainly plays with the time response, and if not set up correctly creates
a sharp frequency-related time response anomaly. If time response doesn't
matter, we wouldn't be able to hear this, right? >>
I cannot go down this path with you right now for the primary reasons of time
constraints. As before, I believe based on your statement of "3-5 way system
in a live venue" you are wandering down the pathway of speaker coherence. This
concept/attribute (i.e. temporal smear) has been both embraced as gospel and
debunked as hocum ad nauseum by many in the audiophile community, so to
properly support my perspective on it would require too much time to look up
old journals. But just to cut to the chase with no offer of follow-up, I
believe -- especially in the context of SR systems -- that it is a non-issue.
Impulse response in an installed environment with multiple components is a
little different matter.
<< Ok. If the 1/3 octave charts are wrong, they're wrong. I figured I'd look
through the 1/3 octave plots with no idea that they might not line up...
Still and all, even if the deviations are not as strong as indicated, they
correlate in terms of geometry with what I've heard working with 802's. >>
I don't think the plots are wrong, I think the legend is mislabelled. I fired
off an email today to an engineer friend to take a closer look and let me know
why the one octave and one third octave charts don't match up with each other.
<< > Sounding good is not measurable.
This is what I've been saying! (Yes, I know you were trying to make the
opposite point with this, in terms of logic, but I couldn't resist showing
that we're not really saying different things... ;) >>
Joel, I think we're largely in violent agreement. I just don't think it's
useful to tell the world I like the Bose sound (which I do). It's neither here
nor there. If I tell people what it does and does not do with objectivity,
they can decide to listen or not based on their own search criteria. Bose does
not need unhappy customers, so I never make an attempt to tell people that a
given device walks on all fours if it isn't right for what they want. As
Graham said, too many have been used inappropr applied, and thus you get the
Phildo reaction to them. If Phildo cannot relate to the other performance
areas where they are well suited, then his opinion is a disservice. I don't
want my expressed opinions to be prejudicial (they are -- everybody's opinions
are) to the extent that I hurt another supplier.
<< Hmm. Yes, they're measurable, but what is "good" frequency response? Which
variations are preferable, and which are not? Freq response is not some
monolithic thing that is either good or bad... I've never seen an
interpretation of frequency response that is non-subjective, when it comes
right down to it. >>
It is well documented in psychoacoustic testing what listeners can or cannot
perceive in terms of dB variations, and what the general preferences of the
majority of people actually are. If your device is completely outside the
bounds of a plus or minus 3 dB window for large discernible portions of the
frequency response -- which should match a response that is relatively flat at
1 meter (or close to a 1.5 dB per octave roll-off as it is heard at a greater
distance) then it will not be a good candidate for consideration. As far as
where it "ducks and weaves" -- these now get into subjectivity, and outside the
realm of what I have any desire to get into in this forum. If you and I were
to get together on a site where we were both listening to the same thing and
making subjective opinions, we would probably find it easier to come to a
consensus or at least an understanding of what our individual preferences are.
It would still be irrelevant to anyone else not there, and it is certainly a
scenario impossible to set-up here in AAPLS while typing at each other, miles
apart. Hence, my reluctance to so opine.
<< STI only matters in installs. Hmm. Please excuse my attempt at humour here,
but "don't people try to understand spoken word in situations where the
system is a portable system?" (remember your tagline for interpreting my
comment here ;) STI is measurable with portable systems - the results are
just not nearly what one would like to crow about! >>
Yes, STI is important in a portable system, but STI numbers will be different
everywhere you go, right? Each room and set-up is different. To try and
choose a system where STI is best in a larger 2.5 second room is to sacrifice
naturalness in a smaller, more intimate 1.5 second room where wide dispersion
is best. So it is not a good way to evaluate a portable solution unless you
always perform in the same place.
<< I didn't mean to say that these systems can be completely fixed with
EQ, but the big issues can be mitigated to a reasonable degree for some
applications. >>
Cancellation troughs cannot be filled in. However, peaks can be limited. But
EQ is a way of tuning, never a way of fixing. In other words, fixing some
problems to a reasonable degree is not possible.
<< The same thing goes for the 802's to the same degree.
Nothing's perfect. And I guess the part we'll not agree on is that everybody
has yet to find the perfect list and prioritization of specifications for
describing "great sound". >>
No, we agree on this totally. But it is not possible to find a prfect list,
because it would only apply to a single venue and even then it wouldn't count
for personal preferences. For example, I hate sound that seems obviously
amplified. I like sound that appears as though it is a natural acoustic source
-- only louder. For those that need that "in your face" experience, we will
never come to a peaceful coexistence.
<< Dave - I have to say - I suspect that if we could get past this "anything
that sounds like subjectivity is out of bounds" thing we might find that we
agree more than we disagree on the issues. Oh well. Another interesting
exchange. >>
I never said there was no common ground between us -- this is just a little
exchange for us to entertain ourselves.
<< To whomever started this thread, I hope you don't count this as vitriolic
exchange - I guess that Dave and I just come at this from very different
viewpoints. >>
Never vitriolic, Joel. We're just whipping a dead horse. ;-)
Hope all is going well for you.
Peter Larsen
> I am considering purchasing the Bose 802 Series III speakers
> and I need some advice.
As I see this you would be looking at the "802 deluxe" system if it is
802's you want. Courtesy of make-a-longer url (http://www.bose.com) here
is the target to point a standard webbrowser at:
> Here are the factors germane to my purchase:
> 1. We need a set of portable speakers that can be raised on poles. We don't
> have a stage or anything to raise
> 2. The size of the group will generally be from 75-200 people.
The ensemble or the audience?
> 3. We will be using the speakers for acoustic guitar music
> and vocals, therefore we want a lot of mid-range.
That logic does not apply, neither sound well if the system is "midrange
enhanced".
> For this reason normal 2-way speakers are not desired.
That would depend.
> If we don't get the Bose, then we would probably look at
> some kind of 3-way speaker.
Acostic guitar has its lowest note at 84 Hz, but lower frequency sounds
are produced and should be present in the amplification even if at
reduced level.
> Unfortunately, 3-way speakers are pretty heavy
They would not in my opinion be a good choice. Yes, something Bose could
be a choice, but when you say acoustic guitar then I think of another
system, possibly not cheaper. I'll get to that next, but first I think I
will mention that Bose have some column speakers and such designs are
often very good at "close and far" listening without being deafening
close up. I recorded a guitar and mandolin band in a bar last spring,
and they had 6 802's suspended from the ceiling, for "all close up" like
that I have to agree that that box can do a good job, and certainly be
nicer than a cheapo peaking horn system.
> and thus, not very portable, nor can they generally be lifted onto poles to
> project above the audience.
Some can, but the boxes that are likely to do what you want well are all
either 1 way plus sub or two way plus sub. Why sub? - well, you want
clean midrange and to get that you need a sub even if large amounts of
bass is not required. The 802's are - like a three-way based on a 15"
inch or 12" - not the best choice, you can get in my opinion get away
with using smaller main speakers by having subs. I haven't actually
heard the Bose column stuff, but I consider it more probable that it is
right in the context of your music than that the 802's are.
The alternative two way system that you should in my opinion compare
with if at all possible would be HK VT018's (4 probably required), see
also
http://www.hkaudio.com/Concert/t/vt_108_2.php
They used to sell a set of 4 in a flight case for powering from a pair
of active subs with a spare amplifier channel, but that versioning is
not findable on their previously excellent, now design-damaged, website.
> 4. We usually meet in a room the size of a hotel meeting room. Maybe 75' x
> 150'. The sound system we had before was too directional to hit everybody
> (it was a Fender Passport...yikes).
> If I get these, should I power them with a Crown CE1000 or a Crown CE2000?
> Those are really my only two options.
Opinion not avaliable. It is a well respected brand, but I find it odd
to rule other brands out a priori.
> I am open to NOT buying the Bose system as well. If you know
> of a good set of 3-way speakers that aren't bigger than a human,
Your way of selecting alternatives is perhaps not the best. Yes, the
802's are in some contexts alternatives to 15" or 12" based three-ways.
I think the good alternatives are either the Bose column stuff, sub
included - I'll leave it to Dave to describe it - or something two-way
8" + quality horn or 10" + quality horn, sub included.
> can be lifted onto poles and are priced around $750 each
> or less, then please let me know.
That way of doing price math doesn't work, you can not look at the price
for just the loudspeakers, it is about total price for loudspeakers,
controller if unavoidable and amplifiers. If you want it small & loud,
and can accept cutting corners with bass extension, then all you need
could be, mind you: could be, I didn't promise nutting, 4 vt108's and an
amplifier. You could postpone adding a sub or two and a simple passive
highpass filter, say 90 Hz first order, in the amp's input is in my
opinion and based on incomplete information all you need to avoid
pushing those boxes too far in the bass. It makes obvious sense to also
ask the manufacturer about that idea.
I don't want to say Bose or no Bose too verbose, but I think it takes
something like those boxes - or perhaps SLS if you're in the US - to be
a serious listener friendly alternative. The final choice is like with
the choice of shoes ... it is all yours, I would try to get a listen to
VT108's as an early option to consider, but that is because of the
general style of sound reproduction that I prefer.
> Thanks a ton,
Not the ultimate wisdom, just another viewpoint, you should also
consider other Bose models, 802 might not be the optimum choice. Don't
be too focused on component cost, a loudspeaker that *requires* a
dedicated controller costs also its part of the controller price. Less
components in a chain may be a cause of cleaner sound. Something sub may
be advisable, but it is obvious that you can make do with less
"something sub" than what is relevant for a post-modern DJ setup.
> Jon
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************