Bose 701's..
Brian L. McCarty
Reynolds) writes:
> Are they worth $740, I severely doubt it. Go listen to
> some Definitive Tecknology BP8's, some Paradigm 7se's or 9se's, some
> KEF's, B&W's, PSB's, etc. Then decide. I think you'll like all of those
> a lot better for the money than the Bose.
Then take a look at all the above mentioned companies, their track records,
and their ability to remain in business and support their limited warranties.
Brian
Lon Stowell
>In article <3l75h8$d...@pith.uoregon.edu>, ca...@oregon.uoregon.edu (Cary D Mc
>Reynolds) writes:
>> Are they worth $740, I severely doubt it. Go listen to
>> some Definitive Tecknology BP8's, some Paradigm 7se's or 9se's, some
>> KEF's, B&W's, PSB's, etc. Then decide. I think you'll like all of those
>> a lot better for the money than the Bose.
>
>
>Then take a look at all the above mentioned companies, their track records,
>and their ability to remain in business and support their limited warranties.
>
crap, just knowing that I will always be guaranteed that the
business who built it will be able to keep it sounding like
a piece of crap for the duration of the warranty.
So, before you kiddies buy speakers, IGNORE YOUR EARS, DON"T LISTEN
TO THEM, DON'T BOTHER WITH PUBLISHED REVIEWS. Just contact your
stock broker and get a prospectus on the company. Contact your
banker and ask for a Dun & Bradstreet report. Drop by the nearest
showroom and lookit alla them thar racing trophies as evidence
of a "track record".
After all, if you really cared about sound, you wouldn't be sitting
here at this computer reading this. You would be sitting in your
listening room. So you aren't REALLY audiophiles, and you deserve
the overpriced Bose crap. Watch for it under the flashing blue
light at the appliance dealer near you.
Be sure not to take your MG, Triumph, Lotus, Alfa, or Jaguar to
the store. After all, you never know if they will give up the
ghost on the way...and all that fun you can have driving them
is a mere trivia compared to knowing that your beat-up 1956 Chevy
will continue to have GM in business for the rest of your life.
Youngjoon Kwon
>In article <3l75h8$d...@pith.uoregon.edu>, ca...@oregon.uoregon.edu (Cary D Mc
>Reynolds) writes:
>> Are they worth $740, I severely doubt it. Go listen to
>> some Definitive Tecknology BP8's, some Paradigm 7se's or 9se's, some
>> KEF's, B&W's, PSB's, etc. Then decide. I think you'll like all of those
>> a lot better for the money than the Bose.
>
>
>and their ability to remain in business and support their limited warranties.
>
Judging from what this guy says, I tend to conclude that this gentleman has
no idea of how those speakers mentioned above sounds compared to BOSE.
I heard all of these speakers and some of BOSE's (301, 901, AM-7 II...),
and everytime (almost with no exception) BOSE is the most
disappointing and over-priced speaker.
All the other speakers mentioned (DT, Paradigm, KEF, B&W, PSB) have
given me pleasure to listen to. But I was never pleased by the sound
from BOSE: they are either too dull or too harsh depending on setups.
Oh, by the way, after much speaker-shopping in the < $ 1K range, I
ended up with a pair of B&W. I listen to mostly (>99% of time)
classical music.
-Youngjoon
Cary D Mc Reynolds
>In article <3l75h8$d...@pith.uoregon.edu>, ca...@oregon.uoregon.edu (Cary D Mc
>Reynolds) writes:
>> Are they worth $740, I severely doubt it. Go listen to
>> some Definitive Tecknology BP8's, some Paradigm 7se's or 9se's, some
>> KEF's, B&W's, PSB's, etc. Then decide. I think you'll like all of those
>> a lot better for the money than the Bose.
>
>
>Then take a look at all the above mentioned companies, their track records,
>and their ability to remain in business and support their limited warranties.
>
>Brian
>
Let's see here they all still seem to be in business and doing quite
well. Some of the companies like KEF and B&W have been around 20+ years. But
why should we care, the warrentee is the most important thing. I guess next
time I buy speakers I will go and look at the warrentees and how likely the
compnany is to stay in business because after all who gives a flying fuck how
the speaker sounds. Are you really that desperate Bwian that when I give a
subjective opinion that you have to attack it on such irrelevant grounds? I
think your problem is that you got caught with your pants down so now you are
running around trying to pull every other persons down. I have tried to stay
out of this but you instist on sticking your fat ass in when I post a subject
response to an honest question by another poster. Have you gone and talked to
a Proffessor of economics yet like I told you to?
Cary
Noam Ben-Ami
>In article <3l75h8$d...@pith.uoregon.edu>, ca...@oregon.uoregon.edu (Cary D Mc
>Reynolds) writes:
>> Are they worth $740, I severely doubt it. Go listen to
>> some Definitive Tecknology BP8's, some Paradigm 7se's or 9se's, some
>> KEF's, B&W's, PSB's, etc. Then decide. I think you'll like all of those
>> a lot better for the money than the Bose.
>Then take a look at all the above mentioned companies, their track records,
>and their ability to remain in business and support their limited warranties.
>Brian
And then once you realise that not a SINGLE reputable studio in the world,
one whose emphasis is on sound quality, uses Bose speakers, once you notice
that Bose uses cheap paper cone woofers and no tweeters and no subs while
the others use advanced drivers and innovative, sound designs....once you
discover that B&W's 801s are the most often used monitors in the classical
recording industry...
well, you get the idea.
Guess Brian is ANTI-Bose after all.
--
/ /
\\' / /
\\\' , / //
\\\// _/ //'
Karl Chwe
>
>Brian L. McCarty writes:
>>In article <3l75h8$d...@pith.uoregon.edu>, ca...@oregon.uoregon.edu (Cary D Mc
>>Reynolds) writes:
>>> Are they worth $740, I severely doubt it. Go listen to
>>> some Definitive Tecknology BP8's, some Paradigm 7se's or 9se's, some
>>> KEF's, B&W's, PSB's, etc. Then decide. I think you'll like all of those
>>> a lot better for the money than the Bose.
>
>>Then take a look at all the above mentioned companies, their track records,
>>and their ability to remain in business and support their limited warranties.
>>
>>Brian
>
>Judging from what this guy says, I tend to conclude that this gentleman has
>no idea of how those speakers mentioned above sounds compared to BOSE.
>
>I heard all of these speakers and some of BOSE's (301, 901, AM-7 II...),
>and everytime (almost with no exception) BOSE is the most
>disappointing and over-priced speaker.
<snip>
Perhaps Brian listened to them and liked them as well as or better than the
listed speakers. I can't imagine that his comment is relevant otherwise.
I've mentioned before that I listened to nearly the entire line of Bose
speakers, and didn't find a single system that was even acceptable. But
perhaps that was just me. I like classical music, and I've performed with
several vocal groups over the years, and before that, with several
orchestras. Just my two bits, in any case.
BTW, I didn't like the Paradigm's; too boomy and peaky in the bass. The
B&W's were great. But I settled on a used pair of Spica TC-50's, which I
preferred to nearly everything else (except the Maggies, but I didn't
have a few grand to blow. Also the Totems. Now for subs... :-)
Karl
Kwok Nai Ying
: In article <3l75h8$d...@pith.uoregon.edu>, ca...@oregon.uoregon.edu (Cary D Mc
: > Are they worth $740, I severely doubt it. Go listen to
: > some Definitive Tecknology BP8's, some Paradigm 7se's or 9se's, some
: > KEF's, B&W's, PSB's, etc. Then decide. I think you'll like all of those
: > a lot better for the money than the Bose.
: Then take a look at all the above mentioned companies, their track records,
: and their ability to remain in business and support their limited warranties.
You are truly an idiot. Def Tech has been around for awhile, and so has
B&W (which has quite a good 'high-end' reputation), and KEF is one of the
biggest British companies in the speaker business. What about track
records? Every one of these companies have track records of having built
significantly better speakers (or better value-for-money speakers) than
Bose.
As far as I know, EVEN IN SINGAPORE DefTech, B&W and KEF provide
excellent technical support.
Anthony Christina
a competitor for brands like KEF, Definitive, Paradigm, etc.
Listen to it before you discredit it.
As far as ability to stay in business and offer warranty service, you
absolutly couldn't go wrong with Bose. Their customer service is
excellent and warranty service centers are everywhere.
Let me know if you actually listen to them.
Tony
ajchr...@peseta.ucdavis.edu
Bill Claussen
: The Bose 710 is a great sounding speaker, probably Bose's best attempt at
: Tony
: ajchr...@peseta.ucdavis.edu
The Ford Escort is a great running car, probably Ford's best attempt at
a competitor for brands like Chevy, Buick, Plymouth, etc.
Ride in it before you discredit it.
As far as ability to stay in business and offer warranty service, you
absolutly couldn't go wrong with Ford. Their customer service is
excellent and warranty service centers are everywhere.
Let me know if you actually drive one of them.
......But it's not a Jag
John Busenitz
>
>Ah, so KEF=Chevy, Definitive=Buick, and Paradigm=plymouth
>
>I'm not trying to compare Bose as a compnay with companies life B&W, KEF,
>etc. I'm just pointing out a great sounding product WITHOUT the Jag
>Pricetag.
Ah, but that it is not. In fact, the pricetag is much too high,
especially with the presence of products like NHT SZ, Paradigm
Titan, PSB Alpha, Dana, etc.
--
John Busenitz P.U. E.E. "Any idiot can design a loudspeaker, and,
buse...@ecn.purdue.edu unfortunately, many do." - Dick Pierce
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Disclaimer: My statements do not represent Purdue University.
steven joseph chmura
Anthony Christina <ez00...@rocky.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>The Bose 710 is a great sounding speaker, probably Bose's best attempt at
>a competitor for brands like KEF, Definitive, Paradigm, etc.
>Listen to it before you discredit it.
>
A rational person must be open to the possiblity that he/she is wrong about
a belief. While I will defend evolution till the day I die and wish death
on the morons trying to deplete basic science fuinding in thname of applied
research :), Iomeone showed me a 20,000,000 year old human skull.
The same is said about the 701. The imaging was excellent - faerior to my paradigms. I was impressed.
Again, the rest of he Bose may be crap (although the 301's are not bad if
they were $50 each) bvut the 701 is a fin speaker.
Go and listen. Tell me what "sucks" about them.
--
________________________________________________________________________________Steven Chmura University of Chicago Medical School(MSIII,PhD1)
"If medicine was easy, any idiot would do it"
"Morality is simply the attitude we adopt toward people whom we dislike"
Noam Ben-Ami
>: : The Bose 710 is a great sounding speaker, probably Bose's best attempt at
>: : a competitor for brands like KEF, Definitive, Paradigm, etc.
>: : Listen to it before you discredit it.
>: The Ford Escort is a great running car, probably Ford's best attempt at
>: a competitor for brands like Chevy, Buick, Plymouth, etc.
>: Ride in it before you discredit it.
>: ......But it's not a Jag
>Ah, so KEF=Chevy, Definitive=Buick, and Paradigm=plymouth
Yeah, that bugged me too. Puts those fine firms down.
>I'm not trying to compare Bose as a compnay with companies life B&W, KEF,
>etc. I'm just pointing out a great sounding product WITHOUT the Jag
>Pricetag.
Err...correction. A lousy sounding product with a jag price tag for
what it is. If you opened up the hood of a Jag and found a VW beetle
engine in it, or even two, wouldn't YOU be pissed?
Cary D Mc Reynolds
>: : The Bose 710 is a great sounding speaker, probably Bose's best attempt at
>: : a competitor for brands like KEF, Definitive, Paradigm, etc.
>: : Listen to it before you discredit it.
>
>etc. I'm just pointing out a great sounding product WITHOUT the Jag
>Pricetag.
Actually I think that about 90% of people would say that the Bose
perform like a Ford Escort with the price of a Jag. Bose speakers sound fine,
that is against speakers costing 1/3 as much.
Anthony Christina
: : a competitor for brands like KEF, Definitive, Paradigm, etc.
: : Listen to it before you discredit it.
: The Ford Escort is a great running car, probably Ford's best attempt at
: a competitor for brands like Chevy, Buick, Plymouth, etc.
: Ride in it before you discredit it.
: ......But it's not a Jag
Ah, so KEF=Chevy, Definitive=Buick, and Paradigm=plymouth
I'm not trying to compare Bose as a compnay with companies life B&W, KEF,
Werner Ogiers
: Err...correction. A lousy sounding product with a jag price tag for
: what it is. If you opened up the hood of a Jag and found a VW beetle
: engine in it, or even two, wouldn't YOU be pissed?
You mean that engine designed by Ferdinand von Porsche ?-)
--
Werner Ogiers IMEC, division MAP
phone: +32 (0)16 281 556 Kapeldreef 75
fax: +32 (0)16 281 501 B-3001 Leuven
e-mail: ogi...@imec.be Belgium
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You may think this is science-fiction, cyberpunk. But it's not. It's real.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Busenitz
>: Titan, PSB Alpha, Dana, etc.
>
>to a bunch of _audiophile_ approved bookshelf designs?? gimme a break...
The "power rating" has little to do with sound quality or performance.
It is typically propoganda spewed by the manufacturer to entice those
who put great stock that sort of thing. I know that I and others would
rather have a decent low priced smaller loudspeaker than a larger poor
sounding speaker.
>I realize that the NHT SZ, Paradigm Atom, etc are great bookshelf designs
>for great prices (From the _reviews_ I've read about theses little guys,
>under $249 pair), but none of them give will give the OVERALL performance
>of the 701. They may have better phase response and other inaudible
>qualities that _audiophiles_ thrive on, but bottom line, apples and
Well, then define overall performance. While you're at it, why not
prove that better phase response is not audible? And what do you mean
by "other inaudible qualities that _audiophiles_ thrive on"?
>oranges. the 701 is about $900 a pair, so maybe setting up a pair of
>these blessed bookshelves with a $600 sub might give a fairer comparison,
>but lets be reasonable. I know (BELEIVE ME, I KNOW) that Bose doesn't
>have a great (maybe good is a better word) rap with the _audiophile_
>crowd, but don't assume that every product by Bose is going to sound like
And the engineering crowd, I would wager. It seems that the only "crowd"
that likes B*se is the mass market one--you know, the crowd that thinks
Sony receivers are great, shops at Sears for audio, thinks recording
"engineers" know their stuff and put out great recordings, thinks CD
means perfect sound forever, auditions a speaker by playing some really
neat music on it in a showroom for 5 minutes and notes that it sounds
exciting "surround me with sound, reflections everywhere", etc.
>the AM-5. All, I ask, is take a HONEST, UNBIASED listen at these new
>701's. They sound pretty damn good.
What about objectivity? What about real, quantifiable performance?
The ear is easily fooled, and companies get a reputation for a reason,
often.
Herb Singleton
buse...@rappaport.ecn.purdue.edu (John Busenitz) wrote:
> Well, then define overall performance. While you're at it, why not
> prove that better phase response is not audible? And what do you mean
> by "other inaudible qualities that _audiophiles_ thrive on"?
There was a discussion on the audibilty of phase in Audio magazine last
summer... I'll see if I can dig it out.
> >the AM-5. All, I ask, is take a HONEST, UNBIASED listen at these new
> >701's. They sound pretty damn good.
>
> What about objectivity? What about real, quantifiable performance?
> The ear is easily fooled, and companies get a reputation for a reason,
> often.
John, you are right... a speaker must be reviewed objectively and subjectively.
The question is, have you listened and/or measured the 701? It's one thing
to criticize a speaker you own, but to claim that the 701 sucks for such and
such a reasaon when you haven't seen or heard the speaker is ludicrous!
Of course if you have heard these speakers, I apologize. If not, it's not
fair to judge a speaker on a manufacturer's good or bad reputation alone.
Of course thats my humble opinion.
--
Herb
who ? -----> Herb Singleton
where? ----> (617) 225-7511
how? ------> wea...@mit.edu
what? -----> http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/weaponh/herb.html
Anthony Christina
: Ah, but that it is not. In fact, the pricetag is much too high,
: especially with the presence of products like NHT SZ, Paradigm
: Titan, PSB Alpha, Dana, etc.
: buse...@ecn.purdue.edu unfortunately, many do." - Dick Pierce
Oh, so not were comparing a 400 watt,3-way dipole radiating tower speaker
to a bunch of _audiophile_ approved bookshelf designs?? gimme a break...
I realize that the NHT SZ, Paradigm Atom, etc are great bookshelf designs
for great prices (From the _reviews_ I've read about theses little guys,
under $249 pair), but none of them give will give the OVERALL performance
of the 701. They may have better phase response and other inaudible
qualities that _audiophiles_ thrive on, but bottom line, apples and
oranges. the 701 is about $900 a pair, so maybe setting up a pair of
these blessed bookshelves with a $600 sub might give a fairer comparison,
but lets be reasonable. I know (BELEIVE ME, I KNOW) that Bose doesn't
have a great (maybe good is a better word) rap with the _audiophile_
crowd, but don't assume that every product by Bose is going to sound like
the AM-5. All, I ask, is take a HONEST, UNBIASED listen at these new
701's. They sound pretty damn good.
Tony Christina
ajchr...@ucdavis.edu
Herb Singleton
(John Busenitz) wrote:
> Well, I _have_ heard the speaker, but haven`t measured it, I must admit.
> I wish I could, but where would I get an MLS system and what store would
> let me borrow a 701, let alone understand what I wanted to do with it,
> and I wouldn't have a whole lot of good ideas on how to perform a complete
> set of measurements, and I don't think anyone who does know how would
> waste time on a B*se system. It is probably easy to predict the response.
> I heard the typical boomy midbass, no low bass, unacceptable dispersion
> patterns, poor and ragged midrange, etc in my limited "audition".
I won't comment here since I haven't heard the speaker.
[snip]
> Bottom line is, we can generalize about B*se product performance, just
> as we can with Cerwin Vega, and White Van speakers, and Rack System
> speakers.
Well I guess we'll agree to disagree here. Sorry, I just don't believe you
can generalize about anything. Remember when Fisher used to be a name to
be rekoned with (pre-Sanyo buyout)? That reputuation changed from very
good to very bad, and it is concievale that the reverse could happen.
> As I explained above, it is doubtful that some decent measurements
> will be obtained, and we can tell pretty much all we need to know by
> listening and hearing the typical B*se traits. Do I need to go over them
> again? In this case, I think it is definitely acceptable to go on
> reputation alone, though not with Carver, or Adcom, or even Sony (referring
> to those SS-M7 speakers).
Why not?
> I do agree that it is certainly possible
> for B*se, with all their equipment and wherewithall, to come up with
> a system comparable to the B&W 801, or Aerial 10T, or NHT 3.3, but
> what is the chance of that happening? They can make more money with
> what they are doing now (I think we all know what that is...)
> B*se is not likely to do that, and I have certainly learned from
> my experience with B*se products.
701 quality aside, when someone asks for an opinion about a speaker, I
just can't see how someone can say "well I haven't heard them, but since
it's made my [insert company] with a good/bad reputaion, these speakers
must rock/suck."
You've heard the 701. You are qualified to give your opinion about them.
That's okay, just make it clear since your responses appeared to be saying
you were judging the speakers on reputation alone.
John Busenitz
>> The ear is easily fooled, and companies get a reputation for a reason,
>> often.
>
>John, you are right... a speaker must be reviewed objectively and subjectively.
>The question is, have you listened and/or measured the 701? It's one thing
>to criticize a speaker you own, but to claim that the 701 sucks for such and
>such a reasaon when you haven't seen or heard the speaker is ludicrous!
Well, I _have_ heard the speaker, but haven`t measured it, I must admit.
I wish I could, but where would I get an MLS system and what store would
let me borrow a 701, let alone understand what I wanted to do with it,
and I wouldn't have a whole lot of good ideas on how to perform a complete
set of measurements, and I don't think anyone who does know how would
waste time on a B*se system. It is probably easy to predict the response.
I heard the typical boomy midbass, no low bass, unacceptable dispersion
patterns, poor and ragged midrange, etc in my limited "audition".
Maybe they aren't "broken in" yet. Maybe I should have used Marigo
dots and a Shun Mook Spatial Quartet, and Peter Belt Black Electret
rings on some water cooled silver speaker cable for liquidity.
Bottom line is, we can generalize about B*se product performance, just
as we can with Cerwin Vega, and White Van speakers, and Rack System
speakers.
>Of course if you have heard these speakers, I apologize. If not, it's not
>fair to judge a speaker on a manufacturer's good or bad reputation alone.
>Of course thats my humble opinion.
As I explained above, it is doubtful that some decent measurements
will be obtained, and we can tell pretty much all we need to know by
listening and hearing the typical B*se traits. Do I need to go over them
again? In this case, I think it is definitely acceptable to go on
reputation alone, though not with Carver, or Adcom, or even Sony (referring
to those SS-M7 speakers). I do agree that it is certainly possible
for B*se, with all their equipment and wherewithall, to come up with
a system comparable to the B&W 801, or Aerial 10T, or NHT 3.3, but
what is the chance of that happening? They can make more money with
what they are doing now (I think we all know what that is...)
B*se is not likely to do that, and I have certainly learned from
my experience with B*se products.
--
John Busenitz P.U. E.E. "Any idiot can design a loudspeaker, and,
buse...@ecn.purdue.edu unfortunately, many do." - Dick Pierce
Noam Ben-Ami
>In article <3njokj$k...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>, buse...@berdis.ecn.purdue.edu
>(John Busenitz) wrote:
>can generalize about anything. Remember when Fisher used to be a name to
>be rekoned with (pre-Sanyo buyout)? That reputuation changed from very
>good to very bad, and it is concievale that the reverse could happen.
>
Actually, I've never rekoned with Fisher. I didn't know they made
any suspensions. :)
>just can't see how someone can say "well I haven't heard them, but since
>it's made my [insert company] with a good/bad reputaion, these speakers
>must rock/suck."
Some firms just suck. I'm sorry, but thats the truth. They are out to
sell by volume and marketing, not by quality.
>You've heard the 701. You are qualified to give your opinion about them.
>That's okay, just make it clear since your responses appeared to be saying
>you were judging the speakers on reputation alone.
I haven't heard the 701s, but I heard the 901s. They gave me a splitting
headache.
Anthony Christina
: >> What about objectivity? What about real, quantifiable performance?
: >> The ear is easily fooled, and companies get a reputation for a reason,
: >> often.
I do not beleive that anything that cannot be heard by yor ear really
matters, except for R&D purposes limited to the manufacturer. Unless of
course, your idea of "listening" and enjoying a system in your house
means busting out the test disks every time and hooking up that RTA or
MLS system or whatever else and hauling everything into your own personal
anechoic chamber (which are found in oh so many households). If that's
the actuall case with _audiophiles_, then excuse my practicality.
: Well, I _have_ heard the speaker, but haven`t measured it, I must admit.
: I wish I could, but where would I get an MLS system and what store would
: let me borrow a 701, let alone understand what I wanted to do with it,
: and I wouldn't have a whole lot of good ideas on how to perform a complete
: set of measurements, and I don't think anyone who does know how would
: waste time on a B*se system. It is probably easy to predict the response.
Like I said above... mesurements DO NOT EQUAL what is perceived by the
human ear. That's been proven, even by the existance by something as
simple as the loudness control on many units, which compensates for the
fact that human ears do not perceive a "flat" bass responce at low
listening levels.
Anyway, If you have listened to these things, and you still hate them,
that's your opinion, and you're quite entitled to it. I find it odd that
you didn't mention this in the first couple of your responces, but I
guess you didn't want anyone to know that you ventured into a store that
sells something as worthless and overpriced as Bose . hope the
experience hasn't damaged those _golden ears_ of yours
Tony Christina
Thomas Y. Rhee
(Anthony
>>> All, I ask, is take a HONEST, UNBIASED listen at these new 701's.
>>> They sound pretty damn good.
than the usual mass marketed BS that usually comes from Dr. Amar Bose's
bunghole (who by the way is a brilliant engineer <note, I didn't say
designer> and professor at MIT. He's also one helluva a marketer since
he's sold a gazillion of his products worldwide.), they're still pretty bad
sounding for the price....period. It's like taking a Yugo and stuffing it
with a Hyundai engine. Better, but still far from sounding anywhere close
to what you could get for 850 clams. As for someone saying that it has
great soundstaging? Yeah, it sounds spacious with the "stereo everywhere"
theme, but the image outlines are vague at best, the images shift when you
walk around, and the tonal balance is far from neutral.
To the people who are getting defensive about the 701's, if you enjoy the
sound that they produce, then be happy with them. But it seems to me that
these people are:
1. In some way affiliated or have had affiliation with the Bose Corp.
2. Have bought the 701's and feel the need to justify their purchase since
many people are saying that they suck.
That's my 2 cents worth. No offense intended to anyone...just airing out
my opinions.
Thomas Y. Rhee
Chief Executive Officer
Lunar Engineering
"A Progressive Engineering & Newton Software Development Firm."
Herb Singleton
Ben-Ami) wrote:
)
My parents have this Fisher console with a Shure (I think) turntable.
(actually it wasn't Shure, but I can't think of the manufacturer. It was
back in the days when the speakers didn't have a rear panel. It still
sounds sweet, and more important, it still works.
> Some firms just suck. I'm sorry, but thats the truth. They are out to
> sell by volume and marketing, not by quality.
You know, you're right. Some firms just do suck. I would never buy Sound Design
rack systems. John B. would never buy Bose speakers. To each their own.
But I still claim that one speaker will not tell you how another speaker sounds.
My evidence? Listen to the Bose AM-3. Then listen to the AM-3P. Big difference.
> >You've heard the 701. You are qualified to give your opinion about them.
> >That's okay, just make it clear since your responses appeared to be saying
> >you were judging the speakers on reputation alone.
>
> I haven't heard the 701s, but I heard the 901s. They gave me a splitting
> headache.
But does you're listening experience with the 901's tell you anything
about the 701's? Yeah you may not like them but will it be for the same
reason? Listen to
the 701's if you get a chance and post your reaction.
Anyways I really don't feel like getting into the middle of another Bose
flamewar so I'll end with this: listen to the Bose speakers, listen to
other speakers, listen to them all again and again and buy the ones you
like. The end.
John Busenitz
>: >> The ear is easily fooled, and companies get a reputation for a reason,
>: >> often.
>
>I do not beleive that anything that cannot be heard by yor ear really
>matters, except for R&D purposes limited to the manufacturer. Unless of
>course, your idea of "listening" and enjoying a system in your house
>means busting out the test disks every time and hooking up that RTA or
>MLS system or whatever else and hauling everything into your own personal
>anechoic chamber (which are found in oh so many households). If that's
>the actuall case with _audiophiles_, then excuse my practicality.
No need to hyperbolize. My point is that aural memory is poor,
and sometimes something can be found through measurements that
is not readily identifiable through plain listening, but has
an effect, subconscious or not, on the listening. Say a phase
problem that one can only hear immediately after attending a
good performance, or after listening for a long time, but the
exact problem is not known, so neither is the solution. I would
wager that there are a number of such examples, in the time
and frequency domain, as well as distortion. Say one hates the
sound of a certain amplifier after a period of time, but one
doesn't know why, until measurements are made and it is found
that the amplifier has high odd order distortion and low even
order distortion, but one cannot really hear that discretely
or accurately enough to tell what it is.
>: Well, I _have_ heard the speaker, but haven`t measured it, I must admit.
>: I wish I could, but where would I get an MLS system and what store would
>: let me borrow a 701, let alone understand what I wanted to do with it,
>: and I wouldn't have a whole lot of good ideas on how to perform a complete
>: set of measurements, and I don't think anyone who does know how would
>: waste time on a B*se system. It is probably easy to predict the response.
>
>Like I said above... mesurements DO NOT EQUAL what is perceived by the
>human ear. That's been proven, even by the existance by something as
>simple as the loudness control on many units, which compensates for the
>fact that human ears do not perceive a "flat" bass responce at low
>listening levels.
I think you are a bit confused on the whole measurement/interpretation
thing. First, why don't you supply proof to your first statement,
or at least clarify it a bit? I agree, that what the ear "measures"
is not the same as what equipment measures, but how do you think
that the (Fletcher-Munsen?) ear transfer functions came about? Also,
when listening to a live performance that is quiet, the same thing
happens, so I fail to see the relevence of this example. Just
measurements don't do much, but proper _interpretation_ of measurements
are the key. Example, the odd vs even order distortion thing, dithering,
anechoic vs in-room loudspeaker response, etc.
Proper measurements and interpretation can divulge quite a bit beyond
what the ear can, and yet are important, as minute differences that
are not discernable by ear specifically may make some subconscious
or psychological difference.
>Anyway, If you have listened to these things, and you still hate them,
>that's your opinion, and you're quite entitled to it. I find it odd that
>you didn't mention this in the first couple of your responces, but I
I didn't mention it because 5 minutes of listening is not an end-all,
and that really doesn't tell me specific faults. You might even be
thinking that "This guy is lying; he really didn't hear the speakers,
but he just wants to justify himself." Well, think what you want; I
have given you the facts, and you can choose to believe them or not.
>guess you didn't want anyone to know that you ventured into a store that
>sells something as worthless and overpriced as Bose . hope the
>experience hasn't damaged those _golden ears_ of yours
Hmm, a little sore? I never claimed to have golden ears, did I?
You, on the other hand, seem to claim that the ear is the only
important instrument in evaluation.
>
> Tony Christina
Brian L. McCarty
writes:
> If you opened up the hood of a Jag and found a VW beetle : engine in
> it, or even two, wouldn't YOU be pissed?
Well I guess it depends. Given the notorious unreliability of British cars
mechanically, and the bulletproof nature of the VW engines, I guess some
people would choose the latter.
This just goes to show that everyone's desire for product features isn't the
same.
Brian
John Busenitz
>> as we can with Cerwin Vega, and White Van speakers, and Rack System
>> speakers.
>
>be rekoned with (pre-Sanyo buyout)? That reputuation changed from very
>good to very bad, and it is concievale that the reverse could happen.
The chances of Fisher becoming a well respected hifi comany are
basically null. They have the "niche" they want, where they can
make the money they want. I don't know of too many examples of
a good company going very very bad, then coming back again (if
indeed Fisher was a respected company; I don't know). So you
refuse to generalize about Cerwin Vega speakers, or SounDesign
speakers, or RCA speakers? I really think this sort of generalization
is acceptable, since the products they have are of bad quality,
and it is not at all likely that they will have good products.
>> As I explained above, it is doubtful that some decent measurements
>> will be obtained, and we can tell pretty much all we need to know by
>> listening and hearing the typical B*se traits. Do I need to go over them
>> again? In this case, I think it is definitely acceptable to go on
>> reputation alone, though not with Carver, or Adcom, or even Sony (referring
>> to those SS-M7 speakers).
>
>Why not?
Because those companies have great _and_ not-so-great products.
Not so with Soundesign, or Bose, or White Van, Inc.
>701 quality aside, when someone asks for an opinion about a speaker, I
>just can't see how someone can say "well I haven't heard them, but since
>it's made my [insert company] with a good/bad reputaion, these speakers
>must rock/suck."
I agree in one sense, but on the other hand, one can give an opinion
or generalization about a company's products, and if one knows that
company reasonable well, that advice can be helpful. For example, say
I was looking for suggestions regarding a product from a company
I wasn't familiar with. You have products from that company, but
not the one I want, but still can help since you can state your
experience with the company's products, for example the company
makes very poor loudspeakers, from what you have seen and know
about the company. Then I would be more wary about the product,
especially since the vast majority of products from that company
are of poor quality.
>You've heard the 701. You are qualified to give your opinion about them.
>That's okay, just make it clear since your responses appeared to be saying
>you were judging the speakers on reputation alone.
Agreed.
Brian L. McCarty
> John, you are right... a speaker must be reviewed objectively
> and subjectively. The question is, have you listened and/or measured
> the 701? It's one thing to criticize a speaker you own, but to claim
> that the 701 sucks for such and such a reasaon when you haven't seen
> or heard the speaker is ludicrous!
I agree with you totally, Herb. And what you have found here is what everyone
finds. . . .this is essentially a forum to browbeat anyone but the "tweak"
crowd. .
Of COURSE busenitz hasn't heard them. . .he hasn't heard ANYTHING in years.
Brian
Brian L. McCarty
Christina) writes:
> All, I ask, is take a HONEST, UNBIASED listen at these new 701's.
> They sound pretty damn good.
You will likely not get an unbiased listen from busenitz, or most of the other
browbeaters found here. All they are grading are nameplates, audio be damned.
Brian
Brian L. McCarty
> I do not beleive that anything that cannot be heard by yor ear
> really matters, except for R&D purposes limited to the
> manufacturer. Unless of course, your idea of "listening" and enjoying
> a system in your house means busting out the test disks every time
> and hooking up that RTA or MLS system or whatever else and
> hauling everything into your own personal anechoic chamber (which
> are found in oh so many households). If that's the actuall case
> with _audiophiles_, then excuse my practicality.
And what you are again finding here Tony, is that "realists" are attacked
unmercifully. For the busenits crowd, the anechoic chamber is the ONLY use
for a loudspeaker (wait till he starts on his diatribe about the lack of ANY
good recordings because all recording engineers are whores, blah, blah, blah).
I welcome your additional voice of practicality, Tony, and hope you can
withstand the bombasts.
Brian
Todd K. Jenkins
>Of COURSE busenitz hasn't heard them. . .he hasn't heard ANYTHING in years.
Read the thread. Busenitz said he listened to them. If you will not
believe that, then that's your problem. You are making a fool of yourself
again with your posts.
Now we all know why you are posting to this thread, simply because you used
to work for Bose. After Busenitz, myself and others shot down all of your
stupid theories, like "polyfill doesn't affect bass frequencies," and "glass
doesn't have any effect on bass frequencies" <paraphrased>, you have a
personal vendetta against all of us who know a little about physics. Get a
life, and go listen to some good speakers. Have you picked up Beranek's
Acoustics yet? I'm still hoping you will understand this little acoustic
impedance thing. You might also want to post on the topic instead of making
broad personal attacks.
So here goes: I haven't listened to the 701s, since the only Bose store in
town closed early today. I will try to listen to them tomorrow, and we'll
see. I can tell you that I have listened to the 301s, AM-5II, AM-3, and 901
recently, and hated them all. Harsh, unlifelike, mediocre imaging, easily
identified satellite position and "bass unit" position where applicable,
poor high-frequency response and dispersion, and broad-band inaccuracies in
response, along with a few hanging resonances around the 2k-6k range in
most. I'll listen to the 701s if they are available in the city.
-Todd Jenkins
Cornell University Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
*the statements herein do not represent Cornell U.*
John Busenitz
>> really matters, except for R&D purposes limited to the
>> manufacturer. Unless of course, your idea of "listening" and enjoying
>> a system in your house means busting out the test disks every time
>> and hooking up that RTA or MLS system or whatever else and
>> hauling everything into your own personal anechoic chamber (which
>> are found in oh so many households). If that's the actuall case
>> with _audiophiles_, then excuse my practicality.
>
>And what you are again finding here Tony, is that "realists" are attacked
>unmercifully. For the busenits crowd, the anechoic chamber is the ONLY use
>for a loudspeaker (wait till he starts on his diatribe about the lack of ANY
>good recordings because all recording engineers are whores, blah, blah, blah).
I challenge you to find a single quote of mine, or even an implication
I made that even remotely resembles "the anechoic chamber is the ONLY
use for a loudspeaker." What? You can't? Too bad. You are shown once
again to be a lying waste of flesh. ;-( When did I call any recording
engineer a whore? Those are your words, Bwian.
I did not attack Tony, and some would consider engineers "realists".
But not one who has no clue about audio reproduction.
BTW, Bwian, nobody will be "bombasted" but you, as Tony does not
spout stupid personal attacks and refuse to debate the topic, as
you do.
You hate the GE audiophiles, and you hate the engineers. You have no
friends, do you? Except the Bose-loving losers.
Herb Singleton
buse...@kennedy.ecn.purdue.edu (John Busenitz) wrote:
> >> Bottom line is, we can generalize about B*se product performance, just
> >> as we can with Cerwin Vega, and White Van speakers, and Rack System
> >> speakers.
> >
> >Well I guess we'll agree to disagree here. Sorry, I just don't believe you
> >can generalize about anything. Remember when Fisher used to be a name to
> >be rekoned with (pre-Sanyo buyout)? That reputuation changed from very
> >good to very bad, and it is concievale that the reverse could happen.
>
> The chances of Fisher becoming a well respected hifi comany are
> basically null. They have the "niche" they want, where they can
> make the money they want. I don't know of too many examples of
> a good company going very very bad, then coming back again (if
> indeed Fisher was a respected company; I don't know). So you
> refuse to generalize about Cerwin Vega speakers, or SounDesign
> speakers, or RCA speakers? I really think this sort of generalization
> is acceptable, since the products they have are of bad quality,
> and it is not at all likely that they will have good products.
I wasn't trying to say Fisher was going to become a well respected company, I
was simply using Fisher as a company which at one time had a reputation (good),
which changed.
Do I refuse to generalize about (insert name here)? Let's put it this way: I do
not actively pursue Cerwin Vega, SoundDesign, etc. But if someone who I believe
has reasoble tastes suggests a product, I would listen to it, and not
dismiss the product based on the company's reputation.
Remeber the CD-3400?
>
> Because those companies have great _and_ not-so-great products.
> Not so with Soundesign, or Bose, or White Van, Inc.
A matter if opinion which I won't touch sense (as I mentioned in another
article) I don't feel like getting into the middle of a Bose flamewar.
> I agree in one sense, but on the other hand, one can give an opinion
> or generalization about a company's products, and if one knows that
> company reasonable well, that advice can be helpful. For example, say
> I was looking for suggestions regarding a product from a company
> I wasn't familiar with. You have products from that company, but
> not the one I want, but still can help since you can state your
> experience with the company's products, for example the company
> makes very poor loudspeakers, from what you have seen and know
> about the company. Then I would be more wary about the product,
> especially since the vast majority of products from that company
> are of poor quality.
Yes and no... should I tell someone my experience with my 1979 Monte Carlo to
someone asking for advice about a 1995 Monte Carlo?
I don't give advice about something unless I'm familiar with it. For the
cases where someone has asked advide about something I wasn't familiar
with I tell them to go take a look for themselves. But that's just me.
Cary D Mc Reynolds
>Brian
And you will get an ubiased opinion from bwian who has worked for
Bose!!! Not.
Cary
Brian Odell
And what you are again finding here Tony, is that "realists" are attacked
unmercifully. For the busenits crowd, the anechoic chamber is the ONLY use
for a loudspeaker (wait till he starts on his diatribe about the lack of ANY
good recordings because all recording engineers are whores, blah, blah, blah).
buse...@kennedy.ecn.purdue.edu (John Busenitz) wrote:
You hate the GE audiophiles, and you hate the engineers. You have no
friends, do you? Except the Bose-loving losers.
It seems that we have some conflicting opinions here. I tend to be on
John's end of the spectrum rather than Brian's, but all this bickering
isn't getting us anywhere.
Brian, there is one thing you aren't taking into consideration that I
think is important. You are more or less (or at least you seem to be in
my eyes, feel free to flame me if I'm wrong) taking the position that most
people have in regards to "audiophiles." This is the same position that
most of my friends have towards me and my audio equipment. Mostly that
I am crazy. They also think that I don't appreciate listening to the
music because I'm too involved in the equipment. I don't think this is
true, of course. My response to this is: how can you be satisfied
listening to that crap (Bose, for example).
The point of this is: One day I was listening to my father's (I lived at
home then) kenwood/bose stereo system and I thought: there has to be more
than this. I was completely ignorant of anything other than the mass
produced Japanese stuff. I went to Ovation and listened to some nicer
mass-produced Japanese stuff. Then I happened across an issue of
Stereophile. It reviewed the NAD 304 integrated amplifier, which I went
out and bought, because if Stereophile likes it, of course it must be
good (which I _do not_ think any longer). Anyway, I wasn't trying to
become part of some elite group. I just wanted to increase my satisfaction
in listening to music (which I'm doing right now, Blues Traveler).
What I am miserably failing to communicate is that I at one time thought
that Kenwood/Bose were the end all of audio reproduction. I openned my
mind and my ears and found that to be not true. Brian, have you ever
challenged your convictions? I bet John did, unless of course his
father was already into high-end equipment :)
Brian
odel...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
John Busenitz
>> and subjectively. The question is, have you listened and/or measured
>> the 701? It's one thing to criticize a speaker you own, but to claim
>> that the 701 sucks for such and such a reasaon when you haven't seen
>> or heard the speaker is ludicrous!
>
>I agree with you totally, Herb. And what you have found here is what everyone
>finds. . . .this is essentially a forum to browbeat anyone but the "tweak"
>crowd. .
>
Ah. Bwian is back. How pleasant. Well, Bwian, if you would _read_ for
once, you would find that I in fact _did_ listen to these speakers.
And you know what? They sound like typical Bose _crap_.
What do you think of that?
On what basis do you make the irresponsible assertion that I haven`t
"heard ANYTHING in years."? You have no proof of that; it is just a
personal attack. Why don't you get past that? There is more to life,
like debating the topic.
John Busenitz
>: Of COURSE busenitz hasn't heard them. . .he hasn't heard ANYTHING in years.
>: Brian
>
>Um, I'm not really "into" this discussion about Bose 701's, BUT, I feel it
> important to point something out. Above, bRian comments about b* senitz.
> He means that b*senitz has listened to speakers aplenty, but he hasn't HEARD
> them. There's a difference, and you would be wise to realize it.
>b*senitz listened alright, but he already knew BOSE was a "bad" company
>when he walked into the sound room. Therefore, what he heard, he didn't like.
First of all, how do you know that's what Bwian meant? Secondly, how
do you know what attitude I listened to the 701's with, and how do
you propose to prove that it so drastically affected my interpretation
of what I heard? Sometimes a product is so bad, that it's faults
pierce through any psychological prejudice. Before you start making
assertions, I suggest you get some evidence, or at least inject a
little logic into your assumption.
BTW, you are into the discussion now. Especially since your agenda
is showing.
Clinton Glaze
John Busenitz
>was simply using Fisher as a company which at one time had a reputation (good),
>which changed.
I understand that, I think. I think that KLH and Garrard were also
decent once, but now are mass-fi, and none have any hope of going
back.
>Do I refuse to generalize about (insert name here)? Let's put it this way: I do
>not actively pursue Cerwin Vega, SoundDesign, etc. But if someone who I believe
>has reasoble tastes suggests a product, I would listen to it, and not
>dismiss the product based on the company's reputation.
I can agree with that, though I would still stress that a reputation
is something to take into account.
>Remeber the CD-3400?
Yes, and I am not convinced that it is a good product, regardless
of all the hype in the high end press.
>Yes and no... should I tell someone my experience with my 1979 Monte Carlo to
>someone asking for advice about a 1995 Monte Carlo?
Point well taken.
Jim Jagielski
The 701's are, to me, the most listenable speakers that Bose has ever produced.
They aren't perfect (but what speakers really are) and they have some
shortcoming, but they drew me into the music and were accurate "enough"
for semi-critical listening as well. No other Bose has ever come close.
That being said, if I had a choice between a pair of 701s and a Mirage M-770
(or maybe a nice Energy) I'd not even consider the 701s.
--
#include <std/disclaimer.h>
| Jim Jagielski | j...@jagubox.gsfc.nasa.gov | V: 301 286-5964 |
| NASA/GSFC, Code 734.4 | Greenbelt, MD 20771 | F: 301 286-1719 |
<< "Oh... I wish I was a loofa" -Capt. Stillman >>
John Busenitz
>John's end of the spectrum rather than Brian's, but all this bickering
>isn't getting us anywhere.
This is the most sense I've heard in a while. I am sorry that I ever
got involved when Bwian (not Brian) started flaming. I never should
have responded. I will do my best to ignore his posts, as I would
suggest the rest of you do, if you have the self control. That way
we can discuss things in a rational manner and Bwian will stop
posting since he hates being ignored.
>Brian, have you ever
>challenged your convictions? I bet John did, unless of course his
>father was already into high-end equipment :)
Yes. I used to be gunho Bose/Sony/C-V/Kenwood loving guy, until I
started to learn what is really happening, and started listening
to some real equipment (and music).
Todd K. Jenkins
yet to hear anything from B*se that I would place money on. I had a short (
5 min) listen at a Circuit City a few months ago, and thought they weren't
bad at all. So I went down to the local store and listened again. The
equipment was Pioneer Elite C-72 amplifier, and a generic HK CD player.
We (myself and my wife) listened to our standard testing selections,
Vangelis "Themes" track 9, Tangerine Dream's "Turn of the Tides" track 1 and
8, Spies "Defies" tracks 1,2,3 (from Telarc DDD), and Indigo Girls "Rites of
Passage" track 2. They cover vocals, realism (thunderstorms on Tadream),
crisp DDD recordings, fully electronic and fully acoustic styles.
So here goes:
In our listening, the 701s sounded relatively well balanced, with no
extremely annoying losses in frequency ranges. They did nothing notably
badly upon first listen, covering everything ok. However, the one most
prominent note we wrote was "dull, boring, no dynamics." They covered it,
but didn't make it sound "alive" or "vibrant." The thunderstorms on Tadream
sounded vaguely like thunder, with no crackle. On other speakers, the last
thunderclap has made both of us jump on occasion, but not here. It was..."
nice, polite." However, the bass left a great deal to be desired. The
thunder rumbles, bass guitar on Spies and Ind.Girls sounded like anything
*but* what it was supposed to. It had very poor damping, and a great deal
of hanging "boom." The organ notes on Spies #3 sounded not a bit like an
organ, and the last two lower notes were virtually inaudible. On the kick
drums of track 4, the woofer sounded like it was being heavily overdriven,
gargling and making a "thwup" sound (both of them). (Other speakers,
including the Thiel 2.2s have had this same problem, though. For reference,
the other speakers we listened to did *not* do this.) As my wife said, they
have "generally crappy imaging." I would add that it sounded ok if you were
sitting in the precise center, but anywhere out of there it was poor. We
experienced no such difficulty with the other speakers in A/B comparison. A
final note was that on some material, they sounded very "hollow," i.e.
poorly damped in the lower midrange. The 30hz tones at 1:35 in Vangelis #9
were vaguely there, but irregular, as if the woofer was being overdriven.
Also, the extreme high-frequency material in Tadream (birds, rain, etc) was
nonexistent, suggesting a lack of response above about 15khz (my wife and I
have been tested to 18.5khz).
So, that said, here's the other ones we listened to:
Infinity RS425, RS525, $450 and $550 respectively. Also, a discontinued
Dahlquist DQ18 set for $800. The 701s were $900.
425 comments-"much better, full, dynamic, tight bass (no hangover or boom),
relatively poor imaging, no top end either but better definition. A bit
harsh, but not annoyingly so.
525-crisp, very clear, tight cone control, still dull horns on Tadream, but
decent definition
DQ18-very crisp, clear treble, excellent but a little too efficient, good
realism on thunderstorms, good imaging, bass is tight, but a little hidden
by the tweeter. Excellent impact, with good vocals.
Overall, I wouldn't buy any of them, but the Dahlquist was *much* better
than the others. I would rate both Infinity's over the 701s, and the 701s
only slightly better than a quick listen to the Advent Prodigy Towers ($
325). So there it is. That's what I heard. If you like the 701s, I would
suggest going for a listen to some equivalently priced PSBs, Dahlquists,
Mirage, Def.Tech, DCM or others. Find a ProAc dealer and listen to the
Tablette III ($900). Then you will understand good sound and imaging. As a
footnote, I used to listen to speakers like this, until I listened to the
Infinity IRS-betas ($35k at the time, I believe) and a few nice
electrostat/ribbon systems like Magneplanar, Carver, and a few others.
Now I have had a chance to listen to the X-1 Grand Slamms, Watt/Puppy 5s,
high-end Thiels (5i,7,3.6). Listen to them, then listen to the 701s again.
I couldn't imagine going back to that kind of fidelity, or lack thereof.
I am not advocating $65k speakers, but there's a lot better to be found in
the $1k and down range than the 701s.
-Todd Jenkins
Cornell University MAE
Lon Stowell
>
>>I wasn't trying to say Fisher was going to become a well respected company, I
>>was simply using Fisher as a company which at one time had a reputation (good),
>>which changed.
>
>I understand that, I think. I think that KLH and Garrard were also
>decent once, but now are mass-fi, and none have any hope of going
>back.
I don't recall any real groundshaking Fisher product after the
era of the old Fisher console stereo, which was the ONLY console
stereo having even acceptable sound quality. Not that the sound
quality of the old KLH Model 11 and 21 didn't beat it.
John Busenitz
>
>The 701's are, to me, the most listenable speakers that Bose has ever produced.
>They aren't perfect (but what speakers really are) and they have some
>shortcoming, but they drew me into the music and were accurate "enough"
>for semi-critical listening as well. No other Bose has ever come close.
>
>That being said, if I had a choice between a pair of 701s and a Mirage M-770
>(or maybe a nice Energy) I'd not even consider the 701s.
This is the kind of post I can easily live with. No baseless assertions, etc.
In fact I had the same impression (that the 701's are the best of the B*se),
but with only a few minutes of listening, and aural memory being what
it is, I don't know if I could say for sure.
What a coincidence that this speaker is closest to a conventional
speaker!
Brian L. McCarty
> Brian, have you ever challenged your convictions? I bet John did,
> unless of course his father was already into high-end equipment :)
I appreciated your well-thought response to the usual busenits crap. And the
answer to the basic question posted above is, "of course". I have had dozens
of speakers over the years, and several different amplifiers, CD players, etc.
Some "high end" (whatever the definition is currently) and some not. After
all, my job has always involved audio and music. Jobs that I am eminently
sucessful at.
And my basic feeling has always remained the same:
No equipment can reproduce live music.
We don't know how to do it, and the ramblings of so-called "scientists" don't
change the facts.
We don't understand how the brain processes sound, and therefore all the
"testing" and "documentation" being done of loudspeakers (and other audio
equipment) don't mean anything until someone can show that ANY measurements
conform to what we experience. And we are a long way from ever doing this.
The two things (live and recorded) are completely different animals. So I
don't try. When I want to hear live music, I go and hear it. When I want to
recreate music in my home, I use equipment that does a reasonable job, doesn't
break, doesn't need constant tweaking, and makes me happy.
For some to take the position that people could never be happy with Bose, or
Carver, or Polk, or any of the dozens of brands that seem to create invective
from the "gold/tin ears" here, this is just plain wrong, and counterproductive
to boot. If your hobby is this kind of critical listening, have fun. I
wouldn't do it, just like I don't collect pogs or Darryl Strawberry's
autograph. This "hobby" activity has little to do with people's lives.
Brian
Brian L. McCarty
(John Busenitz) writes:
> First of all, how do you know that's what Brian meant? Secondly, how
> you propose to prove that it so drastically affected my interpretation
> of what I heard?
I don't think its necessary that John prove anything, busenits. You attitudes
are displayed for all the world to see, and intepretation can be done by a two
year old.
Brian
Noam Ben-Ami
>In article <3np3qk$8...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>, buse...@kelley.ecn.purdue.edu
>I don't think its necessary that John prove anything, busenits. You attitudes
>are displayed for all the world to see, and intepretation can be done by a two
>year old.
Ah, so Bwian is two years old.
That explaing a LOT.
--
/ /
\\' / /
\\\' , / //
\\\// _/ //'
ben.rose
: In article <43...@jagubox.gsfc.nasa.gov> j...@jagubox.gsfc.nasa.gov (Jim Jagielski) writes:
: >
: >The 701's are, to me, the most listenable speakers that Bose has ever produced.
: >They aren't perfect (but what speakers really are) and they have some
: >shortcoming, but they drew me into the music and were accurate "enough"
: >for semi-critical listening as well. No other Bose has ever come close.
: This is the kind of post I can easily live with. No baseless assertions, etc.
: In fact I had the same impression (that the 701's are the best of the B*se),
: but with only a few minutes of listening, and aural memory being what
: it is, I don't know if I could say for sure.
Well, I have a pair of little Bose 100's. Okay you think the star-driver
isn't much good. Well personally I think it is a technical marvel. I
confess that through most amps they sound very tinny and in fact sometimes
painful but I bought them for my amp. I don't know what it is about my
particular amp but it appears to supply the 100's with exactly what they
need. I am a university student and I recently had a group of friends
dearching my room for the subwoofer as they didn't believe the bass I was
producing could come from these two small units alone. My response...if
the hi-fi is good, you should never, ever need a subwoofer.
Ben
Cary D Mc Reynolds
>
>Well, I have a pair of little Bose 100's. Okay you think the star-driver
>isn't much good. Well personally I think it is a technical marvel. I
>confess that through most amps they sound very tinny and in fact sometimes
>painful but I bought them for my amp. I don't know what it is about my
>particular amp but it appears to supply the 100's with exactly what they
>need. I am a university student and I recently had a group of friends
>dearching my room for the subwoofer as they didn't believe the bass I was
>producing could come from these two small units alone. My response...if
>the hi-fi is good, you should never, ever need a subwoofer.
>
> Ben
Not to trash what you said, but have you ever heard true full range
system, or a good subwoofer? When I say this I am not talking about a set of
Infinity or Bose or Polk speakers (except the high-end infinitys). I talking
about the type of low end a Velodyne F1500 or Defenitive Technologies pf1500
makes. Yes, if the system is good enough you shouldn't need a subwoofer, but
there are very few speakers that can get down to 20hz at realistic levels
without a good sub, and all of them are at least $3000- 4000 dollars. Go to a
good high end dealer and take some good deep bass CD's with you, something like
Enya-Watermark or Telarcs-Time Warp, or the Soundtrack to Jurrasic part. Ask
them to hear a system with excellent low end extention. I think you'll be
shocked by what truely deep bass sounds like. What you are hearing that you
are thinking of bass out of your 100's is actually a 2nd or 3rd order harmonic
of the fundamental bass note.
Cary
Brian Odell
I know this thread has been stretched a bit far from the original topic, but:
I've often wondered if many people who are pursueing hi-end systems have poor
ears. I do not have very good listening ability, although I could probably
train myself if I were so inclined. I played trombone for seven years. On
my seventh year I played a small solo. I was told that I went almost a full
half-step flat on the last note. I didn't even notice. Maybe those with
really good hearing and musical abilities need less information to "suspend
belief" (is that what it's called?). Because my hearing/musical abilities
are not the greatest, maybe I "need" a system that is more convincing.
Anyone else have any thoughts?
Brian
odel...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Todd K. Jenkins
>And my basic feeling has always remained the same:
> No equipment can reproduce live music.
>We don't know how to do it, and the ramblings of so-called "scientists" don'
t >change the facts.
to the Wilson Grand Slamms? Granted they are $65k, but think about
automobiles as an analogy: it takes several billion in a research team to
design a new engine, then these improvements trickle down into the rest of
the market. As in speakers, the changes from paper to materials such as
Audax's Aerogel, kevlar, carbon fiber composites, etc. has improved the
reproduction, without which such speakers as the Grand Slamms (with
composite panels and drivers) could not be made. Also, driver differences
in the move away from stamped steel frames to high-strength cast magnesium
and other materials, and so on.
>We don't understand how the brain processes sound, and therefore all the
>"testing" and "documentation" being done of loudspeakers (and other audio
>equipment) don't mean anything until someone can show that ANY measurements
>conform to what we experience. And we are a long way from ever doing this.
Have you ever read anything from an *actual* research project, perhaps
one accepted by JAES? How about Sean Olive? How about Floyd Toole and
company? Irregularities in magnitude response are clearly audible, as are
resonances in the tweeters, woofers, breakup modes, etc. These have been
proven by others while you obviously missed it. Another important one is
transient response/damping, the one most often lacking in loudspeakers,
particularly in the bass region. What you want to happen is that the
loudspeaker only reproduces what is in the incoming signal, no more, no
less. Unfortunately, with the poor damping of many production speakers,
most notably the B*se 701s of recent memory, a kick drum sounds *nothing*
like a live kick drum, just a vague boom. Realism is tough, no doubt about
it, but some are better than others, which is what we are arguing about
here.
ben.rose
: In article <3nqvnu$9...@orac.sunderland.ac.uk>, ha4...@orac.sunderland.ac.uk (ben.rose) writes:
: >
: >Well, I have a pair of little Bose 100's. Okay you think the star-driver
: >isn't much good. Well personally I think it is a technical marvel. I
: >confess that through most amps they sound very tinny and in fact sometimes
: >painful but I bought them for my amp. I don't know what it is about my
: >particular amp but it appears to supply the 100's with exactly what they
: >need. I am a university student and I recently had a group of friends
: >dearching my room for the subwoofer as they didn't believe the bass I was
: >producing could come from these two small units alone. My response...if
: >the hi-fi is good, you should never, ever need a subwoofer.
: >
: > Ben
: Not to trash what you said, but have you ever heard true full range
: system, or a good subwoofer? When I say this I am not talking about a set of
: Infinity or Bose or Polk speakers (except the high-end infinitys). I talking
: about the type of low end a Velodyne F1500 or Defenitive Technologies pf1500
: makes. Yes, if the system is good enough you shouldn't need a subwoofer, but
: there are very few speakers that can get down to 20hz at realistic levels
There are very few ears that reach down to 20hz too.
: without a good sub, and all of them are at least $3000- 4000 dollars. Go to a
: good high end dealer and take some good deep bass CD's with you, something like
: Enya-Watermark or Telarcs-Time Warp, or the Soundtrack to Jurrasic part. Ask
I have Jurassic Park on video. In the bit where the T rex shakes the water
in the glass on the dashboard of the 4wd. It does that on my desktop in my
room. How's that for bass.
: them to hear a system with excellent low end extention. I think you'll be
: shocked by what truely deep bass sounds like. What you are hearing that you
: are thinking of bass out of your 100's is actually a 2nd or 3rd order harmonic
: of the fundamental bass note.
: Cary
Maybe you're right but I am happy with my hi-fi but that is all that is
important till I win the lottery.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This letter was brought to you in association with:-
Ben Rose
of Sunderland, England
aka ha4...@orac.sunderland.ac.uk
******** Why is there so much month left at the end of the money? ********
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Higgs
You make a very interesting point. I think people who love music the most
don't necessarily need as high quality sound from their stereo system to enjoy
it immensely. Studies have bee ndone which show that people who have played
music alot process music in a different section of their brain than those who
have not played music. My guess is that this portion of the brain (the one
used for playing and later for listening to music) gives much more pleasure
than whatever noise-processing module is used by the mass of musical heathens
;) However, it may be that people who have played music, while not in need of
hifi sound to enjoy music, are in the best position to judge whether a
music system reporduces music faithfully, since they have a lot of experience
hearing live music.
Steve
Todd K. Jenkins
>Really, last I checked hearing loss started at the high-frequencies
>and
>worked its way down. Where are you suggesting that most people stop hearing
>bass? ss? 100Hz, 50hz? Yes the human ear is less sensative in ths
>frequencies, but 99% of the population can hear down to 20hz and feel
>frequencies below that. As to my source for this information, my Dad had a
>Masters in Audiology.
We had an 18" driver producing what the oscilloscope said was pretty close
to a pure sinewave (less than visible distortion levels) at frequencies from
15hz-30hz. I couldn't hear it below about 23hz, my wife could still hear it
to 20hz, and another friend to the same as me, somewhere around 23hz. It's
nowhere close to 50hz as a cutoff, you and the hundreds of audiologists (
like your father) are *definitely* right about that in my experience, but
there's a little flexibility, as expected, around the final dropoff. And
boy could we *feel* the 15hz wave. Ouch! ;)
>As for your desktop shaking, are you
>sure that you aren't hearing the speakers rattling or the desk having a
>symthatic vibration.
My desk rattles sitting next to speakers at around 50hz, the windows at
25hz, the door knocker at 15hz. Mostly the sine wave, but also harmonics,
however the harmonics (at 50hz for the 25hz wave) *don't* rattle the desk,
etc. I would guess that the system is producing *lots* of harmonics, while
mine, through careful design and picking of drivers, doesn't do too bad (
less than 5% guaranteed, simply because it doesn't excite the other
resonances at multiples of the sinewave). Anyway, as Cary said, don't
listen to a true subwoofer if you don't plan on spending more money! ;)
Brian L. McCarty
writes:
> But some equipment as of today is getting pretty close. Have you
> listened to the Wilson Grand Slamms?
I have listened to them
They are "different", but in no way represent live sound in any manner.
Brian
Todd K. Jenkins
>> But some equipment as of today is getting pretty close. Have you
>> listened to the Wilson Grand Slamms?
>I have listened to them
>They are "different", but in no way represent live sound in any manner.
Alright, have you listened to the Indigo Girls, "Rites of Passage" track
two, live in a small auditorium? Have you then taken the production CD,
quite different than the sound of the auditorium, and listened to the same
song on the Wilsons? I have. I was impressed. I was *not* impressed by
the quality of the 701s. The Wilsons are several light years closer to what
is on the CD than the 701s, far more than the price difference. (If that'
s not flame-bait, I don't know what is. <g> )
No one, including myself, said it *was* live music, but you can't possibly
compare the recording to the live event either, so your statement is pretty
much invalid. Feedback, ambient echoes, overall SPL, everything that isn't
there in the studio recording. You should know that, if you've been working
in the industry as you say.
Thomas Y. Rhee
>> But some equipment as of today is getting pretty close. Have you
>> listened to the Wilson Grand Slamms?
>
>
>I have listened to them
>
>They are "different", but in no way represent live sound in any manner.
Wilson Grands come about as close to as any speaker currently available.
By comparison, the Bose 701's sound like a cheap boombox.
Thomas Y. Rhee
Chief Executive Officer
Lunar Engineering
"A Progressive Engineering & Newton Software Development Firm."
Thomas Y. Rhee
>You make a very interesting point. I think people who love music the most
>don't necessarily need as high quality sound from their stereo system to
enjoy
>it immensely.
love music not needing high quality systems...a lot of these same people
aren't aware of high end audio. To them, high end means Technics, Sony,
Bose, etc...
I've known a lot of people like this and swear by Sony CD players and such,
but once they listen to a true high end audio system, they have a hard time
going back to low to mid fi systems.
>Studies have bee ndone which show that people who have played
>music alot process music in a different section of their brain than those
who
>have not played music. My guess is that this portion of the brain (the
one
>used for playing and later for listening to music) gives much more
pleasure
>than whatever noise-processing module is used by the mass of musical
heathens
>;) However, it may be that people who have played music, while not in
need of
>hifi sound to enjoy music, are in the best position to judge whether a
>music system reporduces music faithfully, since they have a lot of
experience
>hearing live music.
Jesse Norman listens thru a pair of Quad ESL's.
Even rockers like Slash (guitar player of Guns N Roses) have a high end
system. Btw...he has an all out top of the line Naim system.
Also, your statement about people who play music being in the best position
to judge the faithfulness of a music system is not entirely correct. Have
you ever listened to music from say where a violinist would sit? The sound
is awful compared to say sitting in center seat row M. The best judge of
an audio system's faithfullness IMHO is someone who is familiar with the
sounds of various instruments and a regular concert go'er. Someone who
knows what the real thing sounds like in concert halls as well as studios.
Also some knowledge of the recording process would help as well.
All of the above is fine and dandy, but the MOST important thing is the
listener's enjoyment while listening to the system. Live music is not
always pleasant and can sometimes sound downright awful. If a system can
make a mediocre recording sound great and a great one sound even
better...that is the system I would buy even if it was not the most
accurate.
Herb Singleton
(Thomas Y. Rhee) wrote:
>
> A lot of the big name performers of classical music have high end systems.
> Jesse Norman listens thru a pair of Quad ESL's.
>
> Even rockers like Slash (guitar player of Guns N Roses) have a high end
> system. Btw...he has an all out top of the line Naim system.
Yeah, but if you read a lot of accounts, these rockers/rappers/sports stars/etc
usually just walk into some hifi store, wave a wad of bills, and have the store
install whatever they want without having a clue about what hi-end audio
is truly about... all they know is it plays loud! (read about Shaq's Van
o' Def in
the last Car Stereo Review. There was also an article about Slash were he
came across as clueless about audio, but I don't remember where I read
it).
--
Herb
who ? -----> Herb Singleton
where? ----> (617) 225-7511
how? ------> wea...@mit.edu
what? -----> http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/weaponh/herb.html
Lon Stowell
>
>You make a very interesting point. I think people who love music the most
>don't necessarily need as high quality sound from their stereo system to enjoy
>it immensely.
"NEED" being the operative term here. Given a choice between no
music at all and the only source available being a $2.95 K-Mart
AM receiver, I would definitely take the K-Mart special and love
every precious second of it. What seems to happen is that I just
'listen through' the noise and distortion to memories of better
reproductions or live performances of the music being played.
This seems to be the case, since it is very difficult for me to
become familiar with NEW music which I have never heard in another
more faithful form.
However, this is not at all my preference, I will rarely listen
to even the finest of boomboxes for more than a few selections
before I turn the !@#$!@#$ thing off and go crank up the
big system. I also rarely listen to the typical FM station for
very long before I turn it off and bring out the LP or CD of
the same music--or if it sound particularly good and I don't have
it, checking the credit card limit and heading for the nearest
Tower.
It is difficult for me to listen for equipment warts while
busy just enjoying the music, I usually hear a wart, then go
back and play it several times to see if it was really there, but
on the repeated playings I have to more or less ignore the music.
I haven't seen any real general relationship between musical
instrument background and stereo equipment quality other than
some general observations:
Good keyboardists (which don't include me but does include
several audiophile friends) seem to prefer accurate undistorted
sound to the limit of their budgets. Acoustic keyboardists
tend to be very keen on avoiding systems with limited transient
handling capability or which have much TIM--particularly in the
speakers.
Violinists (which does include me) are wierd. They either have
very accurate low-distortion systems or true crap.
Acoustic guitarists also seem to prefer undistorted equipment
similar to acoustic keyboardists. Electric guitarists seem
to love EQ's and other such toys.
Drummers prefer the sound the LP makes at the end of the record
if they listen to music at all.
Anthony Christina
: speaker!
: --
: John Busenitz P.U. E.E. "Any idiot can design a loudspeaker, and,
: buse...@ecn.purdue.edu unfortunately, many do." - Dick Pierce
But still not even close. Two tweeters, aiming two different
directions. Maybe closer to a bipole (DT BP-10, Paradigm Esprit). The
side firing midrange drive operating as dipole is somthing no other
company uses in a floorstanding format. I really feel that it enhances
spaciousness in a way that conventionals lack. The front firing tweeter
handles the imaging, while the inner firing tweet give ability to hear
both speakers from a very wide listening window, even directly in front
of one speaker.
I apprecaite those who actually went out to audition the 701. Bose is
heading in a new direction with it, and I'm happy to see that.
Tony
fernando
(Anthony Christina) wrote:
:!: What a coincidence that this speaker is closest to a conventional
:!: speaker!
:!
:!: --
:!: John Busenitz P.U. E.E. "Any idiot can design a loudspeaker, and,
:!: buse...@ecn.purdue.edu unfortunately, many do." - Dick Pierce
:!
:!But still not even close. Two tweeters, aiming two different
:!directions. Maybe closer to a bipole (DT BP-10, Paradigm Esprit). The
:!side firing midrange drive operating as dipole is somthing no other
:!company uses in a floorstanding format.
Hmm. Side firing? How does this operate as a dipole. As far as no other
company doing this, please go and look (and listen) to any Alon (and may
be Dalquist) speaker. No side firing, but the midrange is used in a dipole
configuration. I do not see how firing sideways makes a midrage be in a
dipole configuration.
:! I really feel that it enhances
:!spaciousness in a way that conventionals lack. The front firing tweeter
:!handles the imaging, while the inner firing tweet give ability to hear
:!both speakers from a very wide listening window, even directly in front
:!of one speaker.
Do you mean to say that the information put out by the midrange is not
pertinent to the image and that every 'image' information is done by
the tweeter? I would not go that far. Rather than putting up with this
half-ass dipole (I admit not to have seen or heard the 701's, just going
by the comments above), why not get a true one, for which there may be
some in the price point of the 701s.
peace,
fernando
<> fernando (fl...@cornell.edu)
"If I can say these words quicker than you can think them..." -- Wire
"...to mess with your values and change wrong to right..." -- Joy Division
"...I could live in the space between his heartbeats..." -- And Also The Trees
"...I'm wary of you, but you are oblivious to me..." -- the Chameleons
<> Maling lists: e-mail to each address given with the appropriate subject.
____AND ALSO THE TREES: subject = "&atT subscribe" to fl...@cornell.edu
____JOY DIVISION: subject = "subscribe" to atmospher...@niagara.edu
Brian L. McCarty
> I've known a lot of people like this and swear by Sony CD players and
> such, but once they listen to a true high end audio system, they have
> a hard time going back to low to mid fi systems.
Yes, and I know a lot of people who listen to high-end equipment and say "so
what"?
Not exactly a persuasive argument, Tom.
Brian
Noam Ben-Ami
>Brian
I know of NO ONE who has gone from not knowing anything about
high end to listening to a well set up, musical high-end system
who has said "so what." They have said "this totally blows
away my system" and "thats really cool" or "I never knew that
stereo systems could sound this good" but never "so what."
However, since Brian's idea of high end is Bose, I can see why
people who listen to his system say "so what."
John Busenitz
Agreed, though not about the sound quality part. It is still much
different from most normal boxed dynamic loudspeakers. The side-firing
midrange is what I most dislike, thought the large cone tweeters are
a problem, too. One will hear very little direct sound from the
midrange, the most important part of the spectrum. What one will
hear will be smeared reflections, with horrible comb-filtering,
etc, done by the reflections. The music will be horrible altered
by the reflections. The results will be also unpredictable, due
to different rooms and setups. Maybe some of this results in
less directivity, but I'd give that up in serious/critical
listening any day for a more accurate representation of the
music.
--
John Busenitz P.U. E.E. "Any idiot can design a loudspeaker, and,
buse...@ecn.purdue.edu unfortunately, many do." - Dick Pierce
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Thomas Y. Rhee
>In article <3o8dii$n...@pipe2.nyc.pipeline.com>, tyr...@nyc.pipeline.com
>(Thomas Y. Rhee) writes:
>> I've known a lot of people like this and swear by Sony CD players and
>> such, but once they listen to a true high end audio system, they have
>> a hard time going back to low to mid fi systems.
>
>
>Yes, and I know a lot of people who listen to high-end equipment and say
"so
>what"?
>
>Not exactly a persuasive argument, Tom.
BUT...I was referring to people who think they are interested in audio and
have bought Sony, Pioneer, Yamaha, Onkyo, Kenwood and whatever other rack
system types. When these people <<who are interested in audio but have
been misguided by mags like Stereo Review, department store audio
salespeople, and ignorant associates who recommend crap like Bose>> listen
to a true high end system, they're usual response is "WOW!!!" especially
when they don't see any of the bells and whistles, glow in the dark
spectrum analyzers and 18 band eq's in the system.
After that, they usually have a hard time going back to their low to mid fi
systems.
That was my point.
Karl Chwe
>
>In article <3o1c8v$a...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>,
> odel...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Brian Odell) wrote:
>>
>>I know this thread has been stretched a bit far from the original topic, but:
>>
>>I've often wondered if many people who are pursueing hi-end systems have poor
>>ears. I do not have very good listening ability, although I could probably
>>train myself if I were so inclined. I played trombone for seven years. On
>>my seventh year I played a small solo. I was told that I went almost a full
>>half-step flat on the last note. I didn't even notice. Maybe those with
>>really good hearing and musical abilities need less information to "suspend
>>belief" (is that what it's called?). Because my hearing/musical abilities
>>are not the greatest, maybe I "need" a system that is more convincing.
>>Anyone else have any thoughts?
>>Brian
>
>don't necessarily need as high quality sound from their stereo system to enjoy
>have not played music. My guess is that this portion of the brain (the one
>used for playing and later for listening to music) gives much more pleasure
>than whatever noise-processing module is used by the mass of musical heathens
>;) However, it may be that people who have played music, while not in need of
>hifi sound to enjoy music, are in the best position to judge whether a
>music system reporduces music faithfully, since they have a lot of experience
>hearing live music.
>
_Very_ interesting topic.
I've thought about this for a long time, and concluded that there are actually
several musical "listening" skills.
One is the ability to resolve pitch, which Brian says he lacks. Certain musicians
such as violinists will be able to resolve extremely small differences in pitch
(it's handy for trombonists, too, as Brian found.)
Another is the ability to understand rhythm, which I'd guess is underdeveloped
in Western ears, compared to other cultures.
Another is the ability to understand overall structures in music, either
melodic or harmonic. Meaning, music "theory" of the kind you studied in
high school band. I would guess that since the Renaissance, musicians and
composers have been pretty good at this, though I think most music listeners
don't have much of this. Cognitively, I'd bet it was related to math. Same
parts of the brain, developing at the same age, etc.
Another is the ability to recognize sounds, not their pitch, or how they
fit into structures in time or harmony, but what those sounds _are_. What
things sound _like_. This I think is what audiophiles try to develop, and
what motivates their spending 30% of their gross on equipment. I think
this is _not_ a talent that musicians develop necessarily.
I have spent over 15 years playing the violin and singing. While I don't have
perfect pitch, I have developed a kind of pitch memory that will let me know
if a trumpet, say, is flat. Not individual notes, but the entire trumpet.
I can identify most simple chords by ear (i.e. dom major 9), I can generally
play on the keyboard every melody I hear on the radio. But I still don't
have a finely developed "audiophile" ear. Different kind of thing. The
reason is that I never paid attention to what things sounded _like_, only to
what was _going on_ musically. I think it's like an air traffic controller,
who looks at the radar screen, reacts to it, manages it, but doesn't know
what it looks _like_ (the constellation Orion, or a flower.)
I think there is no reason that a musician should have better ears for good
sound reproduction than a naturalist should be a good flower arranger. The
two are related, and one can grow into another, but they are not the same.
So as to whether musicians are less demanding of stereos than others, I don't find
it so. I was previously very undemanding, because I didn't pay attention, and
because I became accustomed to a particular system. Since I've started _really_
listening, and listening to other equipment, I am finding that my listening
ability is developing faster than my ability to upgrade my system. I am right
now considering spending several hundred dollars on _interconnects_. A year
ago you would have had to shoot me before I would even consider the idea.
That is what makes audio so exciting; the expanding ranges of greater fidelity,
more realism, more impact, and better ears.
On the other hand, I think many audiophiles would do well to learn more about the
music they listen to. I try to tell my friends this, that understanding music
intelllectually makes it _more_ emotionally expressive, not less. Bach's
solo violin sonatas are probably a bit dry without a just a little theory.
With it, they come close to being a pinnacle of expressiveness, endlessly
rich, rewarding and meaningful, at least for me.
Also, the nice thing about learning about music theory, rhythm, melody, or history,
is that is cheaper than a single-ended triode amp, and longer lasting.
I think the problem is that in our culture, the idea of understanding art, as
opposed to simply "feeling" it, smacks of elitism. "I don't know why, I just
like it," is usually what I hear. Thus the constant barrage of musical candy
we hear. But the mind, with its ability to analyze, recall, discern, is actually
part of your listening ability, a conduit straight to the heart. Problem is,
developing that will let you tell identify bad music as well as good. And we
can't ever say any music is "bad", can we?
Now what was this thread about? As I recall the Bose 701's suck, as do every
other speaker in their line, IMHO.
Karl
James R Lendino
Lon Stowell <lsto...@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com> wrote:
>
> Drummers prefer the sound the LP makes at the end of the record
> if they listen to music at all.
Hey! Thanks a lot, Lon!
Sheesh.
I'll just go throw my system in the pond and get back to beating out
a rhythm on my head with my drumsticks. <donk> hey wait, this sounds
great!
-JRL
______ ______
James R. Lendino | | | PPC | Ivantos Dragon -=(UDIC)=- member
Computer Science | i486 | | 601 | Phone: (212)-853-7166 _O_
Columbia S.E.A.S. |______| |______| Internet: jr...@columbia.edu |
gcurry
>
>In article <3o2o3g$q...@orac.sunderland.ac.uk>,
>>Cary D Mc Reynolds (ca...@oregon.uoregon.edu) wrote:
>>: In article <3nqvnu$9...@orac.sunderland.ac.uk>,
ha4...@orac.sunderland.ac.uk (ben.rose) writes:
>>: makes. Yes, if the system is good enough you shouldn't need a
subwoofer, but
>>: there are very few speakers that can get down to 20hz at realistic
levels
>>
>>There are very few ears that reach down to 20hz too.
>>
high-frequencies and
>worked its way down. Where are you suggesting that most people stop
hearing
>bass? ss? 100Hz, 50hz? Yes the human ear is less sensative in ths
>frequencies, but 99% of the population can hear down to 20hz and feel
>frequencies below that. As to my source for this information, my Dad had
a
>Masters in Audiology.
>
Your eardrum is not the primary receptor, it is the bones in front of the
ear that percieve those, like the 20hz mentioned. Plus, just as
important as the ability to reproduce the lows, it is imeapative that the
room be capable of handling them. The room must be large enough to exceed
the wave length of the signal or it is self canceling.
John Busenitz
should have realized before, though it seems only logical
now that I read his post. I used to be somewhat of a musician,
(piano & trombone) but am lax now. I hope to return soon.
But that's not the point. The point is that being a musician
qualifies one to evaluate performance, not audio reproduction
by ear. I think that's the point Karl made. Pitch and timing
are not altered by a system (not significantly, except for
wow & flutter); distortion, phase, noise, dynamic range, and
bandwidth are. Since stereo components are electrical devices,
they are best (for exhaustive critiquing) evalutated by their
own kind, though the end result is always subject to human
approval and interpretation.
Herb Singleton
Cary, I'm assuming that the author wanted it posted. (if I'm wrong,
flame until the cows come home)
>Herb:
>RE: Musicians don't listen to sound!
>I number many musicians among my customers, & you are WRONG. Most
>of them were astute listeners! Lou Reed: Rega tt & Fourier
>spkrs, Mickey Hart: JSE Infinite Slope Model 2s spkrs, Nadia
>Salerno Sonenberg: NAD receiver & Rogers spkrs, JJ French
>(twisted sister!) Krell & Apogee Divas, George Benson: Oracle
>tt & Brystons, Donald Fagen: Magnepan SMGs(Cary take note!). I
>could go on & on. Most musicians that I dealt with were astute
>listeners, were patient, & willing to learn!
>Steve Zipser
>Sunshine Stereo
whooaaa.... I didn't write that "musicians don't listen to sound," nor
do I believe that; I meant that a musician/etc having a high end
system means nothing if the musician simply walked into a store saying
"I know and care nothing about audio but I have $50k to blow and I want
something to impress the babes."
Read the article about Slash and his car ('vette I believe) a couple
of years ago in Car Stereo Review. No, I don't believe he is
representative of all musicians, but he clearly doesn't care
(or at least didn't care) about things audiophiles argue endlessly
about like phase, dynamics, etc... he wanted a loud system and he
let the installer make all the choices. And that's
something that people should be aware of when someone makes the
point that "(hi-end/etc) is good because (mega-rich superstar) listens
to (expensive, high-quality component)".
Steve Zipser
RE: Musicians don't listen to sound!
I number many musicians among my customers, & you are WRONG. Most
of them were astute listeners! Lou Reed: Rega tt & Fourier
spkrs, Mickey Hart: JSE Infinite Slope Model 2s spkrs, Nadia
Salerno Sonenberg: NAD receiver & Rogers spkrs, JJ French
(twisted sister!) Krell & Apogee Divas, George Benson: Oracle
tt & Brystons, Donald Fagen: Magnepan SMGs(Cary take note!). I
could go on & on. Most musicians that I dealt with were astute
listeners, were patient, & willing to learn!
Steve Zipser
Sunshine Stereo
--
One man gathers what another man spills
Good Day Sun Shine
Steve Higgs
>>You make a very interesting point. I think people who love music the most
>>don't necessarily need as high quality sound from their stereo system to
enjoy
>>it immensely. Studies have bee ndone which show that people who have played
>>music alot process music in a different section of their brain than those
who
>>have not played music. My guess is that this portion of the brain (the one
>>used for playing and later for listening to music) gives much more pleasure
>>than whatever noise-processing module is used by the mass of musical
heathens
>>;) However, it may be that people who have played music, while not in need
of
>>hifi sound to enjoy music, are in the best position to judge whether a
>>music system reporduces music faithfully, since they have a lot of
experience
>>hearing live music.
>>
>> Steve
>
>
>_Very_ interesting topic.
>
actually
>several musical "listening" skills.
>
>such as violinists will be able to resolve extremely small differences in
pitch
>(it's handy for trombonists, too, as Brian found.)
>
>
>Another is the ability to understand overall structures in music.
Whoa! I didn't count on someone actually thinking intelligently about
what I said. If I understand correctly, there is a point being made that
musicians do not know how to listen for high fidelity in the same manner that
audiophiles do; that audiophiles worry about what things sound like, while
musicians worry more about the structure, intonation and timing in music.
This is a point well taken.
The two very narrow ideas I was trying to convey in my original
posting was that, even without being analytical, musicians probably have a
very good gut feeling as to whether reproduced music sounds realistic, since
they listen to the real thing all the time; and that because musicians
appreciate music in a more abstract sense, they don't need high fidelity to
the nTH degree to enjoy reproduced music immensely.
Of course, this view has the potential to offend two groups of people
-- 1) musicians and 2) non-musicians (i.e., the whole world).
So here I am, out on a limb, vulnerable to attack in a thread originally
dedicated to heated debate over whether Bose 701's suck or not, a subject
about which I could care less.
Anthony Christina
: Hmm. Side firing? How does this operate as a dipole. As far as no other
: company doing this, please go and look (and listen) to any Alon (and may
: be Dalquist) speaker. No side firing, but the midrange is used in a dipole
: configuration. I do not see how firing sideways makes a midrage be in a
: dipole configuration.
: peace,
: fernando
Although the driver faces outward, the inside of the cabnet behind the
driver is and open cavity. Effectively, the front of the cone and the
rear surface of the cone are operating out of phase, giving dipole
operation. Doesn't Vandersteen also use an open cavity??
Todd K. Jenkins
>Although the driver faces outward, the inside of the cabnet behind the
>driver is and open cavity. Effectively, the front of the cone and the
>rear surface of the cone are operating out of phase, giving dipole
>operation. Doesn't Vandersteen also use an open cavity??
I wasn't aware that the driver had no rear enclosure. The diagram we saw
had a closed box behind it. I know the tweeters didn't, but I believe the
basket of those is closed anyway. And as far as Vandersteen goes, I believe
they use closed boxes behind the mids as well (last time I checked, which
was several years ago). Are you sure about the driver being open-backed?
If so, since it fires sideways, then there should be very good cancellation
in the range 90 degrees from the cone axis, which would put the
cancellations right in the listening area. I don't think that's the way
they did it...but it wouldn't surprise me. ;)
Todd K. Jenkins
>Although the driver faces outward, the inside of the cabnet behind the
>driver is and open cavity.
radiates into the room and the other into a sealed cabinet that the
loudspeaker system is dipole. I would agree if you had said the driver is a
dipole, but the system is not.
Karl Chwe
<big snip>
> The two very narrow ideas I was trying to convey in my original
>posting was that, even without being analytical, musicians probably have a
>very good gut feeling as to whether reproduced music sounds realistic, since
>they listen to the real thing all the time; and that because musicians
>appreciate music in a more abstract sense, they don't need high fidelity to
>the nTH degree to enjoy reproduced music immensely.
I was simply saying (in far too many words) that even though I personally
had fairly well developed listening skills for a musician, I still
didn't have well developed listening skills for an "audiophile", and it
seemed to me that the two sets of skills were distinct, and that one
didn't imply the other.
So I guess I am disagreeing with your second idea, that musicians need less
fidelity to get the same pleasure. Musicians can be counted on to have certain
listening skills, but those skills may or may not compensate somehow for poor
fidelity. One musician might enjoy his clock radio immensely, while another
might not be happy with her Levinson/Grand Slamm system. (I am also disagreeing
with your first idea, because as I said, musicians don't necessarily know
whether reproduced music sounds realistic, because they don't necessarily
actually listen to live music, at least not the way "audiophiles" would.)
And it is entirely possible that a musician appreciate music in an abstract
sense, as you say, and still be unhappy with the fidelity of his or her
system. I think Bach's solo violin sonatas and partitas are a miracle of
abstraction, but to appreciate that, I don't even have to listen to it.
I can just look at the score. That doesn't mean I will enjoy listening to
it on my Bose Lifestyle system. (Not to imply anything about that system,
of course.)
So perhaps there are different kinds of musical pleasure, as well as different
kinds of listening skills. Some abstract devices Bach uses can be appreciated
_only_ when I at least look at the score (inverted, retrograde melodies, for ex.)
But you sure don't get the pleasure of being in the same room with Perlman
as he throws his mind and heart and body into playing them.
> Of course, this view has the potential to offend two groups of people
>-- 1) musicians and 2) non-musicians (i.e., the whole world).
> So here I am, out on a limb, vulnerable to attack in a thread originally
>dedicated to heated debate over whether Bose 701's suck or not, a subject
>about which I could care less.
Relax. You just said some interesting things. I took it as a chance to ramble
on about things I like to think about, which, as you say, were far outside
what you initially mentioned. I'd say I was the one stretching people's
tolerance, not you ;-)
Karl
ben.rose
: >Cary D Mc Reynolds (ca...@oregon.uoregon.edu) wrote:
: >: In article <3nqvnu$9...@orac.sunderland.ac.uk>, ha4...@orac.sunderland.ac.uk (ben.rose) writes:
: >: makes. Yes, if the system is good enough you shouldn't need a subwoofer, but
: >: there are very few speakers that can get down to 20hz at realistic levels
: >There are very few ears that reach down to 20hz too.
: >
: Really, last I checked hearing loss started at the high-frequencies and
: worked its way down. Where are you suggesting that most people stop hearing
: bass? ss? 100Hz, 50hz? Yes the human ear is less sensative in ths
: frequencies, but 99% of the population can hear down to 20hz and feel
: frequencies below that. As to my source for this information, my Dad had a
: Masters in Audiology.
Wow and what a name dropper you are *applause* Tell me, what is the
difference between hearing and feeling? Surely the eardrums feel the
sound we are talking about. btw it's always good to quote a relative
rather than actual text as these sources can never be traced.
: >
: >I have Jurassic Park on video. In the bit where the T rex shakes the water
: >in the glass on the dashboard of the 4wd. It does that on my desktop in my
: >room. How's that for bass.
: As I said before what you are hearing is a second or third order
: harmonic of the fundamental frequency. As for your desktop shaking, are you
: sure that you aren't hearing the speakers rattling or the desk having a
: symthatic vibration.
I'll tell you what, I'll get my sonometer onto it shall I. Maybe a CRO,
that way we'll all know exactly how many nodes/anti-nodes I have in my
bass note. Well, I can't wait I don't know about you.
: >
: >Maybe you're right but I am happy with my hi-fi but that is all that is
: >important till I win the lottery.
: Absolutely, positively true. You probably shouldn't go out and listen
: to any good subs then, you may not be happy anymore.
Or maybe I will. Nothing will ever take away the fact I probably have the
best hi-fi in the world for the money I have spent on it. Nobody has ever
disagreed with this. Even my dealership said so when I was testing out my
100's. They also sell Wharfedale, Mission, B&O and many others so I feel
they have heard a few systems to know.
Ben
Robert Wallace
: >
: Then he should have informed you that at lower frequencies, 100hz or so,
: ear that percieve those, like the 20hz mentioned. Plus, just as
: important as the ability to reproduce the lows, it is imeapative that the
: room be capable of handling them. The room must be large enough to exceed
: the wave length of the signal or it is self canceling.
I'm curious: what is the minimum room size that will allow a speaker
to accurately produce, say, a 20hz tone?
Robert Wallace
rob...@metronet.com
Todd K. Jenkins
>Or maybe I will. Nothing will ever take away the fact I probably have the
>best hi-fi in the world for the money I have spent on it.
Them's fightin' words... ;)
John Busenitz
>>driver is and open cavity.
>BTW-I seriously hope you are not stating that since one side of the driver
>radiates into the room and the other into a sealed cabinet that the
>loudspeaker system is dipole. I would agree if you had said the driver is a
>dipole, but the system is not.
Actually, it is sort of a demented skewed dipole, as the midrange chamber
is open one one side, and on the other side the cone radiates. This places
the listener at the null, and introduces all sorts of great phasey effects.
Wow. Wouldn't it be great to just say, "Lets just have reflected midrange
sound, direct/reflected treble, and direct bass. Oh, lets get rid of that
nasty low bass and high treble, and that telling midrange. What they can't
hear won't hurt them (us)."
Cary D Mc Reynolds
>
>Then he should have informed you that at lower frequencies, 100hz or so,
>Your eardrum is not the primary receptor, it is the bones in front of the
> ear that percieve those, like the 20hz mentioned. Plus, just as
>important as the ability to reproduce the lows, it is imeapative that the
>room be capable of handling them. The room must be large enough to exceed
>the wave length of the signal or it is self canceling.
>
Yes that is true but the point is that almost no people have trouble
hearing/feeling bass to below 20hz. Now as to your statement that the room
must be large enought to reproduce the bass wave you are incorrect. The only
time the room will cancell the wave is when the wave is the exact same or a
fraction of the length of the room. Actually once the wave gets longer than
the length of the room there is a gain in the volume (called a transfer gain
function). Can you hear bass in your car? If your rule held true you would
only be able to get bass down to about 80-100hz in your car. The reason it is
so easy to get good bass in a car is because of that transfer function.
Cary
Lon Stowell
>
>I'm curious: what is the minimum room size that will allow a speaker
>to accurately produce, say, a 20hz tone?
You can do it in a 3x3x3 room. The trick is trying to figure out
how the automotive guys do it.
If you consider your room to be the inside of a large speaker
enclosure and try to figure out how to do this it might be easier.
Brian L. McCarty
(Thomas Y. Rhee) writes:
> Nothing out on the market represents live sound in any manner. But
> the Wilson Grands come about as close to as any speaker
> currently available. By comparison, the Bose 701's sound like a
> cheap boombox.
Well you have again missed the point, Thomas. If reproducing live sound is
impossible for any speaker (it is), then who cares WHAT people find acceptable
to listen to? If the REAL reference (live sound) can't be matched, than all
we are talking about is personal preference.
And, to compare two speakers, one pair costing $700 and one costing $62,000 or
whatever the number is this week is intellectually bankrupt.
Brian
__________________
|\ * Pasadena|# Brian L. McCarty
| \ |# mcc...@worldjazz.com
| \ |# http: under construction
| (__/~~~\ |# WorldJAZZ Inc. Jazz Music Televison
|##################|
Noam Ben-Ami
>In article <3o6u5v$h...@pipe4.nyc.pipeline.com>, tyr...@nyc.pipeline.com
>(Thomas Y. Rhee) writes:
>> Nothing out on the market represents live sound in any manner. But
>> the Wilson Grands come about as close to as any speaker
>> currently available. By comparison, the Bose 701's sound like a
>> cheap boombox.
>Brian
Actually, the 701s sound like a cheap boombox, period. :).
--
Noam Ben-Ami is nbe...@ux4.cso.uiuc Solar Audio High Performance Speakers.
-o-o-o-
My credentials..............Audiophile, programmer, ticklish person, grouch.
My opinions are those of Solar Audio and came from the back of a cereal box.
John Busenitz
Well you have missed the point, Bwian, as usual.
>impossible for any speaker (it is), then who cares WHAT people find acceptable
>to listen to? If the REAL reference (live sound) can't be matched, than all
>we are talking about is personal preference.
Oh, so it must be perfect or else it doesn't matter? Then what is the
point of using direct/reflecting crap to try to make the system sound
more like live music? Just use a clock radio. Oh, I forgot, that's what
B*se uses. Bwian, you constantly contradict yourself, you hypocritical
fellow, you.
>And, to compare two speakers, one pair costing $700 and one costing $62,000 or
>whatever the number is this week is intellectually bankrupt.
Then compare both to a speaker system costing $200 that sounds much more
realistic than the $700 speaker. That is unfair, but to the $700 speaker
that was designed by idiots and made with poor parts. Mind you, I am
not referring to any specific $700 speaker. ;->
Jazz sucks.
Thomas Y. Rhee
>Well you have again missed the point, Thomas. If reproducing live sound
is
acceptable
>to listen to? If the REAL reference (live sound) can't be matched, than
all
>we are talking about is personal preference.
>
$62,000 or
>whatever the number is this week is intellectually bankrupt.
knows what the future will bring). However, there are speakers that come
closer to it than others.
Your argument that if it can't be matched perfectly, than it should be
personal preference is somewhat correct in that everyone has their own
personal taste in audio equipment. Some people like a warm non offensive
sound while others enjoy a crisp detailed high end in the same sense that
some people enjoy sitting in row T while others enjoy row L or whatever.
Also some halls have an inherently warm sound while others can sound
brittle. If some people like the crappy sound that Bose speakers
produces...then hey...who am I to argue. If they enjoy it, that's fine by
me but before a friend who doesn't know any better purchases them, I will
air my opinions about them and try to sway them from making a mistake that
they may regret.
You however have missed the point in that some speakers are *more* accurate
in representing the music than others. Bose speakers are from from
accurate and if the Wilson X-1's (which are $67,500 btw...) was not a fair
comparison, then let me give you an example of a speaker that costs roughly
the same. The NHT SuperZero/SW2P is by far the more accurate (and I would
assume the far more enjoyable for most people) than the Bose 701's.
John Graley
ha4...@orac.sunderland.ac.uk (ben.rose) writes:
>Cary D Mc Reynolds (ca...@oregon.uoregon.edu) wrote:
>: In article <3o2o3g$q...@orac.sunderland.ac.uk>, ha4...@orac.sunderland.ac.uk (ben.rose) writes:
>: >Cary D Mc Reynolds (ca...@oregon.uoregon.edu) wrote:
>: >: In article <3nqvnu$9...@orac.sunderland.ac.uk>, ha4...@orac.sunderland.ac.uk (ben.rose) writes:
>: >: makes. Yes, if the system is good enough you shouldn't need a subwoofer, but
>: >: there are very few speakers that can get down to 20hz at realistic levels
[argument about LF hearing deleted]
The 20Hz figure given by biologists is an ESTIMATE. The idea that LF hearing
is like HF hearing i.e. cuts off sharply beyond a certain frequency is a
myth. The myth was put about by audiofools to justify their speakers not
getting anywhere near the bottom end of the auddible range.
The story about how hearing stops and feeling starts is a complete lie.
Firstly, there is no frequency which you can feel before you can hear -
hearing is more sensitive at all frequencies, right down to zero. Don't
believe me? Drive down a long hill in a car. Your ears will register the
pressure change before you feel the crushing effect of the pressure
change. You might say that isn't hearing, but all the ear ever does is
register pressure changes.
You can feel bass up to several hundred hertz or so. I have felt the output
of a public address system MIDRANGE driver before. If you can feel the
output of somebody's system, it means it's loud in the range 100Hz or so,
not that its deep.
Very low frequencies are rate in nature, just as they are rare in
loudspeakers! This is beacuse it (normally) takes a very large source
to produce these frequencies with any volume, and most sources generate
enough harmonics to drown out the fundamental.
Now, lets lay to rest such silliness as 'you can hear down to 20 then you
feel it'. This is very far from the truth. There is a huge overlap.
Cheers, John
--
Floccinaucinihilipilification. Easy to say... Harder to do.
NAME - John Graley - ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk