bose 901s ...help
Bill Purcell
critical....followed directions in manual...but very unhappy with the
sound...any help from anyone that has these speakers? or the equalizer
settings?
thanks in advance, Bill
BTW i'm using and old Pioneer receiver..VSX-5000
100 or 125 watts per channel i believe
NOT in the surround mode
Happy New Year!!!
CCSman
>critical....followed directions in manual...but very unhappy with the
>sound
Yes- placement is critical. Most former owners of 901's believe they are best
placed out for next day's collection.
Art Sackman
"Bill Purcell" <billp...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:Yz4Y7.8905$Fj.140...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
Is it too late to get your money back?
BTW, the subject of your post says it all......
Randy Howard
says...
> "Bill Purcell" <billp...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:Yz4Y7.8905$Fj.140...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> > I just bought a set of 901 series V...like new in box. I know placement is
> > critical....followed directions in manual...but very unhappy with the
> > sound...
>
> BTW, the subject of your post says it all......
That is a prophetic (and self-explanatory) subject line. Art's right, try
to get your money back. Otherwise, you're doomed unless you can pawn them
off on some other poor fellow...
--
randy AT thegateway DOT net
Chris Johnson
Bill Purcell wrote:
You're right. Placement is critical. Place them squarely in the
center of the nearest dumpster.
Well, being a Bose hater, I HAD to say it.
Get your money back, if you can. It'd be worth it just to avoid all the
abuse you'll get when people find out you actually bought them, no matter
how well or poorly they perform for you.
If you insist...they don't like being too close to walls. Divide your room in
quarters, and place each speaker in the middle of two adjacent non-diagonal
quarters. Then tweak and adjust to your heart's content.
EQ settings...well, first, you're dealing with a speaker that's such a POS
that
it HAS to have an equalizer run with it to deliver anything CLOSE to a
listenably
flat response. This is crutch engineering at its very worst. That said,
you'll
have to add quite a bit of bass and treble to make them sound halfway decent.
That will also add a LOT of stress to your amplifier as well, and the 125 watt
per channel amplifier will go into clipping or protect mode pretty rapidly
when
you try to turn it up. Those speakers WILL take a lot of power, and they
also need a lot to overcome their more manageable deficiencies.
I'm afraid, though, that when you've got them all set up and the bugs worked
out, that you will be disappointed in the results.
You have been warned. Have fun with them anyway.
CJ
Tom
If you're lucky, a guy named Brian McCarty will see your post
and offer to help. He think's Bose makes a pretty good product.
Oh wait.... you're not Jewish are you?
Another guy named Eckmeier might have some advice. That'd be
about it.
Gary Eickmeier
Chris Johnson wrote:
...yada yada yada. Hey Chris - how would you like to visit up here and
give a listen to my 901 system so you know what you're talking about.
You can write a review for RAO. Might just be a revelation for you to
compare with your bedroom system.
Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier
Bill - where did you get a set of Series V? That is fairly old. Should
be good if like new, though.
You don't say anything about the room you're in, so hard to advise. In
fact, to show your sincerity, how about giving us a reply with room
dimensions and other pertinent data. Too often a post like yours is
put out just as a troll, then the guy never again responds in the
thread.
Thanks,
Gary Eickmeier
The Bose Guy
bill...@home.com
>there's a device thats taylor made for your bose speakers. guareenteed to improve them greatly. Its called
a dumpster
Chris Johnson
A visit won't be possible, not for a while, anyway.
I had an opportunity to play with a set of 901's at the shop that I did speaker
repairs at for a while. A set came in and they needed to be hooked up for
suckers...er...people...to buy. I hooked them up to the best electronics
in the store at the time and did my very best to make them sound like
something. The amp used was an Acurus A250, which is what I keep
handy as a spare amp, and use on days where I don't want to deal with
the heat that screams off of my Krell monoblocks. I fiddled and twaddled
with those speakers and their damnable EQ, tweaked and poked, listened,
tweaked more, and reached a conclusion: Even with ME at the controls,
tweaking for my own preferences, I'll never be able to get what I consider to be GOOD sound out of 901's. Some customers did like
them, at the price
asked, and they sold in average time for a set of used speakers in that
price range (I think they went for 350 for the set, with EQ) but nobody,
and I mean NOBODY, raved about them. I'd done an honest job of
setting them up to show their best face and they just didn't do it for me.
Before I got my Aerial 10T's, my previous speakers were a modified
set of Infinity SM-122's, conventional 3 ways with a polycell tweeter.
The modification consisted of reinforcing the overly thin cabinets with
MDF panels from the inside, to VERY good effect, and no perceptible
difference in bass response. Those (retail) 800 bucks a set Infinitys
were STILL much better speakers than the 901's. I know because
my old set of speakers were there in the shop, too, for sale. (The
guy who bought them from me was moving and had to sell them)
I compared those Infinitys to the 901's and there wasn't any doubt
which was a better speaker. Hint: It wasn't the Bose. I still LIKED
the sound of those Infinitys, even after being spoiled by the 7700 dollar
Aerials.
Nothing anyone can do or say will change personal taste. My personal
taste is not 901's no matter what you do, not even with me handling
the setup and adjustment.
That doesn't mean others won't like them. That's for them to decide.
I invite them to figure it out for themselves.
That's my opinion. You're welcome to it.
CJ
Bill Purcell
looks like this is a sore subject
bought them from a friend of a friend. purchased in 87 used them for 3 yrs
and been in the box ever since...so i been told...they do look brand new
will be using them in a very small room
the wall the speakers will go against is approx. 14 ft
10ft high ceilling
left wall is 12ft as is the right but the right "wall" the first 6ft is all
glass...all ceilling shades in front of the glass
the opposite wall is 6ft with openings on each side of that wall
thanks for any advice
BTW i heard a set of series IV before and thought they sounded great!
Chris Johnson
Bill Purcell wrote:
Hi
My lack of grace, charm, manners, and tact notwithstanding, I can tell
you honestly that you will NOT get the best possible performance out of
any 901's by parking them against a wall. They have most of their
drivers (8 of 9) facing backwards and angled out, and that's to use
wall reflections to give a spacious (but hardly realistic) sound.
They are designed to need a little elbow room. Give it to them.
If you're going to stuff them against the wall or in the corner, you might
as well put them back in the attic for all the good they'll do you. Give
them some space away from the walls, though, and they might work
for you.
I'd say, try to get them at least two feet away from the nearest wall
if you can manage it. Then move them around and see how it changes
the sound.
CJ
Stephen McElroy
<geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
I've heard 901s.
Perhaps the interested party should look up Ferstler's article in Sensible
Sound to get some tips on setiup, etc.
Stephen
--
Tom Lehrer: I know there are people in
this world who do not love their fellow man,
and I HATE people like that.
Gary Eickmeier
Chris Johnson wrote:
> Nothing anyone can do or say will change personal taste. My personal
> taste is not 901's no matter what you do, not even with me handling
> the setup and adjustment.
But what about with ME handling the setup and adjustment? I have told
you that not even the factory does it right, so if you were following
the placement advice in the manual, you got it wrong. Nor do I believe
you understand the importance of the room. Don't forget that I was at
your place and heard your setup, and I have heard mine, and it is
clear to me that there is a breakdown somewhere along the line. The
missing puzzle piece is you giving a listen to my system.
I well remember the time a high end dealer in Detroit was getting rid
of their Bose line, but still had a pair of 901s hanging in the same
room as some Ohm-Fs and some Magneplanars. It was a large, good room
for sound, and I asked to hear a comparison just for the hell of it.
They gave me control of the switching, volume, everything. All three
sounded very similar, hard to make a choice if you were doing it
blind. Except that the 901s cost a third of what the others cost.
Might be that was why they were getting out of the line and starting
to badmouth them.
As with any speaker, it has to be done right, or all bets are off.
Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier
All right, now we're getting somewhere. I would start with the
speakers 3 1/2 feet out from the front wall, and the same amount from
each side wall. They are then 7 feet apart in front of a 14 ft wall.
Notice that we're pulling them out a lot farther than the factory
recommendation. What this does is set up an equally spaced set of
direct and reflected speaker images that act as a grid in setting up
an even, solid image all the way across the front of the room.
Don't worry about the glass part. Just don't have all bare walls -
some diffusion and/or absorption should be scattered along the walls
from about 7 ft from the front and going on back. Surround sound also
helps with the effect and the philosophy that these speakers are
trying to project. And you are allowed to use subwoofers, like
everyone else.
If you try all this, let me know how it comes out.
Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier
bill...@home.com wrote:
> >there's a device thats taylor made for your bose speakers. guareenteed to improve them greatly. Its called
> a dumpster
Hyuck hyuck
Wayne's World
Stephen McElroy
<geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> As with any speaker, it has to be done right, or all bets are off.
If the factory recommendations don't work, how is the new Bose customer
expected to stumble on the correct placement?
Chris Johnson
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> Chris Johnson wrote:
>
> > Nothing anyone can do or say will change personal taste. My personal
> > taste is not 901's no matter what you do, not even with me handling
> > the setup and adjustment.
>
> But what about with ME handling the setup and adjustment? I have told
> you that not even the factory does it right, so if you were following
> the placement advice in the manual, you got it wrong. Nor do I believe
> you understand the importance of the room. Don't forget that I was at
> your place and heard your setup, and I have heard mine, and it is
> clear to me that there is a breakdown somewhere along the line. The
> missing puzzle piece is you giving a listen to my system.
Actually, I remembered your placement theorem when I did the setup on
those speakers in the showroom, and I am pretty sure that I got it set up
according to your diagram that you showed me. Did it make an improvement?
Yes, it did. Did it sound like something I want to take home? No. It most
certainly did not.
You've got to understand that my preference is for a sharp, tightly focused
image that puts a realistic soundstage in front of me, first and foremost. I am
not interested in rear-reflecting speakers and their contrived ambience.
I have gone to some effort to control and mostly eliminate the backwave and
room reflections, and the results are very satisfactory in my system given the small
room that it's installed in. I also like highly accurate, realistic rendering of
voices and instruments. I have yet to hear ANY set of Bose speakers
satisfy all of these requirements. The image and soundstage requirement
MIGHT be a possibility, but I don't believe it can be done with 901's without
cutting the rearward-facing drivers out of the circuit entirely.
As for timbral accuracy, I have yet to hear a single Bose speaker that can compare
to what I'm using now in ANY way. A 30 (25? 20?) year old design using nine mediocre
midrange drivers in a heavily EQ'ed configuration is probably not going to stand
up well to being compared to a product that was selected as a Product
of the Year, Stereophile, 1996. (Was it '96?) Actually, it was a 'Joint Loudspeaker
of the Year' award, sharing the stage with Dunlavy SC-IV's if I remember right.
Good company indeed.
One of the things I like best about my 10T's is their true full range capacity.
They are spec'ed to either 19 or 21 Hz at the low end and up to 26 KHz at
the high end, and admirably flat in response between those points. I like a deep
and realistic bass response when listening to music, and these have that in spades.
(I only turn on the monster subwoofer when watching certain types of movies or
when demonstrating the sub.) I don't think you can get 21 Hz out of a set of
901's no matter what you do with them. Nor do I think you can get any musically
significant output above perhaps 15,000 Hz out of them. I ran a few tests on
a 901 driver in pristine condition (fresh from Bose) and quite frankly, it was
a halfway adequate midrange driver at best. The amount of boost it needed to
keep producing higher frequencies was pretty incredible, because it's not
really designed for that. Its efficiency outside its limited range is truly awful.
I seem to remember that its flat response range was from 300 Hz to 5000 Hz,
signifying that it truly is a midrange speaker and no more. Beyond 7000 Hz,
it got very 'beamy' as would be expected by diffraction effects inherent to
a radiating surface of this size.
My conclusion was that taken by itself, a 901 driver is a blivet. What's a blivet?
It's what you call ten pounds of shit in a five pound bucket. Perhaps their
strength (if any) is only realized in numbers. I know that just one driver
by itself is of little use except as a midrange without applying unreasonable
equalization to it, and even then, the design limits performance.
Perhaps I will take you up on your offer before long, Gary. I'll accept the
possibility that you may have mastered the setup and execution of a 901-based
system, and in the interest of fairness, I may wish to check out your system
for myself.
When? It'll probably have to be a few weeks from now, at the least. Probably
not until February or March.
I'll contact you via email when things settle out around here.
CJ
Mark
writing in an Audio newsgroup while posting to a serious question.
Congratulations...Now..as soon as I get the tears out of my eyes, I can
continue my serious work here....
"CCSman" <ccs...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011231163516...@mb-fx.aol.com...
Gary Eickmeier
Chris Johnson wrote:
> Actually, I remembered your placement theorem when I did the setup on
> those speakers in the showroom, and I am pretty sure that I got it set up
> according to your diagram that you showed me. Did it make an improvement?
> Yes, it did. Did it sound like something I want to take home? No. It most
> certainly did not.
Well, that's good - I appreciate it. But might you have a
predisposition against it? You know, these speakers were the marvels
of all audio dealers and sold like hotcakes when they first came out.
This was before anyone knew what made them tick, or what they were
doing to the sales of their other speakers.
> You've got to understand that my preference is for a sharp, tightly focused
> image that puts a realistic soundstage in front of me, first and foremost. I am
> not interested in rear-reflecting speakers and their contrived ambience.
Sometimes these things work just the opposite of what you think. See
below.
> I have gone to some effort to control and mostly eliminate the backwave and
> room reflections, and the results are very satisfactory in my system given the small
> room that it's installed in. I also like highly accurate, realistic rendering of
> voices and instruments. I have yet to hear ANY set of Bose speakers
> satisfy all of these requirements. The image and soundstage requirement
> MIGHT be a possibility, but I don't believe it can be done with 901's without
> cutting the rearward-facing drivers out of the circuit entirely.
> As for timbral accuracy, I have yet to hear a single Bose speaker that can compare
> to what I'm using now in ANY way. A 30 (25? 20?) year old design using nine mediocre
> midrange drivers in a heavily EQ'ed configuration is probably not going to stand
> up well to being compared to a product that was selected as a Product
> of the Year, Stereophile, 1996. (Was it '96?) Actually, it was a 'Joint Loudspeaker
> of the Year' award, sharing the stage with Dunlavy SC-IV's if I remember right.
> Good company indeed.
It seems to me that the type of sound you are going for is a clinical,
artificial, "hi-fi" type of sound that is thought by some audiophiles
to be the idea, but in fact does not sound anything like the real
thing. I think Bose calls it "accuracy" vs realism. By converting all
of the direct and reflected and reverberant sounds of the concert hall
into all direct sound, you have stuck your head in a goldfish bowl and
have lost all sense of what real music in a live environment sounds
like.
Well, all the babble in all the newsgroups will not convince anyone of
any of this, so I await a chance to demonstrate to you. SOME of the
problems you describe are partly true, such as high end extension, but
by and large the AUDIBLE result of the design is far greater realism
than anything else I have heard. I hated the Dunlavy SC-IVs I heard at
Zipsers place. I didn't think much of your clinical little sound. I
liked a pair of Maggie 20s, and I liked some Infinity IRS's I heard in
a large room in a dealer in California.
And I LOVE live music in unamplified spaces.
> One of the things I like best about my 10T's is their true full range capacity.
> They are spec'ed to either 19 or 21 Hz at the low end and up to 26 KHz at
> the high end, and admirably flat in response between those points. I like a deep
> and realistic bass response when listening to music, and these have that in spades.
> (I only turn on the monster subwoofer when watching certain types of movies or
> when demonstrating the sub.) I don't think you can get 21 Hz out of a set of
> 901's no matter what you do with them. Nor do I think you can get any musically
> significant output above perhaps 15,000 Hz out of them. I ran a few tests on
> a 901 driver in pristine condition (fresh from Bose) and quite frankly, it was
> a halfway adequate midrange driver at best. The amount of boost it needed to
> keep producing higher frequencies was pretty incredible, because it's not
> really designed for that. Its efficiency outside its limited range is truly awful.
> I seem to remember that its flat response range was from 300 Hz to 5000 Hz,
> signifying that it truly is a midrange speaker and no more. Beyond 7000 Hz,
> it got very 'beamy' as would be expected by diffraction effects inherent to
> a radiating surface of this size.
The problem with a direct firing system is that no matter how
"accurate" your freq response or how deep your bass or how extended
your dynamic range, it just never sounds quite right, because it is
all coming as direct sound straight to your face. Live sound is never
like that. So the timbres never sound right, and the dynamics seem cut
off, because you never get ANY secondary hits from spacially diverse
directions. It's just flat.
> My conclusion was that taken by itself, a 901 driver is a blivet. What's a blivet?
> It's what you call ten pounds of shit in a five pound bucket. Perhaps their
> strength (if any) is only realized in numbers. I know that just one driver
> by itself is of little use except as a midrange without applying unreasonable
> equalization to it, and even then, the design limits performance.
Well, as the high end press always says, just listen to the blivet
before you make these judgements. I realize you have made an effort to
do so in the past, and I respect that. I just ask that you tell me if
what I have here is the same or better or worse than your prior
experience.
> Perhaps I will take you up on your offer before long, Gary. I'll accept the
> possibility that you may have mastered the setup and execution of a 901-based
> system, and in the interest of fairness, I may wish to check out your system
> for myself.
>
> When? It'll probably have to be a few weeks from now, at the least. Probably
> not until February or March.
>
> I'll contact you via email when things settle out around here.
Fair enough. It would be interesting. You don't have to be polite or
patronize me if you don't like it. You know, not many audiophiles
think enough of their systems to invite criticism from others. In
fact, I have not heard many others' systems that I liked. This
includes a few famous audio biggies that are both engineers and audio
writers. I'm not sure what all the reasons for this phenomenon are,
but this is part of what makes audio such a fascinating hobby - we all
have the same standard to compare against, live music, and yet we take
so many different tacks in trying to reproduce it, all of them
sounding so much different from each other, that it makes you wonder
if there is any scientific say of going about it, or why we are still
in such dark ages in this pursuit.
It should be interesting.
Gary Eickmeier
Chris Johnson
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> It seems to me that the type of sound you are going for is a clinical,
> artificial, "hi-fi" type of sound that is thought by some audiophiles
> to be the idea, but in fact does not sound anything like the real
> thing. I think Bose calls it "accuracy" vs realism. By converting all
> of the direct and reflected and reverberant sounds of the concert hall
> into all direct sound, you have stuck your head in a goldfish bowl and
> have lost all sense of what real music in a live environment sounds
> like.
>
That's probably the core of the discussion/argument right there.
I DO want an accurate representation of what's actually on the recording,
and nothing else.
I view it as the job of the musicians to put their hearts and souls into the
music and do the absolute best job they can.
I view it as the job of the recording engineers and technicians to capture
that stunning performance with all the accuracy, fidelity, and realism they
possibly can bring to the task.
I view it as the job of the entire reproduction system to faithfully and accurately
reproduce that masterfully played, masterfully recorded disc or tape, adding
nothing, and leaving out nothing. Not to emphasize, exaggerate, or minimize
anything. Not to bounce the sound around the room, adding a reverb or
ambience that wasn't originally part of the recording.
I don't want the system to try to recreate the original performance. I want
it to exactly reproduce what's on the disc. It's the job of those involved
with that disc to put as much of the original performance on that disc as
is possible.
This way, I get no more and no less of the sense of the original performance
than made it onto the recording.
A visual analog:
No filters, no lenses, no camera tricks. Photorealism. Just like that.
Let the subject itself be beautiful and the photo be like a window with no glass
between the viewer and the subject.
The problem with the 901 concept is that it generates a 'room sound'
that is always imprinted on EVERYTHING, from test tones to chamber
music to heavy metal. It is not correct, it is not right, it is not proper, and it
sure as hell isn't an accurate reproduction of what's on the recording.
If I wanted that sort of thing I'd plug my guitar effects processor into
my stereo and use a room reverb patch.
I can't conceive of any way to state my preference more clearly.
Screw euphonic interpretation. Give me technical, clinical accuracy.
CJ
Gary Eickmeier
Stephen McElroy wrote:
> If the factory recommendations don't work, how is the new Bose customer
> expected to stumble on the correct placement?
It's not uncommon for audiophiles to discover ways to use products
that the manufacturers didn't even realize. When I discussed this with
Dr. Bose, he agreed with the 1/4 of the room width in from the
sidewalls, but he didn't agree with my pulling the speakers so far out
from the front wall. He looked at it as strictly an acoustical
impedance problem, with closer placement boosting the bass to lower
frequencies. I take care of that with subwoofers. My idea is that
speakers should be placed for imaging alone, not frequency response.
Once you've got that right, then you mess with EQ or subs or whatever
you need to get the freq response right.
What Bose contributed to the hi-fi industry was the concept of the
spatial nature of sound. They just didn't carry it through to its
ultimate conclusion.
Nor can anyone get them off of the concept of multiple full range
drivers with EQ. The spatial stuff doesn't HAVE to be done that way
(with nine midrange drivers); it's just a pet concept of his, and an
efficient way to aim the sound any which way desired.
My belief is that if only a couple of other companies would experiment
with the radiation pattern of speakers, this industry would make
strides in realism of reproduced sound that haven't been seen since
1968, when the first 901 arrived. Mark Davis's DBX Soundfield One was
the only other one that had a rad pat that was not just a dipole or
straight omni. It was good, for keeping imaging centered
(time/intensity trading), but he had the stronger lobes pointing
INWARD toward each other speaker, and none facing outward or rearward
where it is needed for supporting the reflected part of the sound
field. He DID make them omnidirectional rather than just forward
firing, however, which is good, but his reasons for doing so were
slightly different than I would have espoused. I would have to review
my tape of him to remember exactly how he put it, but it did have
something to do with realism of the ambience and having the reflected
images of the speakers display the same rad pat as the actual (direct)
speakers.
But I do go on. So where do you live, Stephen? And what do you listen
to, or what are your theories about all this?
Gary Eickmeier
Bill Purcell
I'm really at a loss now when using the 901s in my surround mode
because of the equalizer my rear speakers sound kinda tinning...this is just
when watching movies in dolby surround
Now i havent even tried this yet but will my JBLs sound that way when I'm
just playing music and using the speakers as A&B?...(not in the surround
mode) because of the equalizer?
also been thinking about getting a self-powered subwoofer but how in the
heck would i hook that up? and any advice in the 350-500 dollar range on
one?
I want a DVD and a guy at the music store told me my 901s wont work with the
newer DTS receivers,unless i wanted to spend alot of money...so i've been
thinking of getting one of the units with DVD,receiver and 6 speakers in the
500to 800 range for watching movies only...heard Kenwood makes a good
package for 500. (no subwoofer)
or can you steer me another way?
Thanks
"Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3C3169CB...@tampabay.rr.com...
Joseph Oberlander
> I want a DVD and a guy at the music store told me my 901s wont work with the
> newer DTS receivers,unless i wanted to spend alot of money...so i've been
> thinking of getting one of the units with DVD,receiver and 6 speakers in the
> 500to 800 range for watching movies only...heard Kenwood makes a good
> package for 500. (no subwoofer)
The guy at the music store is wrong, but the Bose are not good speakers
as well.
Your best low-cost option is Energy. Good Guys is running a sale where they
have their take 5.1/5.2 system with a good sub for $600 total. Nothing
else in the price range will do as good a job, IMO, and this certainly
will turn the Bose into confetti.
Gary Eickmeier
Chris Johnson wrote:
> That's probably the core of the discussion/argument right there.
>
> I DO want an accurate representation of what's actually on the recording,
> and nothing else.
That would be the conventional wisdom all right.
> I view it as the job of the musicians to put their hearts and souls into the
> music and do the absolute best job they can.
>
> I view it as the job of the recording engineers and technicians to capture
> that stunning performance with all the accuracy, fidelity, and realism they
> possibly can bring to the task.
The realism part cannot be totally contained in the recording; it
depends as well on the reproduction system and room.
> I view it as the job of the entire reproduction system to faithfully and accurately
> reproduce that masterfully played, masterfully recorded disc or tape, adding
> nothing, and leaving out nothing. Not to emphasize, exaggerate, or minimize
> anything. Not to bounce the sound around the room, adding a reverb or
> ambience that wasn't originally part of the recording.
...and there is the problem. All of the original ambience was NOT a
part of the recording. That is not what the system is. I have heard it
said that it was probably with the advent of stereo that we began to
think that we could capture not only the sound of the instruments, but
also the complete acoustic surroundings at the time of performance.
But it isn't so. Audiophiles may have this first blush feeling about
recordings that the mikes picked up all of the ambience that a
listener who was present would have heard. But ALL recordings are
miked relatively close to the soundstage, rather than from a position
where you would be sitting if you were there. You can even have
close-miked portions mixed into a conglomerate that represents no
particular perspective of a live listener. But even a minimalist
recording is not made back in the hall. It would be disastrous if it
were - you would have two ambiences on top of each other in playback.
Yes, there is a small amount of ambience from the hall on the
recording, but not as much as you think. Imagine a continuum of
possibilities along a line from an extremely close-miked recording to
one made well back in the hall. If you were to place current stereo
recording practice along that line, it would fall much closer to the
close-miked situation than you are probably imagining.
So what? So the SYSTEM is one of playing back the recording on
loudspeakers in a real acoustic space, placed at a distance from you
to establish some sort of perspective, and combining the acoustic of
the playback room with that contained on the recording. It is NOT a
system of transferring the recorded channels directly to your ears,
untouched by the playback room or any other processing. There IS a
system like that, by the way, where you record at the best seat in the
house and play back on headphones, putting the signals directly into
your ears. It is called binaural - but it has some problems of its
own, besides being unusable for large audiences.
> I don't want the system to try to recreate the original performance. I want
> it to exactly reproduce what's on the disc. It's the job of those involved
> with that disc to put as much of the original performance on that disc as
> is possible.
Do you see the problem with this thinking now?
> This way, I get no more and no less of the sense of the original performance
> than made it onto the recording.
The "no more" part is the problem.
> A visual analog:
Great! I love visual analogies!
> No filters, no lenses, no camera tricks. Photorealism. Just like that.
> Let the subject itself be beautiful and the photo be like a window with no glass
> between the viewer and the subject.
Good example. You take a picture with the most accurate camera in the
world. But that's only one half of the reproduction problem. How do
you present it? You could make a 4 x 6 inch print. It would be clear
as a bell, perfect color, sharp, all the shades of the original scene,
right there. But there is something wrong. It doesn't look REAL, no
matter how accurate the camera was.
What's the problem? The image is not nearly as big as real life - nor
is it three dimensional. Nor does it move, but we won't complicate the
analogy with motion for now.
What steps can we take toward greater realism? We certainly must
consider the spatial aspects of the image - physical size, perspective
or three dimensionality. So we can first project the image at life
size, rather than printing it on a small piece of paper. We also need
to have a really bright projector, similar to dynamic range in audio.
As for three dimensionality, perhaps the best we can do is project
onto a special screen that is spatially "shaped" the same as the
original subject. For example, a picture of someone's face could be
projected onto a styrofoam dummy head. If we now place that dummy head
in front of a background that is similar, if not identical to, the
location where it was photographed, then we have stunning realism.
Notice at this point that we have come a little ways from the
"accuracy" concept that we started with, but if the photographer now
takes our reproduction techniques into account during the making of
the image, then we have a SYSTEM which is somewhat predictable and
works a lot better than the original concept of reproducing only what
was on the negative, adding or subtracting nothing.
The obvious application to audio is, suppose we want a realistic
presentation of Sinatra singing one of his standards. We would
close-mike his voice - which is, in fact, what has already been done,
thank God - then we would play it back on a speaker placed in a good
acoustical space, pulled forward from the wall behind it, and with a
radiation pattern similar to a human voice. This would be the most
realistic presentation of Sinatra possible. Now do a few instruments
as well, placing their speakers in positions which are geometrically
similar to those of the original, and you have a conceptual
understanding of stereophonic sound. The sound image is three
dimensional because you have pulled the speakers out several feet from
the reflecting surfaces. The first arrival sounds that were recorded
are heard from the speakers themselves, and the later arriving and
ambience is allowed to "develop" a bed of reflected sound around the
speakers, from spatially diverse directions and temporally delayed so
as to not confuse the direct sound image.
There's a lot more to it, but hey, it's midnight over here.
> The problem with the 901 concept is that it generates a 'room sound'
> that is always imprinted on EVERYTHING, from test tones to chamber
> music to heavy metal. It is not correct, it is not right, it is not proper, and it
> sure as hell isn't an accurate reproduction of what's on the recording.
> If I wanted that sort of thing I'd plug my guitar effects processor into
> my stereo and use a room reverb patch.
EVERY speaker MUST be played back in a real acoustic space. As such,
what you say is true of every speaker, not just mine. Now, to the
extent that you dampen down your room with all sorts of sound killing
materials, all you are accomplishing is killing the room sound on
which the SYSTEM depends, and diminishing realism.
Also please note that the reflected sound in a normal home listening
room does not add to or change the temporal aspects of the system; it
affect only the spatial. The difference between spatial and temporal
is a concept that I have found nearly impossible to put over to most
audiophiles. The Bose 901's radiation pattern is affecting only the
spatial; the temporal characteristics of any ambience that is
contained in the recording are untouched by bouncing the first
reflections from front and side walls at precisely designed-in angles
and from only a few milliseconds away, with a reverb time of less than
a half second. I look at the total acoustical situation in terms of
image modeling, which is a concept from architectural acoustics in
which you can draw a picture of the plan view of all of the
reflections, or at least the important ones.
> I can't conceive of any way to state my preference more clearly.
>
> Screw euphonic interpretation. Give me technical, clinical accuracy.
Screw technical, clinical accuracy - give me realism!
Gary Eickmeier
Chris Johnson
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Quite a bit!
Let me make it even shorter: I don't expect recorded music to be exactly
the same as the live event. Nor do I have any interest in even trying to simulate
said live event by introducing any kind of technical accuracies for any reason.
I enjoy art, including photographs, for themselves. I do not derive my
satisfaction from comparing them to the real world and the original
subject of the art. When looking at a copy of National Geographic, I
am not trying to jump through the page and physically visit Africa, or
even be given the impression that I am doing just that.
In music, I just want an accurate representation of the RECORDING,
and nothing else. That's my preference. You won't be able to change
my preference, not even with a crowbar.
The direct/reflecting technology is incompatible with my preferences.
Come to terms with that.
I'm not alone in my preferences, either.
You may have the best-sounding 901 system ever, Gary. It's possible,
and I think I would like to hear it at some point in the reasonably near
future because I do have some curiosity about it. But it's not going
to cause a paradigm shift in my thought processes. At best you can
expect me to give respect to a system that's (presumably) the best of
its kind.
CJ
Art Sackman
>
> > > Screw euphonic interpretation. Give me technical, clinical accuracy.
>
> Screw technical, clinical accuracy - give me realism!
>
In and of itself, a very good answer.
But that begs the question, what does Bose got to do with it?
Gary Eickmeier
Bill Purcell wrote:
>
> thanks Gary! now for my other questions...lol
> I'm really at a loss now when using the 901s in my surround mode
> because of the equalizer my rear speakers sound kinda tinning...this is just
> when watching movies in dolby surround
> Now i havent even tried this yet but will my JBLs sound that way when I'm
> just playing music and using the speakers as A&B?...(not in the surround
> mode) because of the equalizer?
Are you saying that you can't connect things up so that you are
equalizing the 901s, but not the rear speakers? I never had that
problem, I guess because I don't use a receiver as such. Does your
receiver feature "pre-out" and "main in" jacks? If so, you can connect
the equalizer in there instead of using a tape loop function. As for
your second question, yes, I guess the JBLs would be equalized along
with the 901s if you depend on the tape loop function.
>
> also been thinking about getting a self-powered subwoofer but how in the
> heck would i hook that up? and any advice in the 350-500 dollar range on
> one?
No, I haven't shopped for that range of sub lately. Just go and see
what they have, and give a listen with some bass-heavy material. On
hooking it up, I can only refer you to the manual for the receiver. I
see what you mean, though - if it is a self-powered job, and you need
to use the speaker wires to get the signal to it, how does the
equalizer affect things. A center speaker would be a similar problem.
Me, I use separate preamps and amps, and I stick the equalizer
wherever I want.
>
> I want a DVD and a guy at the music store told me my 901s wont work with the
> newer DTS receivers,unless i wanted to spend alot of money...so i've been
> thinking of getting one of the units with DVD,receiver and 6 speakers in the
> 500to 800 range for watching movies only...heard Kenwood makes a good
> package for 500. (no subwoofer)
I don't think what he told you makes much sense. Probably wants to
sell you speakers.
As for 901s working with home theater, yes, I use mine just fine.
Wouldn't have it any other way.
>
> or can you steer me another way?
> Thanks
I may have to get some receiver so that I can decode the Dolby Digital
and DTS stuff in movies and have discrete 5.1 channel sound. I am
looking at the Onkyo line, the better ones of which have pre-out
jacks, so that I can use my own power amps and put the EQ in circuit.
That's all you need. Plus, of course, the power amps. Unless there is
also a main-in jack so you can use the receiver's amps.
Gary Eickmeier
Bill Watkins
says...
>
>
>Screw technical, clinical accuracy - give me realism!
Technical, clinical accuracy is realism. Can't
let those reflections take over, I'd say around
75% direct and 25% reflections, note.
Bill W.
Stephen McElroy
<geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> Stephen McElroy wrote:
> > If the factory recommendations don't work, how is the new Bose customer
> > expected to stumble on the correct placement?
> It's not uncommon for audiophiles to discover ways to use products
> that the manufacturers didn't even realize. When I discussed this with
> Dr. Bose, he agreed with the 1/4 of the room width in from the
> sidewalls, but he didn't agree with my pulling the speakers so far out
> from the front wall. He looked at it as strictly an acoustical
> impedance problem, with closer placement boosting the bass to lower
> frequencies. I take care of that with subwoofers.
It also reduces the level of the reflected sound from the back wall,
possibly ameliorating an excessive of that sound.
I wonder about 1/4 placement possibly reinforcing unwanted room behaviour.
My rule of thumb is whatever the Audio Physics guy said in Stereophile
(3/5?), but obviously the resulting sound is the best evidence for what
works or not.
> ...My idea is that
> speakers should be placed for imaging alone, not frequency response.
> Once you've got that right, then you mess with EQ or subs or whatever
> you need to get the freq response right.
There are so many imaging possibilities!
> What Bose contributed to the hi-fi industry was the concept of the
> spatial nature of sound.
To hifi marketing, yes?
> They just didn't carry it through to its ultimate conclusion.
I would think an ultimate would be a way to control recording methods to
go with the speakers. There could be marketing problems in implementation.
> Nor can anyone get them off of the concept of multiple full range
> drivers with EQ. The spatial stuff doesn't HAVE to be done that way
> (with nine midrange drivers); it's just a pet concept of his, and an
> efficient way to aim the sound any which way desired.
Sounds as if manufacturing ease (a component that can be used in many
applications) is the real attraction.
> My belief is that if only a couple of other companies would experiment
> with the radiation pattern of speakers, this industry would make
> strides in realism of reproduced sound that haven't been seen since
> 1968, when the first 901 arrived. Mark Davis's DBX Soundfield One was
> the only other one that had a rad pat that was not just a dipole or
> straight omni. It was good, for keeping imaging centered
> (time/intensity trading), but he had the stronger lobes pointing
> INWARD toward each other speaker, and none facing outward or rearward
> where it is needed for supporting the reflected part of the sound
> field. He DID make them omnidirectional rather than just forward
> firing, however, which is good, but his reasons for doing so were
> slightly different than I would have espoused. I would have to review
> my tape of him to remember exactly how he put it, but it did have
> something to do with realism of the ambience and having the reflected
> images of the speakers display the same rad pat as the actual (direct)
> speakers.
Lots of manufacturers have tried or currently use rear firing tweeters to
give a more spacious sound. The obvious constraints are philosophical (not
accurate to the recording) and practical (the lack of listening room
conformity).
You (and Howard) correctly point out that stereo recording can't pick up
all spatial cues. The intellectual appeal of jj's recording system is its
attempt to do so. However, I don't think that more reflected sound or
synthesized surround is a true solution.
> But I do go on. So where do you live, Stephen? And what do you listen
> to, or what are your theories about all this?
I'm in central Texas, with access to good halls and lots of live music. I
listen to most all mainstream genres on a variety of media.
My thoughts on the what is a hifi and what should it do question are about
the way that individual sensitivities can dictate system choices. I don't
mind the stereo presentation because I'm used to hearing performers on
stages. I don't equate the envelopment of surround with "you are there".
Nor do I respond to audiophile hyperimaging. I need truthful timbres, but
not realistic soundlevels (yes, I know they're related).
Few systems I've heard come close to eliminating the tension of hearing a
recording. I think we're so far away that "realism" is a chimera. As a
music teacher, the thrill of tweaking sound is nothing to the thrill of
tweaking the performance.
Bill Purcell
it also has surround power amp in and surround pre-amp out
also i have tape 1 and tape 2
so I'm not sure how to hook it up so the rear speakers are not equalized
bill
"Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3C328FDE...@tampabay.rr.com...
Gary Eickmeier
Bill, I want you to imagine going to a concert in a perfectly good
hall. Now, let's bring in the brick masons and build a brick wall
between you and the performers. We'll cut out two rectangles for the
left and right sides of the sound to come through to get to your ears.
Thus, we have cut off all of those nasty reflections from the sides
and back of the hall, permitted a few that escape from the soundstage
and get through the windows, and let most of the direct sound through.
Pretty pitiful, huh? Well, that is exactly what you are doing with all
of your speaker muffs, ear muffs, muff muffs, and wall treatments and
direct firing speakers.
Accurate to the recording? Who knows? You can't hear what's on a
recording except by presenting it in some fashion to your ears via
amplifiers, speakers, and rooms.
The question is, how to do that. You may disagree with my description
of image modeling and sonic realism, but you certainly cannot say that
you are being accurate to the recording by squirting the sound from
the two channels into your ears, because the resulting sound field is
NOTHING like the original.
And this is easily audible, if you care about such things.
Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier
Art old man, I just wrote a long treatise on this in the post to which
you are wise- er, responding. Why don't you go get a cup of coffee,
sit down, and study that. I'm getting tired of spoon feeding you guys.
Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier
Chris Johnson wrote:
>
> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
> Quite a bit!
Well, respond to it!
> Let me make it even shorter: I don't expect recorded music to be exactly
> the same as the live event. Nor do I have any interest in even trying to simulate
> said live event by introducing any kind of technical accuracies for any reason.
I guess you mean "technical inaccuracies." But this is quite an
admission for an audiophile! I had always thought that getting the
music to sound "live" was what the entire pursuit was all about!
> I enjoy art, including photographs, for themselves. I do not derive my
> satisfaction from comparing them to the real world and the original
> subject of the art. When looking at a copy of National Geographic, I
> am not trying to jump through the page and physically visit Africa, or
> even be given the impression that I am doing just that.
Yes, me too - I am a photographer and videographer and even film
maker. We look at a picture (even that little 4x6) and we see a
separate piece of art, images arranged in a frame, colors and shapes
that please the eye and remind us of something. We DON'T normally see
it as a pursuit of realism, or trying to "be there" where it was
taken. Well, I guess widescreen and 3-D movies with surround sound are
a step in that direction, but still photography does fit your example.
> In music, I just want an accurate representation of the RECORDING,
> and nothing else. That's my preference. You won't be able to change
> my preference, not even with a crowbar.
It is a shame you are downgrading your goals in audio. Besides the
philosophical question of how do you know when you're hearing what is
"on the recording," you are denying yourself the goal that most of the
rest of us have been pursuing for the last 50 or so years, since the
advent of stereo. Sure, your table radio, victrola, or car system were
understood to be representations only, and listened to as such, much
like we view snapshots. But the current status of audio is a striving
for greater and greater realism in the sound.
> The direct/reflecting technology is incompatible with my preferences.
> Come to terms with that.
Would a live piano trio be incompatible with your preferences?
> I'm not alone in my preferences, either.
>
> You may have the best-sounding 901 system ever, Gary. It's possible,
> and I think I would like to hear it at some point in the reasonably near
> future because I do have some curiosity about it. But it's not going
> to cause a paradigm shift in my thought processes. At best you can
> expect me to give respect to a system that's (presumably) the best of
> its kind.
Hey, I don't want to create a Waterloo here. I mean, it's just audio.
All I hope to accomplish is to see if, after hearing my system, you
can keep on badmouthing Bose to the extent that you have, with a clear
conscience.
Nor do I have any stock in Bose or connection with them. It may be
possible to do this type of reproduction with better speakers or
drivers. It's just that right now, Bose 901s are the only speakers on
the planet that feature a particular radiation pattern. It is a
concept of reproduction that introduces the spatial aspects of sound
that I am trying to show you.
Then you can go back home and write about it in RAO. I know what your
preferences are. I am just curious how my sound would "hit" you. The
best test is probably a man off the street, unfamiliar with hi-fi
pursuits and such.
But I'll take my chances with you.
Gary Eickmeier
Chris Johnson
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Pass on the spoon. I just use my hands.
I think Art's saying that the 901 drivers aren't all that great, individually.
Having evaluated them under admittedly less-than-strict conditions,
I can say that I concur. They're not great drivers.
Let's assume, for a moment, that your theory/bose's theory is the right one.
(It's a big stretch for me to put my head in that position...ow...my back's not
quite that flexible... :) )
If the 901 concept is assumed to be a better concept, how would it take to
being adapted for use with superior drivers?
I'd say it couldn't hurt.
I'm not suggesting a literal adaptation of a set of 901's with different
drivers and adding woofers and tweeters, I'm suggesting a flat or curved front,
dihedral back cabinet design directing 88.888~% of the sound in two directions
toward the back, and the balance directed toward the front, using superior
components throughout. Dynaudio drivers, for example, and a separate
subwoofer or two, and some engineering to get well-controlled dispersion.
That would solve ONE of my issues with the Bose speakers, which is
that their drivers are, quite frankly, six dollar midranges from a manufacturing
perspective, and utterly unremarkable from a technical and performance
perspective. They don't sound particularly good, in fact, to me, they
don't sound good, period. I've had better and sold it.
Anybody want to volunteer to build a direct/reflecting speaker based
on the 901 concept, but with superior components? Might be a fun
experiment.
It might even pry Gary off of his devotion to the most mediocre of
speaker companies.
CJ
Chris Johnson
"Brian L. McCarty" wrote:
> in article 3C32858E...@cfl.rr.com, Chris Johnson at
> cmjo...@cfl.rr.com wrote on 2/1/02 14:03:
>
> > The direct/reflecting technology is incompatible with my preferences.
> > Come to terms with that.
>
> Then why do you spend so much energy attacking the preferences of others?
> Clearly, while YOU don't agree, the products that embody the philosophy of
> Bose are by far the most successful products available on the planet.
I believe that research will show that your claim is unsubstantiated and
unsupportable.
CJ
Gary Eickmeier
Stephen McElroy wrote:
> It also reduces the level of the reflected sound from the back wall,
> possibly ameliorating an excessive of that sound.
Not really - the main difference is a greater time delay, to prevent a
clustering of images and severe comb filtering. The spatial separation
also contributes to lessening the comb filtering.
> I wonder about 1/4 placement possibly reinforcing unwanted room behaviour.
> My rule of thumb is whatever the Audio Physics guy said in Stereophile
> (3/5?), but obviously the resulting sound is the best evidence for what
> works or not.
Yes, I suppose so - but these rules depend a little on the type of
speaker you're working with, too. One thing I know is we shouldn't
place them right next to reflecting surfaces.
> > What Bose contributed to the hi-fi industry was the concept of the
> > spatial nature of sound.
>
> To hifi marketing, yes?
Come on now - anyone can easily hear the difference in spatial
presentation between a 901 and just about any other speaker. These
speakers sold not on marketing, but on demonstrating them to the
public.
> Lots of manufacturers have tried or currently use rear firing tweeters to
> give a more spacious sound. The obvious constraints are philosophical (not
> accurate to the recording) and practical (the lack of listening room
> conformity).
Are you saying that live music doesn't sound spacious? How could
giving a more spacious sound not be accurate to the recording?
> You (and Howard) correctly point out that stereo recording can't pick up
> all spatial cues. The intellectual appeal of jj's recording system is its
> attempt to do so. However, I don't think that more reflected sound or
> synthesized surround is a true solution.
It isn't as fake as you are imagining. I just want to put back as much
reflected sound as there was in the original. Taking all of the direct
and reflected sound of the original and presenting it as direct sound
is what is fake.
> I'm in central Texas, with access to good halls and lots of live music. I
> listen to most all mainstream genres on a variety of media.
>
> My thoughts on the what is a hifi and what should it do question are about
> the way that individual sensitivities can dictate system choices. I don't
> mind the stereo presentation because I'm used to hearing performers on
> stages. I don't equate the envelopment of surround with "you are there".
> Nor do I respond to audiophile hyperimaging. I need truthful timbres, but
> not realistic soundlevels (yes, I know they're related).
Tell me something just off the cuff - do you consider the timbres from
direct firing speakers to be natural sounding?
> Few systems I've heard come close to eliminating the tension of hearing a
> recording. I think we're so far away that "realism" is a chimera. As a
> music teacher, the thrill of tweaking sound is nothing to the thrill of
> tweaking the performance.
Interesting description of hearing a recording. Yes, I sometimes still
feel that tension, but I think I'm closer to relieving it than the
next guy. I enjoy most of my recordings.
Also interesting observation about the performance vs the sound. Have
you ever heard a recording in your car, then bought it so you could
play it at home, and been disappointed? The two listening experiences
are very much different. My theory is that when you were listening in
the car you were absorbed in the performance, because you already knew
in your mind that the "sound" was not going to be all that realistic,
so you didn't worry about that. Then when you got the recording home,
you were all focused in on the "sound" rather than the performance -
if you have the curse of the audiophile. Sometimes this experience is
reversed - you enjoy the recording more at home because of the bass
extension, or the spatial cues, or the surround envelopment, or other
sound qualities. When the two come together is when you get the
greatest enjoyment.
Gary Eickmeier
Stephen McElroy
<geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> Stephen McElroy wrote:
> > It also reduces the level of the reflected sound from the back wall,
> > possibly ameliorating an excessive of that sound.
> Not really - the main difference is a greater time delay, to prevent a
> clustering of images and severe comb filtering. The spatial separation
> also contributes to lessening the comb filtering.
But not a 'slap-back' echo? The laws of physics suggest some level
reduction. For some speakers, closer to the wall might reduce similar
problems.
> > I wonder about 1/4 placement possibly reinforcing unwanted room behaviour.
> > My rule of thumb is whatever the Audio Physics guy said in Stereophile
> > (3/5?), but obviously the resulting sound is the best evidence for what
> > works or not.
> Yes, I suppose so - but these rules depend a little on the type of
> speaker you're working with, too. One thing I know is we shouldn't
> place them right next to reflecting surfaces.
My speakers as close to the wall as I can get them. I get to use more of
my room that way, too.
> > > What Bose contributed to the hi-fi industry was the concept of the
> > > spatial nature of sound.
> > To hifi marketing, yes?
> Come on now - anyone can easily hear the difference in spatial
> presentation between a 901 and just about any other speaker. These
> speakers sold not on marketing, but on demonstrating them to the
> public.
I don't see a difference between marketing a distinctive product and
demonstrating a distinctive product.
> > Lots of manufacturers have tried or currently use rear firing tweeters to
> > give a more spacious sound. The obvious constraints are philosophical (not
> > accurate to the recording) and practical (the lack of listening room
> > conformity).
> Are you saying that live music doesn't sound spacious?
Whoah! We're in strawman country now.
> How could giving a more spacious sound not be accurate to the recording?
For one, the recording might not be so spacious. Second, the enhancement
isn't unique to the recorded space represented.
> > You (and Howard) correctly point out that stereo recording can't pick up
> > all spatial cues. The intellectual appeal of jj's recording system is its
> > attempt to do so. However, I don't think that more reflected sound or
> > synthesized surround is a true solution.
> It isn't as fake as you are imagining. I just want to put back as much
> reflected sound as there was in the original. Taking all of the direct
> and reflected sound of the original and presenting it as direct sound
> is what is fake.
It has the advantage of being directly related to the recording.
What happens to a Rudy van Gelder recording? Wouldn't your playback
transport the performance from the living room to whatever concert hall
Bose modeled?
And I've heard 901s, so I'm not just imagining.
> > I'm in central Texas, with access to good halls and lots of live music. I
> > listen to most all mainstream genres on a variety of media.
> > My thoughts on the what is a hifi and what should it do question are about
> > the way that individual sensitivities can dictate system choices. I don't
> > mind the stereo presentation because I'm used to hearing performers on
> > stages. I don't equate the envelopment of surround with "you are there".
> > Nor do I respond to audiophile hyperimaging. I need truthful timbres, but
> > not realistic soundlevels (yes, I know they're related).
> Tell me something just off the cuff - do you consider the timbres from
> direct firing speakers to be natural sounding?
That's rather a large population to charactarize. Most are not.
Electrostatics come closer in my experience, but miss other elements of
the sound.
How does turning a direct firing speaker to the wall make the basic timbre
more realistic?
> > Few systems I've heard come close to eliminating the tension of hearing a
> > recording. I think we're so far away that "realism" is a chimera...
> Interesting description of hearing a recording. Yes, I sometimes still
> feel that tension, but I think I'm closer to relieving it than the
> next guy. I enjoy most of my recordings.
No argument here.
> Also interesting observation about the performance vs the sound. Have
> you ever heard a recording in your car, then bought it so you could
> play it at home, and been disappointed?
I recently had the opposite experience: the recording that sounded
relatively plodding gained vitality on the home system. My stock Volvo
sound system isn't as bad as most car stereos seem to be.
> The two listening experiences
> are very much different. My theory is that when you were listening in
> the car you were absorbed in the performance, because you already knew
> in your mind that the "sound" was not going to be all that realistic,
> so you didn't worry about that. Then when you got the recording home,
> you were all focused in on the "sound" rather than the performance -
> if you have the curse of the audiophile. Sometimes this experience is
> reversed - you enjoy the recording more at home because of the bass
> extension, or the spatial cues, or the surround envelopment, or other
> sound qualities. When the two come together is when you get the
> greatest enjoyment.
There's also the distraction of driving. The biggest difference for me is
that I don't expect as much dynamic range in the car as at home. I'm
disappointed at how bad the timbres of many of today's pop recordings are.
Bill Watkins
says...
>
>
>Bill Watkins wrote:
>> Technical, clinical accuracy is realism. Can't
>> let those reflections take over, I'd say around
>> 75% direct and 25% reflections, note.
>
>Bill, I want you to imagine going to a concert in a perfectly good
>hall. Now, let's bring in the brick masons and build a brick wall
>between you and the performers. We'll cut out two rectangles for the
>left and right sides of the sound to come through to get to your ears.
>Thus, we have cut off all of those nasty reflections from the sides
>and back of the hall, permitted a few that escape from the soundstage
>and get through the windows, and let most of the direct sound through.
>Pretty pitiful, huh?
Ahaaaaa... we finally see the reason for your advocacy of
the 901's and listening room reflections. We _want_ to hear
those concert hall reflections, _not_ eliminate them, as they
are part and parcel of the concept of realistic sound. It's
the listening room reflections we want to tame down to a
reasonable level, maybe 25% of what we hear, so as not to
polute and change the character of those lovely concert hall
reflections. Perhaps you can now see how the premise of your
concept is flawed.
>Well, that is exactly what you are doing with all of your speaker
>muffs, ear muffs, muff muffs, and wall treatments and direct
>firing speakers.
Sorry, but you're confused here Gary, as it's not what
we're doing. We're reducing listening room reflections,
_not_ concert hall reflections. Can you see the distinction?
>Accurate to the recording? Who knows? You can't hear what's on a
>recording except by presenting it in some fashion to your ears via
>amplifiers, speakers, and rooms.
What's on a good recording is a close facsimile of what's
heard in a prime seat in the concert hall, and such is
best reproduced without over-polution of listening room
acoustics (reflections).
Bill W.
Gary Eickmeier
Chris Johnson wrote:
> Anybody want to volunteer to build a direct/reflecting speaker based
> on the 901 concept, but with superior components? Might be a fun
> experiment.
>
> It might even pry Gary off of his devotion to the most mediocre of
> speaker companies.
I think I've already said in this thread that I have no stock in Bose,
they just happen to make a speaker with a certain radiation pattern
that sounds great and I haven't been able to top, because I am not a
great speaker engineer.
But you can see my room and my experimental speaker at
http://www.pbase.com/eickmeier/about_me&browse=Y
and you can click on the individual pix for a larger image.
Gary Eickmeier
Bill Watkins
says...
>
>in article u36m3ng...@news.supernews.com, Bill Watkins at
>bwat...@mounet.com wrote on 3/1/02 4:59:
>
>> Ahaaaaa... we finally see the reason for your advocacy of
>> the 901's and listening room reflections. We _want_ to hear
>> those concert hall reflections, _not_ eliminate them, as they
>> are part and parcel of the concept of realistic sound. It's
>> the listening room reflections we want to tame down to a
>> reasonable level, maybe 25% of what we hear, so as not to
>> polute and change the character of those lovely concert hall
>> reflections. Perhaps you can now see how the premise of your
>> concept is flawed.
>>
>
>reproduction. The three elements are time delay, timbre shift, and
>directionality. The directionality component cannot be recreated by
>standard speakers aiming the sound at the listener.
Certainly five channel should have the ability to recreate
concert hall ambience more accurately, but two channel
recordings done right can provide a very satisfying replica
of concert hall ambience.
>And your arbitrary "25%" is also wrong.
Well... maybe 24.99%..
>Perhaps with a little thought, you can see how YOUR thinking is
>scientifically flawed.
Your and Gary's thinking is _way_ in the minority re
this preponderance of reflected sound theory amoung
knowledgeable audiophiles.
Bill W.
dave weil
<geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>Chris Johnson wrote:
>
>> Anybody want to volunteer to build a direct/reflecting speaker based
>> on the 901 concept, but with superior components? Might be a fun
>> experiment.
>>
>> It might even pry Gary off of his devotion to the most mediocre of
>> speaker companies.
>
>I think I've already said in this thread that I have no stock in Bose,
Possibly not *financial* stock. You certainly have *emotional* stock
in the company.
>they just happen to make a speaker with a certain radiation pattern
>that sounds great and I haven't been able to top, because I am not a
>great speaker engineer.
>
>But you can see my room and my experimental speaker at
>http://www.pbase.com/eickmeier/about_me&browse=Y
>and you can click on the individual pix for a larger image.
I'll admit that you have a nicer looking room than Howard. Maybe it
was the fact that you just vacuumed.
Gary Eickmeier
Bill Watkins wrote:
> Ahaaaaa... we finally see the reason for your advocacy of
> the 901's and listening room reflections. We _want_ to hear
> those concert hall reflections, _not_ eliminate them, as they
> are part and parcel of the concept of realistic sound. It's
> the listening room reflections we want to tame down to a
> reasonable level, maybe 25% of what we hear, so as not to
> polute and change the character of those lovely concert hall
> reflections. Perhaps you can now see how the premise of your
> concept is flawed.
Brian is exactly right on this in his response. The direction from
which those reflections arrive is all important. You are not "hearing"
those reflections if they are coming from the same direction as the
primary sound.
I want you to imagine a recording of ONLY the reflected sound from the
concert, if we could somehow magically excise the direct sound
component. How should this portion of the sound field be properly
presented on playback? Our mystical recording already contains all of
the timing delays and timbral changes that this reflected sound would
undergo before arriving back at the microphones. So that part is fine.
But what the recording CANNOT contain is the multiplicity of incident
angles from which this sound arrived at the listener. So how to
reproduce it. Hmm - I wonder if... yah, that's it! We could reflect
this sound from our own listening room walls so that the spatial
characteristic would be just about identical to the original.
Reflections that originated from the left side of the hall will be
reflected from the left side of our listening room, and similarly for
the right, and some sounds from the front wall, in stereo still, and
the geometric, or spatial, presentation will be really close to the
original. This will NOT affect the temporal characteristic, because
the amount of delay in our listening room is still within the fusion
time, and the recorded delays have still been preserved. Therefore
now, perhaps supported with surround speakers, this portion of the
sound field is being reproduced more spatially correct. What about the
direct sound? First arrival sound will be reproduced by direct sound
which arrives first in the listening room, as per normal, but
proportioned in some fashion to simulate the RANGE of ratios of direct
to reflected sound found in a typical live situation.
Now, I realize that separating out the spatial from the temporal
characteristics of the sound fields as I have done above will be a
difficult concept - always has been, always will be - but I don't know
how else to state it. Put extremely simply, Bose 901s do not create
"echos" in your listening room and destroy the timings in the
recording; the concept is not based on making a big concert hall
simulator. Concert hall or studio acoustics are still (to whatever
extent was engineered in) contained in the recording, and Bose does
not change that. Just changes the spatial, like if you moved your
speakers out wider or something.
> Sorry, but you're confused here Gary, as it's not what
> we're doing. We're reducing listening room reflections,
> _not_ concert hall reflections. Can you see the distinction?
You are preventing ANY of the reproduced sound from coming to the
listener from incident angles which are similar to the original, and
more correct than the direction of the actual speakers. In your
striving for "accuracy," you are introducing an innaccuracy of the
worst (most audible) kind.
> What's on a good recording is a close facsimile of what's
> heard in a prime seat in the concert hall, and such is
> best reproduced without over-polution of listening room
> acoustics (reflections).
The simple fact of adjusting the spatial characteristics of playback
by means of a single reflection from your listening room wall is
confusing you into thinking that the 901 concept is causing you to
hear more of your listening room's acoustic and less of the original.
This is not so. As I said, it is very hard to understand at first, but
the reverberant field is a property of the room, not the speaker. Yes,
the 901 reduces the range of ratios of direct to reflected sound, but
that is a step in the right direction toward regaining the spatial
realism that is contained in the recording and which was present in
the original. If you think about it, the main aspect of your listening
room that gets superimposed on the recorded sound is the time between
reflections, or the physical size of the room. That is audible no
matter what speakers you have. But if you dampen that all out, you are
left with the sound coming from two piss holes in the snow, so to
speak. Too high a direct field affects timbral perception, spatial
realism, and clustering of the instruments to the speaker grills. I
personally hate it, and don't see how anyone can listen to it for more
than a minute on end.
Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier
Bill Purcell wrote:
>
> Gary, on my reciever i have front power amp in and front pre-amp out
>
> it also has surround power amp in and surround pre-amp out
> also i have tape 1 and tape 2
> so I'm not sure how to hook it up so the rear speakers are not equalized
> bill
Great! This is terrific! All you have to do is connect the Bose
Equalizer between the front pre-out and amp-in. It will always be in
circuit, and will not affect the rear speakers' sound. Let me know how
it works out.
Gary Eickmeier
Bill Watkins
says...
>
>
>
>Bill Watkins wrote:
>
>> Ahaaaaa... we finally see the reason for your advocacy of
>> the 901's and listening room reflections. We _want_ to hear
>> those concert hall reflections, _not_ eliminate them, as they
>> are part and parcel of the concept of realistic sound. It's
>> the listening room reflections we want to tame down to a
>> reasonable level, maybe 25% of what we hear, so as not to
>> polute and change the character of those lovely concert hall
>> reflections. Perhaps you can now see how the premise of your
>> concept is flawed.
>
>Brian is exactly right on this in his response. The direction from
>which those reflections arrive is all important. You are not "hearing"
>those reflections if they are coming from the same direction as the
>primary sound.
>I want you to imagine a recording of ONLY the reflected sound from the
>concert, if we could somehow magically excise the direct sound
>component. How should this portion of the sound field be properly
>presented on playback? Our mystical recording already contains all of
>the timing delays and timbral changes that this reflected sound would
>undergo before arriving back at the microphones. So that part is fine.
>But what the recording CANNOT contain is the multiplicity of incident
>angles from which this sound arrived at the listener.
Stereo directionality can provide satisfying reproduction
of concert hall ambience.
>So how to
>reproduce it. Hmm - I wonder if... yah, that's it! We could reflect
>this sound from our own listening room walls so that the spatial
>characteristic would be just about identical to the original.
>Reflections that originated from the left side of the hall will be
>reflected from the left side of our listening room, and similarly for
>the right, and some sounds from the front wall, in stereo still, and
>the geometric, or spatial, presentation will be really close to the
>original. This will NOT affect the temporal characteristic, because
>the amount of delay in our listening room is still within the fusion
>time, and the recorded delays have still been preserved. Therefore
>now, perhaps supported with surround speakers, this portion of the
>sound field is being reproduced more spatially correct. What about the
>direct sound? First arrival sound will be reproduced by direct sound
>which arrives first in the listening room, as per normal, but
>proportioned in some fashion to simulate the RANGE of ratios of direct
>to reflected sound found in a typical live situation.
Gary, we've been here before...
>Now, I realize that separating out the spatial from the temporal
>characteristics of the sound fields as I have done above will be a
>difficult concept - always has been, always will be - but I don't know
>how else to state it. Put extremely simply, Bose 901s do not create
>"echos" in your listening room and destroy the timings in the
>recording; the concept is not based on making a big concert hall
>simulator. Concert hall or studio acoustics are still (to whatever
>extent was engineered in) contained in the recording, and Bose does
>not change that. Just changes the spatial, like if you moved your
>speakers out wider or something.
>
>
>> Sorry, but you're confused here Gary, as it's not what
>> we're doing. We're reducing listening room reflections,
>> _not_ concert hall reflections. Can you see the distinction?
>
>You are preventing ANY of the reproduced sound from coming to the
>listener from incident angles which are similar to the original,
No, I mentioned a 25% ratio.
I can listen for hours, note. As I said to Mr. McCarty,
supporters of your preponderance of reflected sound is
_way_ in the minority among audiophiles.
Bill W.
Gary Eickmeier
Stephen McElroy wrote:
> But not a 'slap-back' echo? The laws of physics suggest some level
> reduction. For some speakers, closer to the wall might reduce similar
> problems.
No, certainly not - the reflected sound is well within the fusion
time.
> My speakers as close to the wall as I can get them. I get to use more of
> my room that way, too.
As close to the wall in what way? To the side walls? The front wall?
In the corners would be the worst possible position.
> > Are you saying that live music doesn't sound spacious?
>
> Whoah! We're in strawman country now.
Howzat? Aren't we trying to reproduce the live sound?
> For one, the recording might not be so spacious. Second, the enhancement
> isn't unique to the recorded space represented.
The unique recording space has been recorded, to a certain extent. A
single reflection from front or side walls does not change that. As
for your first sentence, for two, the recording might not be as
UNspacious as when presented from direct speakers only.
> > It isn't as fake as you are imagining. I just want to put back as much
> > reflected sound as there was in the original. Taking all of the direct
> > and reflected sound of the original and presenting it as direct sound
> > is what is fake.
>
> It has the advantage of being directly related to the recording.
NO! No more so than with my system. In fact, less so because of the
spatial problems.
> What happens to a Rudy van Gelder recording? Wouldn't your playback
> transport the performance from the living room to whatever concert hall
> Bose modeled?
Please Stephen, Bose did not model a concert hall in any way shape or
form. The concept is not an echo chamber. No echoes. Please read my
response to Bill Watkins below in this thread. Dry recordings will
still sound dry, wet recordings will still sound wet, but the
reflected sound contained in those recordings will come from more
spatially correct incident angles.
> And I've heard 901s, so I'm not just imagining.
And I've heard Dunlavy SC-IVs, so I am not just imagining. And Wilson
WAMMs - terrible! I think that was the model - it was at a Stereophile
hi-fi show in Miami. I went over in the bus with Gordon Holt to this
big high end dealer and they had these huge speakers with all kinds of
drivers aimed straight at your face. They extinguished all the lights,
which I hate, then let her rip. The sound was blisteringly harsh, way
too high on the direct sound, all blasting at us from the front, no
mistaking where the speakers were located, even in the dark. Gordon
thought they were harsh as well.
> > Tell me something just off the cuff - do you consider the timbres from
> > direct firing speakers to be natural sounding?
>
> That's rather a large population to charactarize. Most are not.
> Electrostatics come closer in my experience, but miss other elements of
> the sound.
Electrostatics are not usually direct firing speakers.
> How does turning a direct firing speaker to the wall make the basic timbre
> more realistic?
This is another whole area of study, but basically we NEED the
multiple hits and varying incident angles of live sound to hear the
complete sound power output of the musical instruments, and we need a
similar presentation on playback for it to sound natural, because of
the polar pattern of our natural hearing. This is especially true if a
recording does contain some ambience, because if all of the ambience
is presented from the same angle as the direct sound, it is really
weird and unnatural. Even tends to mask some of that ambience. Big
subject itself.
> I recently had the opposite experience: the recording that sounded
> relatively plodding gained vitality on the home system. My stock Volvo
> sound system isn't as bad as most car stereos seem to be.
Oh, sure, car systems can be pretty good as well, but the cabin is
still so tiny...
> There's also the distraction of driving. The biggest difference for me is
> that I don't expect as much dynamic range in the car as at home. I'm
> disappointed at how bad the timbres of many of today's pop recordings are.
One area that I continually marvel at is how much better recordings of
the past sound when regurgitated onto CD and played on my modern
system. It's almost like reviving the dead. Recordings you heard as a
whelp on some shitty system, maybe even mono, presented now as if they
were standing right there in front of you. Very enjoyable.
Gary Eickmeier
Marc Phillips
>> If Bose speakers were "accurate" or "musical", a large number of
>> studios, where you can very easily A/B live vs. recorded would use them.
>
>
>A red herring, from a stinky red frenchie. The equipment needs for audio
>production are very different than that for audio reproduction.
Then why do so many studios use B&W 801s?
Boon
Art Sackman
Imagine going to a concert in a perfectly good hall.
Imagine the performers playing with their backs to the audience.
With the instruments, (and if electric), the amps and speakers facing the
back of the stage.
Art Sackman
Read my post about the performers on the stage, their instruments, their
amps, and their speakers, facing backwards.
Stephen McElroy
<geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> Stephen McElroy wrote:
> > But not a 'slap-back' echo? The laws of physics suggest some level
> > reduction. For some speakers, closer to the wall might reduce similar
> > problems.
> No, certainly not - the reflected sound is well within the fusion
> time.
The area within the fusion time would be the limit of how far into the
room you would put the speakers, I assume.
> > My speakers as close to the wall as I can get them. I get to use more of
> > my room that way, too.
> As close to the wall in what way? To the side walls? The front wall?
> In the corners would be the worst possible position.
Front wall.
> > > Are you saying that live music doesn't sound spacious?
> > Whoah! We're in strawman country now.
> Howzat? Aren't we trying to reproduce the live sound?
That's an ideal, and an impossible one. Your can't have it both ways: if
stereo recording doesn't capture information correctly, there's no way to
recreate it accurately. Your best argument would be that you can simulate
it in a pleasing way that has properties coincidental with live sound.
I'll settle for hearing the recording.
> > For one, the recording might not be so spacious. Second, the enhancement
> > isn't unique to the recorded space represented.
> The unique recording space has been recorded, to a certain extent. A
> single reflection from front or side walls does not change that.
Yes, it does. Surely you are aware of professional style monitors? Those
are designed to reduce room interaction because pros need to hear the
recording in the way that best helps them work.
> As for your first sentence, for two, the recording might not be as
> UNspacious as when presented from direct speakers only.
I suppose one would wish a dispersion complimentary to that of the
microphones. As you point out, the info isn't there.
> > > It isn't as fake as you are imagining. I just want to put back as much
> > > reflected sound as there was in the original. Taking all of the direct
> > > and reflected sound of the original and presenting it as direct sound
> > > is what is fake.
> > It has the advantage of being directly related to the recording.
> NO! No more so than with my system. In fact, less so because of the
> spatial problems.
I'll grant that my ideal system and yours both play recordings. I don't
see how your spatial additions increase accuracy when that information is
lost at the recording stage.
> > What happens to a Rudy van Gelder recording? Wouldn't your playback
> > transport the performance from the living room to whatever concert hall
> > Bose modeled?
> Please Stephen, Bose did not model a concert hall in any way shape or
> form. The concept is not an echo chamber. No echoes. Please read my
> response to Bill Watkins below in this thread. Dry recordings will
> still sound dry, wet recordings will still sound wet, but the
> reflected sound contained in those recordings will come from more
> spatially correct incident angles.
So will the direct recorded sound. That's the problem. Perhaps I
misunderstood all that marketing talk from Bose about concert halls.
> > And I've heard 901s, so I'm not just imagining.
> And I've heard Dunlavy SC-IVs, so I am not just imagining. And Wilson
> WAMMs - terrible! I think that was the model - it was at a Stereophile
> hi-fi show in Miami. I went over in the bus with Gordon Holt to this
> big high end dealer and they had these huge speakers with all kinds of
> drivers aimed straight at your face. They extinguished all the lights,
> which I hate, then let her rip. The sound was blisteringly harsh, way
> too high on the direct sound, all blasting at us from the front, no
> mistaking where the speakers were located, even in the dark. Gordon
> thought they were harsh as well.
I'm sure. I've only seen them. However, I wasn't telling you you were
imagining SC-IV sound.
> > > Tell me something just off the cuff - do you consider the timbres from
> > > direct firing speakers to be natural sounding?
> > That's rather a large population to charactarize. Most are not.
> > Electrostatics come closer in my experience, but miss other elements of
> > the sound.
> Electrostatics are not usually direct firing speakers.
Yes, I was contrasting them.
> > How does turning a direct firing speaker to the wall make the basic timbre
> > more realistic?
> This is another whole area of study, but basically we NEED the
> multiple hits and varying incident angles of live sound to hear the
> complete sound power output of the musical instruments, and we need a
> similar presentation on playback for it to sound natural, because of
> the polar pattern of our natural hearing. This is especially true if a
> recording does contain some ambience, because if all of the ambience
> is presented from the same angle as the direct sound, it is really
> weird and unnatural. Even tends to mask some of that ambience. Big
> subject itself.
A different philosophy than LEDE...
<snip>
> One area that I continually marvel at is how much better recordings of
> the past sound when regurgitated onto CD and played on my modern
> system. It's almost like reviving the dead. Recordings you heard as a
> whelp on some shitty system, maybe even mono, presented now as if they
> were standing right there in front of you. Very enjoyable.
I'm more forgiving of the screechy AM mixes of the past now that I've
heard today's stuff. It's amazing how the best recording technology
coincided with audiophile ideals. Part of the recent revival of 60s
bachelor pad music was the appeal of the production values. Jazz has been
lucky that the producers and performers in general had an interest in good
sound.
If you want a good record, start with a good performance!
Art Sackman
>
> I think I've already said in this thread that I have no stock in Bose,
> they just happen to make a speaker with a certain radiation pattern
> that sounds great and I haven't been able to top, because I am not a
> great speaker engineer.
>
> But you can see my room and my experimental speaker at
> http://www.pbase.com/eickmeier/about_me&browse=Y
> and you can click on the individual pix for a larger image.
>
You have a very nice looking house.
You have a very nice looking turntable.
Haven't I seen the IMP360 on Battle Bots?
George M. Middius
Marc Phillips said:
> Then why do so many studios use B&W 801s?
Clearly a manifestation of one of the E.H.E.E.'s conspiracies.
Goofball_star_dot_etal
McElroy) wrote:
> I don't
>see how your spatial additions increase accuracy when that information is
>lost at the recording stage.
Well nobody said it was obvious...
Goofy.
Talking to wistaria right now.
Chris Johnson
"Brian L. McCarty" wrote:
> in article u36to8...@news.supernews.com, Bill Watkins at
> bwat...@mounet.com wrote on 3/1/02 7:09:
>
> > Certainly five channel should have the ability to recreate
> > concert hall ambience more accurately, but two channel
> > recordings done right can provide a very satisfying replica
> > of concert hall ambience.
> >
> Perhaps that's the case, because they are then more accurately performing
> the task of a Bose 901, providing a rich soundfield to the listener.
>
> > Your and Gary's thinking is _way_ in the minority re
> > this preponderance of reflected sound theory amoung
> > knowledgeable audiophiles.
>
> At the moment that may be true. However it was the 'audiophile" market that
> embraced and heavily promoted the Bose theories when the 901's were first
> introduced. Without the audiophile market embracing this philosophy
> wholeheartedly, Bose would have never been successful.
>
> But the nature of audiophiles is the "next" gadget, not the most useful one.
If the Bose direct/reflecting concept (with MOST of the output being reflected)
is the 'right' one, then why is it that no other company has bothered to follow that
design in the past thirty years, or more exactly, why is it that no other company
has been SUCCESSFUL in marketing it?
I'll tell you why: Because those who want to spend the money for 901's
find a better product to spend their money. The local high end audio/video
shop sold many speakers that cost several times the price of 901's, and I
know for sure that I saw a lot of those buyers of more expensive speakers
come into the store I was working in first. Some of them looked at our 901's
but none of them bought them.
I'd also have to point out that the 901 isn't exactly a hot seller these days.
I worked in a big box retailer for three years and although we "supposedly"
carried the 901's, we never once had any in stock and we never once had
any customer request a set. In my duties I also was able to track the inventories
of other stores in the state, and no set of 901's ever moved. One set was
in inventory and in three years, it didn't sell.
The 901 is a thirty year old, obsolete, outdated dinosaur based on faulty
reasoning, ass-ugly packaging, drop-dead stupid engineering, unremarkable
manufacturing, and mediocre drivers with no strong points. It is the very epitome
of well-marketed mediocrity. MOST people have figured this out by now.
Thirty years ago it was new, different, interesting, and possibly better than most
of the speakers available at the time. But that was thirty years ago, and the
industry has taken great strides ahead, while Bose and particularly the 901
haven't done anything particularly new and interesting, and certainly hasn't
done anything to challenge the state of the art in the meantime.
It's a speaker that's so bad, even the manufacturer suggests you turn it to face
the wall.
That's my opinion and I"m sticking to it.
CJ
Bill Watkins
says...
>
>in article u36to8...@news.supernews.com, Bill Watkins at
>bwat...@mounet.com wrote on 3/1/02 7:09:
>
>> Certainly five channel should have the ability to recreate
>> concert hall ambience more accurately, but two channel
>> recordings done right can provide a very satisfying replica
>> of concert hall ambience.
>>
>the task of a Bose 901, providing a rich soundfield to the listener.
A reasonable soundfield of the real thing (concert hall
acoustics) is a more realistic replica of concert hall
sound than a full-fledged soundfield of one's listening
room, Mr. McCarty.
>> Your and Gary's thinking is _way_ in the minority re
>> this preponderance of reflected sound theory amoung
>> knowledgeable audiophiles.
>
>At the moment that may be true. However it was the 'audiophile" market that
>embraced and heavily promoted the Bose theories when the 901's were first
>introduced. Without the audiophile market embracing this philosophy
>wholeheartedly, Bose would have never been successful.
Mr. McCarty, I was there with a retail store, and I can tell
you that power handling capacity was responsible for many
901 sales in the early days of loud playing, before it was
understood by the general public that clipping amps was a no-no.
The 901 was never a favorite with that many audiophiles in
my area, but rather with those easily impressed by something
different..
Bill W.
Chris Johnson
Marc Phillips wrote:
BAM! That one's out of the park!
Nice swing, Boon. :)
To add in $.02, another speaker that's found some popularity in
studios, particularly those that specialize in classical recording, is
the Aerial 10T. Dunlavys also may be found in studios.
But never, EVER, will you find any Bose speakers being used
as monitors in any studio worth a hundred dollars or more.
CJ
Bill Watkins
says...
Good analogy, Mr. Sackman.
Bill W.
Bill Watkins
Wow, that's layin' it on the line there, C.J.
Bill W.
Marc Phillips
>The 901 is a thirty year old, obsolete, outdated dinosaur based on faulty
>reasoning, ass-ugly packaging, drop-dead stupid engineering, unremarkable
>manufacturing, and mediocre drivers with no strong points. It is the very
>epitome
>of well-marketed mediocrity.
>MOST people have figured this out by now.
>Thirty years ago it was new, different, interesting, and possibly better than
>most
>of the speakers available at the time. But that was thirty years ago, and
>the
>industry has taken great strides ahead, while Bose and particularly the 901
>haven't done anything particularly
>new and interesting, and certainly hasn't
>done anything to challenge the state of the art in the meantime.
I can remember about twenty-five years ago, when I was a teenager, and I was
putting my first audio system together. The place I frequented sold Bose 901s,
and if I remember right, they were the most expensive speakers in the place. I
asked to hear them, and the salesman rolled his eyes emphatically and said, "No
way. They sound like shit. I refuse to sell them to people. I don't care how
much commission I could make."
So even in its relative youth the 901s were shit, and recognized as such.
Boon
George M. Middius
Marc Phillips said:
> I can remember about twenty-five years ago, when I was a teenager, and I was
> putting my first audio system together. The place I frequented sold Bose 901s,
> and if I remember right, they were the most expensive speakers in the place. I
> asked to hear them, and the salesman rolled his eyes emphatically and said, "No
> way. They sound like shit. I refuse to sell them to people. I don't care how
> much commission I could make."
Who was that masked man?
Marc Phillips
His name was Dennis Wright, and he worked for Pacific Stereo in Anaheim in the
late 70s to early 80s. The place was mid-fi mostly, but sold pretty good stuff
for the times. Dennis was a Magnepan man, although Pacific Stereo didn't sell
them. He also told me all about Quads, too.
The system I bought, at the age of fifteen, was a Sansui 8080DB receiver, a
Dual CS-510 turntable with a Shure V-15 Type III cartridge, and AR 12 bookshelf
speakers. Not bad for a kid with a paper route. (I do have to mention that by
age 17, I changed the speakers and the receiver already).
I'd love to run into the guy again. I used to ride into the store on my
ten-speed, and Dennis would come out and say, "Thank God it's you...I've been
dealing with idiots all day." One day I went in and apparently he'd quit the
day before. I was kind of bummed. But he's one of the guys who got me started
on the whole audio thing.
Boon
Gary Eickmeier
Art Sackman wrote:
> You have a very nice looking house.
> You have a very nice looking turntable.
> Haven't I seen the IMP360 on Battle Bots?
Battle whut?
Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier
Art Sackman wrote:
> Read my post about the performers on the stage, their instruments, their
> amps, and their speakers, facing backwards.
Sounds pretty dumb. Did you really write such a thing? Where is it?
Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier
Chris Johnson wrote:
> To add in $.02, another speaker that's found some popularity in
> studios, particularly those that specialize in classical recording, is
> the Aerial 10T. Dunlavys also may be found in studios.
This is completely consistent with what Brian said. Those speakers
make great monitors, but I wouldn't have them in a home listening
room.
>
> But never, EVER, will you find any Bose speakers being used
> as monitors in any studio worth a hundred dollars or more.
You won't find Quad ESL-63s or Maggies in a monitoring room either.
Does that have some significance for you?
Are you thinking that studio monitors are the ultimate speakers?
Gary Eickmeier
Finn Petersen
"Bill Purcell" <billp...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:Yz4Y7.8905$Fj.140...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> I just bought a set of 901 series V...like new in box. I know placement is
> critical....followed directions in manual...but very unhappy with the
> sound...any help from anyone that has these speakers? or the equalizer
> settings?
> thanks in advance, Bill
If I remember correctly, didn't the 901s up to Series III have a "split"
rear panel? In other words, *three* wires came from the amp/receiver, a
common "ground" and seperate "left" and "right" signals to *each* 901! The
matching Bose receiver had a "spatialiser" slider that governed a narrow,
balanced or wide soundfield! BTW, I was impressed by not only the sound of
these speakers in two very different environments (a fraternity brother's
room, where they were suspended from the ceiling in macramé nets! - and in
my brother's slightly larger room where he went to the expense of the matte
black stands and the afore-mentioned receiver), but also by the fact that,
even though the music filled the room and yes, especially for 901s, *felt*
loud, one could carry on a normal conversation in the same room! Generally,
I give up trying to talk in any type of environment where there is loud
(although clean) audio. This flies in the face of the rationale that the
901s' theoretical "mid-range" sound should mask any other speech in the
room.
>
> BTW i'm using and old Pioneer receiver..VSX-5000
> 100 or 125 watts per channel i believe
> NOT in the surround mode
> Happy New Year!!!
>
>
>
IMO, it's the Pioneer that needs to be replaced! I've never liked the sound
of their amps, thinking they're harsh, even slightly "tinny." I'm basing
this on a comparo I did while selling Hi-Fi in Glasgow in the '70s: I picked
my favorite speakers in the front of the shop (unfortunately, it was the
back room where the B&Ws and QUAD amps were relegated!) and switched between
two very similarly spec'd, priced and even front-panel designed amps - a
Pioneer and a Trio (Kenwood in the US.) I could not believe the sonic
difference! I had to re-check the wiring (I even swapped places on the
comparo unit) because, at that time, I only thought speakers could impart
that much coloration to sound. Even differently branded (or price levels
within the same brand!) phono cartridges never sounded THAT different.
So I'm biased against Pioneer amps (I still like some of their other gear!),
but then again, this IS an *opinion* newsgroup. (Which ones aren't, really?)
Gary Eickmeier
Art Sackman wrote:
> Imagine going to a concert in a perfectly good hall.
>
> Imagine the performers playing with their backs to the audience.
> With the instruments, (and if electric), the amps and speakers facing the
> back of the stage.
You really did write something this dumb! This is a great example of
the ignorance that has to be overcome in this industry. The first guy
that ever made a speaker put a driver on the front of a box and said
"Let's make sound." That's about where you're at, Art.
Gary Eickmeier
Chris Johnson
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> Chris Johnson wrote:
>
> > To add in $.02, another speaker that's found some popularity in
> > studios, particularly those that specialize in classical recording, is
> > the Aerial 10T. Dunlavys also may be found in studios.
>
> This is completely consistent with what Brian said. Those speakers
> make great monitors, but I wouldn't have them in a home listening
> room.
>
There lies the fundamental difference between your preference and mine.
I fully appreciate the performance and genuine fidelity to the input signal.
These speakers are designed to be truthful and honest with the signal,
and they succeed in this goal to a high degree.
As I stated just a few postings ago, I want the system to accurately
reproduce what's actually made it to the recording. No more, and no
less.
This does NOT mean that I don't want to hear a good representation
of the original performance, far from it. This approach instead puts
the full burden of achieving an involving recording on the recording
engineers and artists. Give me a magnificent recording, and I'll
get a magnificent result which is true to the recording. Give me a trash
recording, and it'll still sound like trash, which is still true to the recording.
That's something called FIDELITY. You don't get it, you CAN'T get it,
by throwing most of your signal all around the room in intentional reflections.
Poof. There goes any semblance of 'realistic imaging' that might have been
encoded into the recording. You may have a room full of sound, but it
in no way, shape, or form can be construed to be similar to the spacial
content of the recording itself.
You might as well hook up an echo box to your system.
A system like mine, or that in a good studio, DOES have the capability
of delivering a precise, finely focused sonic image, with the apparent
positions of individual instruments very clearly delineated, and the apparent
locations of those individual instruments will have no apparent reliance
upon the physical location of the speakers, provided that this positional
information made it into the recording by good engineering and microphone
placement, and that the speakers are positioned properly. I have a number
of recordings that put instruments well outside the left and right boundaries of
the speakers, and one or two outstanding recordings that deliver as close to a
living presence in the room as I have ever experienced in reproduced sound, period.
The basis for comparison of these rare few recordings is against a live, in person,
UNamplified performance, and nothing else.
I also have a few recordings that manage to put the apparent position of a vocalist
BEHIND you, which creates a decidedly creepy 'breathing down the back of
your neck' sensation, and this was apparently done without electronic trickery
by the engineers, but was instead done with some innovative microphone placement.
Systems like mine can deliver apparent directional cues that have nothing
to do with the speaker's actual location., and while you may be able to
get sound from many directions in your system as well, the difference
here is that my system does it only when it's appropriate to, and called
for by, the recording itself. You can't get away from your 'room sound'
without turning the speakers off.
As I said before, you might as well be using an echo box, or an effects processor
like is used by guitarists. You may like it, but there's no way in hell that it's 'accurate'
by any reasonable definition as long as you are sure what the defintion of what the
meaning of the word 'is' is.
I like photorealism. You like surrealism. That's all there is to it, Gary.
CJ
Art Sackman
"Chris Johnson" <cmjo...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3C33F714...@cfl.rr.com...
>
> I like photorealism. You like surrealism. That's all there is to it,
Gary.
>
> CJ
Although Richard Estes is one of my favorites,
Overall, I go for a mild impressionism, with a tad bit of Romanticism
thrown in.
Art Sackman
Ok, an early post by you, and my reply.
> Bill, I want you to imagine going to a concert in a perfectly good
> hall. Now, let's bring in the brick masons and build a brick wall
> between you and the performers. We'll cut out two rectangles for the
> left and right sides of the sound to come through to get to your ears.
> Thus, we have cut off all of those nasty reflections from the sides
> and back of the hall, permitted a few that escape from the soundstage
> and get through the windows, and let most of the direct sound through.
>
> Pretty pitiful, huh? Well, that is exactly what you are doing with all
> of your speaker muffs, ear muffs, muff muffs, and wall treatments and
> direct firing speakers.
>
> Accurate to the recording? Who knows? You can't hear what's on a
> recording except by presenting it in some fashion to your ears via
> amplifiers, speakers, and rooms.
>
> The question is, how to do that. You may disagree with my description
> of image modeling and sonic realism, but you certainly cannot say that
> you are being accurate to the recording by squirting the sound from
> the two channels into your ears, because the resulting sound field is
> NOTHING like the original.
>
> And this is easily audible, if you care about such things.
>
> Gary Eickmeier
George M. Middius
Art Sackman said:
> > I like photorealism. You like surrealism. That's all there is to it,
> Gary.
> Although Richard Estes is one of my favorites,
> Overall, I go for a mild impressionism, with a tad bit of Romanticism
> thrown in.
I think of Bose speakers as the equivalent of Dogs Playing Poker,
or maybe Elvis on black velvet in one of those shiny suits.
Hyped-up, ultracrass pseudo-art for the masses.
Gary Eickmeier
Finn Petersen wrote:
> If I remember correctly, didn't the 901s up to Series III have a "split"
> rear panel? In other words, *three* wires came from the amp/receiver, a
> common "ground" and seperate "left" and "right" signals to *each* 901! The
> matching Bose receiver had a "spatialiser" slider that governed a narrow,
> balanced or wide soundfield! BTW, I was impressed by not only the sound of
> these speakers in two very different environments (a fraternity brother's
> room, where they were suspended from the ceiling in macramé nets! - and in
> my brother's slightly larger room where he went to the expense of the matte
> black stands and the afore-mentioned receiver), but also by the fact that,
> even though the music filled the room and yes, especially for 901s, *felt*
> loud, one could carry on a normal conversation in the same room! Generally,
> I give up trying to talk in any type of environment where there is loud
> (although clean) audio. This flies in the face of the rationale that the
> 901s' theoretical "mid-range" sound should mask any other speech in the
> room.
Thanks for the response. I have received a couple of side E-mails from
fellows with 901 questions as well. They said they E-mailed me because
they - well, let's just say they didn't want to get involved in a
thread with so many Bose haters.
Yes, the 901s sound very dynamic, partly because of having nine
drivers acting in lock step, partly because of those secondary hits of
the main sound, from spatially diverse angles. If the signal is
reproduced through direct firing speakers with a lot of room dampening
going on, much of the ambience in the recording is masked by the
direct sound, and it sounds closed-in, un-dynamic, tinny. The worst
situation would be a corner placed speaker, in which case all of the
sound comes from this single point in space for each speaker. To me,
this sounds kind of like headphone listening with low quality 'phones.
The 901s are very "live" sounding, spacious, and dynamic. Their main
selling point when they first came out was that they sounded like huge
speakers with their spaciousness and ability to place the musicians
right there in front of you.
I do remember something about those three post connections. Never
bothered with it myself, because I think it's kind of phony. Allison
did a similar trick with their Vee-nosed speakers. Some other
manufacturers have used active equalization as well.
The biggest thing I discovered about 901s was the criticality of room
positioning. If you place them too close to the walls, you get the
much criticized bloated image and stretched soloists. But if you get
it just right, you discover that the reflected sound is what CAUSES
most of the prized imaging qualities, such as depth, spaciousness,
three dimensionality. These qualities are displayed by omnis and
dipoles such as the Maggies, but most audiophiles are clueless as to
what causes it. They are all firing the sound straight at their faces,
and covering all the reflecting surfaces around the speakers with
sound killing materials! Just the opposite of what you should do! In
the name of accuracy! Absolutely incredible.
Gary Eickmeier
Chris Johnson
"Brian L. McCarty" wrote:
> in article 3C33F714...@cfl.rr.com, Chris Johnson at
> cmjo...@cfl.rr.com wrote on 3/1/02 16:19:
>
> > As I stated just a few postings ago, I want the system to accurately
> > reproduce what's actually made it to the recording. No more, and no
> > less.
>
> Then you should spend your money on the purchase of an anechoic chamber.
> That is the only way to guarantee your goal is reached.
Does 108 square feet of 2" Sonex acoustic foam and a padded
carpet qualify? :)
Seriously, I've totally tamed the slap echo in the room to the point
where I'm satisfied with the acoustics. Beyond this point I'll fall off
the curve of diminishing returns.
CJ
Art Sackman
I thought you liked the Bose "concept".
Art Sackman
>
> Thanks for the response. I have received a couple of side E-mails from
> fellows with 901 questions as well. They said they E-mailed me because
> they - well, let's just say they didn't want to get involved in a
> thread with so many Bose haters.
>
yes, all those stuck with Bose and afraid to admit it publicly.
They have been dissatisfied with the sound for
many years and are contacting you in
desperate hope that you will be their
last chance at salvation, that you somehow can miraculously
tweak some kind of decent sound out of them.
Will Brink
Purcell" <billp...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> I just bought a set of 901 series V...like new in box.
Sorry to hear it. The box would sound better.
> I know placement is
> critical....
Like the trash?
>followed directions in manual...but very unhappy with the
> sound...any help from anyone that has these speakers? or the equalizer
> settings?
Sorry to break it to you, but you are unhappy because they suck. Try and
sell them on ebay to some sucker and get some real speakers.
> thanks in advance, Bill
>
> BTW i'm using and old Pioneer receiver..VSX-5000
> 100 or 125 watts per channel i believe
> NOT in the surround mode
> Happy New Year!!!
--
Will Brink
__________________
http://www.brinkzone.com/
http://www.aboutsupplements.com/
Chris Johnson
Art Sackman wrote:
These "Bose-o's", to coin a phrase (Phonetically identically to 'bozos', BTW),
are somewhat rare and are often quite secretive, much like those odd people
who like to dress up in the other sex's underwear on a regular basis.
Please note that I am not suggesting that bose-o's are crossdressers, but
there is a parallel in their behavior. Why they're looking for guidance
from an 'out of the closet and proud of it' member of the group is somewhat
mystifying.
They can have all the 901's they want, they can enjoy the heck out of them,
and they'll still not 'get it' when it comes to realizing that the entire 901
concept is wrong and blows the unholy hell out of whatever genuine,
accurate soundstaging and imaging that might have been in the original
recording.
If they ever encountered a really first rate recording of the type that
virtually puts the living presence of a singer right in front of their face,
as is possible with a 'studio type' (to coin another phrase) system like
mine, the experience would scare the hell out of them, since such
abominations as a solid sonic image simply don't occur in Bose-o-ville.
Meaning no disrespect to Gary. He's a genuinely nice guy, quite
articulate and intelligent, and well mannered as well, but I just
can't get into his views on audio, as of yet, anyway.
CJ
George M. Middius
Chris Johnson said:
> Meaning no disrespect to Gary [Bosemeier]. He's a genuinely nice guy, quite
> articulate and intelligent, and well mannered as well, but I just
> can't get into his views on audio, as of yet, anyway.
Bosey does seem nice, reasonably articulate, and polite. Yes
indeed.
Intelligent? That's like saying a VW Beetle is powerful. It's only
powerful compared to a rickshaw.
Gary Eickmeier
OK, I think we have pretty much come full circle now. I may try
another tack in a new thread soon, now that you have got me going on
this, but for now I can't keep repeating myself unless you read what I
am saying.
E-mail me if you can make it up here.
Gary Eickmeier
Bill Purcell
That did it...reguardless of what anyone else thinks....
I think they sound AWESOME
Bill Watkins
says...
>
>
>Chris Johnson wrote:
>I have a number of recordings that put instruments well outside the
>left and right boundaries of the speakers, and one or two outstanding
>recordings that deliver as close to a living presence in the room
>as I have ever experienced in reproduced sound, period.
How about posting the label, number, and title of a few
of these, Chris? TIA
Bill W.
Gary Eickmeier
Francois Yves Le Gal wrote:
> Are you out of your mind? Dunlavy manufactures some of the best *home*
> speakers. But I do understand that you prefer the bloated bass,
> imprecise image, larger than life AM-radio sound of your Bose 901's.
I'm just telling you that I hated the sound at Zipser's when I was
down there.
> BTW, could you shed some light on the ancillary equipment you use? There
> are lots of boxes with a lot of knobs everywhere in your system. Are
> they props or do they serve a real purpose?
OK, if you are asking respectfully and without the name calling. There
is a satellite tuner (big satellite dish) and a JBL TC-1
Tuner/controller to handle video signals. There is a Carver TX-11 FM
tuner, a Fosgate DSL-2 surround decoder, a Pioneer Laser Disc player,
a Carver C-500 power amp (for rear channels), a Carver C-1 preamp, the
DBX series of boxes (not used anymore), my new Pioneer DV-440 DVD
player, Sony CDP-520ES CD player, two Carver M1.5-T power amps for the
front 901s and subwoofers, two Bose Equalizers, Audiocontrol Richter
Scale Series Three subwoofer crossover, and Nakamichi ZX-9 cassette
recorder. Turntable is, of course, a Michell Gyrodec (not used much).
I just installed the DVD player and hooked it up via S cable directly
to the projector. Terrific results, even without the component input,
which I am capable of, but don't yet have switching capability for.
The TC-1 is hooked to the projector in RGB mode, so I can't use those
same inputs for the component signal of the DVD. I guess what I need
is a modern surround preamp or receiver to be able to handle those
discrete sources now available on my DVD player, and to be able to
switch and handle component video. Anyway, I tried a comparison of CD
play capability between the CD and DVD players, and basically didn't
hear much difference, if any.
I have unique remote control problems, since my system is in another
room from my electronics. Most everything is controlled via UHF remote
with the Master Mind system, which is a UHF learning remote. I program
all of my stuff into it, and then it sends the control signals via UHF
to the relay unit in the electronics room, which then transmits the
infra red required to operate the remotable components. The DVD
player, however, was a problem because you need to be able to control
DVD players with their dedicated remotes, because DVDs depend on
remote control to get to all of the functions. So I got an infra red
relay system, which I THOUGHT would be able to control everything, but
no dice. Wasn't strong enough or something. But it DOES have a sensor
attachment that you can stick to the infra red eye of the player to
transmit the signal directly to it alone. And voila - it works. Now I
can sit in the viewing room and control my DVD player to my heart's
content, and see all the on-screen graphics.
Not sure what I'm going to do if I get the receiver. It would have to
be remote controllable as well, and I'm running out of options.
> MEEP. Wrong answer. The Quad ESL-63 has long been a studio favorite and
> dozens are in use in various recording and/or mastering studios around
> the world.
I won't call you a liar, but it is hard to imagine a delicate
electrostatic being used for monitoring. Ah well.
Gary Eickmeier
Chris Johnson
The first one that comes to mind is Tears of Joy, by Tuck and Patti,
on Windham Hill Jazz, WD0111.
That's probably the very best one I can recall out of my collection,
from the standpoint of a lifelike presentation. The music...well,
Tuck Andress is an incredible, even gifted, guitar player, and Patti
Cathcart is an outstanding vocalist as well, but the selections may
not be everyone's cup of tea. It's definitely "light" or "hot tub"
jazz, but it's VERY well done and recorded.
I'll have to rummage around to find the other best examples in
my collection because I'm not quite sure which is which. I can
say for sure that I have a few RCA LSC 'shaded dog' LP's
that are remarkable records as well, but honestly I haven't
even had a turnable hooked up in the system for so long that
I'd be at a loss to identify the recording without looking for
it and playing it again to verify it.
As a rule, any LSC shaded dog you find at a garage sale or thrift
shop for fifty cents is a bargain you shouldn't pass up.
CJ
Gary Eickmeier
Art Sackman wrote:
> yes, all those stuck with Bose and afraid to admit it publicly.
> They have been dissatisfied with the sound for
> many years and are contacting you in
> desperate hope that you will be their
> last chance at salvation, that you somehow can miraculously
> tweak some kind of decent sound out of them.
What they actually said was that they were blown away by the sound of
the 901s and they can't stand the idiots on the newsgroups.
Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier
Chris Johnson wrote:
>
> Well, let me think...
>
> The first one that comes to mind is Tears of Joy, by Tuck and Patti,
> on Windham Hill Jazz, WD0111.
>
> That's probably the very best one I can recall out of my collection,
> from the standpoint of a lifelike presentation. The music...well,
> Tuck Andress is an incredible, even gifted, guitar player, and Patti
> Cathcart is an outstanding vocalist as well, but the selections may
> not be everyone's cup of tea. It's definitely "light" or "hot tub"
> jazz, but it's VERY well done and recorded.
>
> I'll have to rummage around to find the other best examples in
> my collection because I'm not quite sure which is which. I can
> say for sure that I have a few RCA LSC 'shaded dog' LP's
> that are remarkable records as well, but honestly I haven't
> even had a turnable hooked up in the system for so long that
> I'd be at a loss to identify the recording without looking for
> it and playing it again to verify it.
>
> As a rule, any LSC shaded dog you find at a garage sale or thrift
> shop for fifty cents is a bargain you shouldn't pass up.
So you pretty much have to rummage through your collection to find a
recording that sounds good on your system?
Gary Eickmeier
Chris Johnson
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
You know, no matter what side of the Bose argument (or any other equipment based argument) you or I happen to be on, I can't say
that I really like the whole 'Your opinion is different than mine, therefore yours sucks' attitude that seems to be the rule of the
day here at RAO, which is notoriously vicious among the newsgroups, especially among the hobby-oriented newsgroups.
It seems like we all sometimes say something like "Well, to each his own. You like your speakers, I can't stand them, and by the
way, you're an idiot for liking those pieces of junk."
When reason won't cure somebody who's wrong, resort to insults.
When insults don't work, get a baseball bat. Is that it? I've seen
arguments get so out of hand that I seem to recall actually reading
postings between two people who were willing to meet and fight
it out over a difference in opinion on equipment, or at least that's
what started it.
Getting off the soapbox now...
J
Chris Johnson
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
So maybe my collection's a bit limited in the categories that might be
well received by the typical 'audiophile', rather. You see, I have broad
tastes, and only a small percentage of my collection is 'audiophile approved'
stuff like good jazz and good classical. It's not that big a collection, anyway,
and I'm specifically pursuing the very best I've got, rather than the average to
good stuff that I've got more of.
I'd like to expand my collection, a lot, but I don't subscribe to the 'grab
any disc out of the clasical or jazz section at random' method of shopping
and I don't usually buy a disc unless I've heard at least part of it somewhere
and was able to get the info on it. I don't buy blind.
I've got some recordings that sound lousy, quite frankly, on any system.
My system, being as revealing as it is, doesn't hide the poor quality of
such a recording so it's less likely to be played again. This type of
accuracy DOES have its drawbacks, apparently. But that's the nature
of high fidelity. It's not about making a recording sound subjectively
better or fuller.
If I drop in a disc that's magnificent, I get magnificent sound. If the
disc sucks, so does the sound. It means the system is working as intended.
It also means that I try to be careful to buy music that I'll like, AND that is
well recorded. Lots of cheap compilation discs are out there, and most of
them seem to be pretty bad from an engineering and mastering standpoint,
so I avoid those and search out ones that are likely to be better.
You might be able to get a happier sound out of the same discs, but I'm not
looking for that. I could also play any of my electric guitars through a Rockman,
and they'd all sound the same due to the heavy processing, but I don't use one
of those, and I enjoy their very individual and characteristic tones as a result.
CJ
>
>
> Gary Eickmeier
George M. Middius
Chris Johnson said:
> It seems like we all sometimes say something like "Well, to each his own.
> You like your speakers, I can't stand them, and by the
> way, you're an idiot for liking those pieces of junk."
Your line length is ridiculously long. Also, "those pieces of junk"
only confer Major Idiot status if they happen to be 901 Birdhouses.
Gary Eickmeier
Art Sackman wrote:
> I thought you liked the Bose "concept".
Sorry if I was a little rough on you Art, but this is such an old
argument, and so, well, misguided, that I get tired of explaining
these things. Nobody reads it anyway.
What is basically happening is that the direct to reflected ratio goes
down and down as you move away from the source. In a good concert hall
the D/R ratio is 50/50 (critical distance) at about 19 feet from the
instruments! So the farther you go back from this, the less the ratio
of direct sound. When we go to a concert (unamplified etc etc), we sit
in a primarily reverberant field, and the ratio of direct sound is
very low.
So we theorize that perhaps one of the problems that causes "hi-fi" to
sound canned is the fact that with our conventional speakers, we sit
in a primarily direct field of the sound from those speakers - a
situation very different from live sound. So perhaps we can adjust
this D/R ratio by broadcasting a greater amount of the radiation
pattern of the speaker in a direction away from the listener, starting
it out in the reverberant field. We find that the amount needed in the
reflected direction is even greater than in the direct field, in order
to cause the RANGE of ratios that you get in a home listening room to
become similar to the range you would find in the live situation. This
is because you are so much closer to your speakers than you are to the
musicians in the concert hall. Surround sound also helps out in this
concept.
So there is 89% of the sound directed toward the rear not because we
are simulating musicians playing with their backs to us, but because
of the acoustical situation of playback. Please note that this 89%
figure does NOT mean that the ratio you are hearing when you are
sitting down is 89 to 11. That is just how it starts out from the
speaker in order to make the RANGE of ratios you experience as you
walk toward or away from the speaker similar to the range you would
experience in the concert hall. If you got close enough, I imagine the
ratio you might experience could be 50/50 - even from a 901.
In my experimental speaker, I made the front drivers separately
adjustable from the rear ones, so that I could vary the D/R ratio all
the way from all direct to all reflected, to test the audibility of
this concept. I found that the good doctor was correct. If you went to
all direct, it sounded just small and hissy. If you went all
reflected, it wasn't too bad, but there was no variation of depth of
imaging and focus suffered. Just a little bit of direct sound is all
that is required for localization.
Of course, this is but a thimble full of the kind of experiments run
by Bose between the time of the 2201 "beehive" speaker and the 901.
You should read about it sometime. It is the most fascinating audio
story I have ever read (the Bose research paper published in
Technology Review around 1970).
Gary Eickmeier
Chris Johnson
"George M. Middius" wrote:
There was a time when my line length was stupidly short. Now I reset
it to 132 characters in length and now people complain it's too long.
I can't win! :)
What line length would you suggest I use, now that I know where
to change it?
CJ
Gary Eickmeier
So do a lot of others - but they are not about to stick their necks
out in this forum!
Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier
Chris Johnson wrote:
> These "Bose-o's", to coin a phrase (Phonetically identically to 'bozos', BTW),
> are somewhat rare and are often quite secretive, much like those odd people
> who like to dress up in the other sex's underwear on a regular basis.
> Please note that I am not suggesting that bose-o's are crossdressers, but
> there is a parallel in their behavior. Why they're looking for guidance
> from an 'out of the closet and proud of it' member of the group is somewhat
> mystifying.
You got a mouth on you, boy...
> They can have all the 901's they want, they can enjoy the heck out of them,
> and they'll still not 'get it' when it comes to realizing that the entire 901
> concept is wrong and blows the unholy hell out of whatever genuine,
> accurate soundstaging and imaging that might have been in the original
> recording.
>
> If they ever encountered a really first rate recording of the type that
> virtually puts the living presence of a singer right in front of their face,
> as is possible with a 'studio type' (to coin another phrase) system like
> mine, the experience would scare the hell out of them, since such
> abominations as a solid sonic image simply don't occur in Bose-o-ville.
This happens on most all of my recordings.
> Meaning no disrespect to Gary. He's a genuinely nice guy, quite
> articulate and intelligent, and well mannered as well, but I just
> can't get into his views on audio, as of yet, anyway.
Grasshopper, you will be ready for true audio when you can grab this
Mpingo Puck from my hand...
Gary Eickmeier
Arny Krueger
> So you pretty much have to rummage through your collection to find
a
> recording that sounds good on your system?
IMO & IME one of the goals of a home audio system is to have a system
that gives the most satisfactory wide-range sound with the highest
percentage of all recording.
This is quite divergent from studio monitor speakers used for
tracking or mixing which are supposed to make the irritating aspects
of a badly-made recording as obvious and irritating as possible.
The middle ground is probably a system that lets you hear that
something is wrong when something is wrong, but just doesn't make a
big issue out of it.
Arny Krueger
> I won't call you a liar, but it is hard to imagine a delicate
> electrostatic being used for monitoring. Ah well.
ESL-63's have an overload protection circuit and of course Magnepans
have fuses or you can add them.
Planar speakers can give a fairly precise *report* on what's wrong
with recordings because their directionality creates a fairly large
direct sound field, and the good ones have really pretty good
transient response.
Chris Johnson
>
> Grasshopper, you will be ready for true audio when you can grab this
> Mpingo Puck from my hand...
>
> Gary Eickmeier
I don't suppose just cold-cocking the Master and removing said item from
his unconscious grasp is playing fair, is it?
Ooh, that would have been a great out-take from the Kung Fu series to see, don't
you think?
Your claims of image solidity are intriguing, I'll give you that. The time will
come when I will darken your door and allow you to present that claim
for my amusement, all in the nicest way, of course.
CJ
Chris Johnson
Arny Krueger wrote:
Then I'd have to self-evaluate my system and say that it's at that middle
ground. It doesn't magnify errors (I have heard speakers that will do that
and I'm not exactly sure how that's done) but it doesn't hide them, either.
CJ
Arny Krueger
"Chris Johnson" <cmjo...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3C35B4E6...@cfl.rr.com...
Well, that's good if your goal is enjoyment, but for the most
diagnostic listening, you need something else. That's why I have
several systems. They are all different and if something sounds good
on all of them, its probably going to sound good in lotsa places.
Audiophiles seem to have this basic confusion between listening for
enjoyment and listening for flaws. You can't have your cake and eat
it, too.
Listening to music is like looking at a very beautiful middle-aged
woman. If you look carefully the wrinkles are there, but who is
looking for wrinkles? The answer is that plastic surgeons and other
women know exactly where they are.
The recipe for speakers that magnify errors is fairly easy to
discern, just check out NS-10s. I think I can give it to you in a
nutshell:
(1) Thin bass response, particularly in the deep bass. Avoids masking
flaws in the mid-bass and mid-range.
(2) Overall system response flat or "tipped up" in the indirect
field. Direct field response definitely tipped up, and maybe even
peaky around 9-11 KHz.
(3) Generally rough response, as peaks make faults that fall in
their range "stand out" better. Better monitoring systems can be
quite smooth, but then you have to listen far more carefully, with
the benefit of more reliable results.
George M. Middius
> > Your line length is ridiculously long. Also, "those pieces of junk"
> > only confer Major Idiot status if they happen to be 901 Birdhouses.
>
> There was a time when my line length was stupidly short. Now I reset
> it to 132 characters in length and now people complain it's too long.
>
> I can't win! :)
>
> What line length would you suggest I use, now that I know where
> to change it?
Between 65 and 80 would be good. If you want your posts Kroogerized
by Shit-for-Brains if he should happen to reply, go toward the max.
Chris Johnson
Arny Krueger wrote:
My best friend had a pair of Yamaha NS-1000's, and they were
much as described, but they did have solid bass response. They
were a bit TOO analytical. He got an incredible deal on them for
200 bucks for the pair, and they served him well until he got Martin-Logan
CLS'es.
CJ
bf...@attglobal.net
Chris Johnson wrote:
>
> These "Bose-o's", to coin a phrase (snip)
>
> They can have all the 901's they want, they can enjoy the heck out of them,
> and they'll still not 'get it' when it comes to realizing that the entire 901
> concept is wrong and blows the unholy hell out of whatever genuine,
> accurate soundstaging and imaging that might have been in the original
> recording.
Chris, consider for a moment what a company like Bose (or any successful
audio company, for that matter) strives to do. They strive to make a product/speaker
that reproduces sound in a way that pleases their intended market audience.
Bose speakers do some things very well and other things not so well. It is an
engineering and a market targeting tradeoff.
It just so happens that many of the Jane Does and John Smiths that buy a mid
to upper priced stereo from a big electronics retailer happen to agree with
Bose's choice of tradeoffs. Example, I have a friend who lives in an expensive
high-rise on the river (Chicago). He put in a Bose speaker speaker system with
some nicely styled B&O electronics. The speakers are placed in a manner that
would never occur to me (for audio reproduction purposes). What his system
does well are:
(1) Fill his living & dining with sound
(2) Provide sound that is relatively constant in perceived character throughout
most of this space.
(3) Be visually unobtrusive
(4) Provide a pleasing sense of bass response
Does the system sound bad? Well, in a sense, yes, but in another sense it sounds
great. The tonal balance isn't totally out of wack. There's a
nice sense of listener envelopment. The overboosted lower-mid bass gives it a nice
rich sound on pop and jazz.
> If they ever encountered a really first rate recording of the type that
> virtually puts the living presence of a singer right in front of their face,
> as is possible with a 'studio type' (to coin another phrase) system like
> mine, the experience would scare the hell out of them, since such
> abominations as a solid sonic image simply don't occur in Bose-o-ville.
Perhaps the people who buy and enjoy Bose speakers don't like having the
singer right in front of their face. Perhaps they find it more pleasing if
the singer and the rest of the sound is more "all around them."
> Meaning no disrespect to Gary. He's a genuinely nice guy, quite
> articulate and intelligent, and well mannered as well, but I just
> can't get into his views on audio, as of yet, anyway.
I can't say much about how 901's sound in an idea setup, but there's no technical
reason that they can't provide nearly spectacular sound in terms of breadth and depth
of sound stage. There's no reason they cannot provide stable, if not pin-point
precise, instrument localization. There's no reason they cannot provide very good
frequency response, as you can do a lot with electronic equalization.
They may not be your or my cup of tea, but they aren't junk by any reasoned measure.
John
Stephen McElroy
<cmjo...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> My best friend had a pair of Yamaha NS-1000's, and they were
> much as described, but they did have solid bass response. They
> were a bit TOO analytical. He got an incredible deal on them for
> 200 bucks for the pair, and they served him well until he got Martin-Logan
> CLS'es.
NS-1000s are quite different speakers than NS-10. I've heard the latter.
One rationale for using them in the studio is that if the soundstage
survives Yamaha reproduction, it's likely to sound good on better
speakers.
Stephen
--
Tom Lehrer: I know there are people in
this world who do not love their fellow man,
and I HATE people like that.