Not to beat a dead horse...

[Resident Loser]

Mulester...

.....(my Bose Brothers, I'm dug-in deep behind enemy lines between Fort Paradigm and Athena Hill)....(load them cannons with cubes to simulate grape-shot, roll 'em over in the bushes by Merlin's Creek, and wait for my signal at first light)....(Framington sends K-rations, three wagons of powder, and twenty-six marketing teams).....

...you are not well...but that's OK..

jimHJJ(...I like to think I am as unwell as you...)

 

[jneutron]

You find my generalizations to be "fairly good".
Okay. I just don't understand why it's a big deal if I generalize, when I carefully qualified the instances, to be certain that such statements were not made to imply fact.

Actually, I find them to be very good...I just didn't feel like givin ya any satisfaction.. ...(well, ok...that second part was for my laugh..)

I specifically copied all your wall thickness/resonance stuff first, to clarify for you what I was referring to..you have executed "bose" based on assumptions, beliefs, tapping a surface, comparing to shoddy computer speakers, and providing a shoddy response graph..all in support of this "thin plastic no good" shpiel..

hence, the points:

A. without an actual measurement of the wall thickness

B. without a speaker to analyze

C. without the actual resonance frequency of the enclosure

D. without a real response graph from which to speak..what has been linked to is trash.

If one were to build a speaker using plastics, of course, many precautions have to be taken to assure the wall parameters don't affect the sound. If the wall can resonate in the power band, it can be stiffened to raise it's response above the band, by internal bracing, by thicker walls...which, of course, RAISE the frequency of the noise you get when you rap on the surface. A second possibility is to keep the walls thin, but use absorbtion to keep the power band from getting to the surface..easily done mid and highs, woofs, not so easy..

With plastics, the thickness and internal bracing are easily changed by changing the injection mold. Alternatively, the composition of the plastic can be changed, to increase the absorption and damping of the material..also, stiff plastic or metal inserts can be molded in...trivial to do, but I'm also pretty confident that it is not used by bose, as it would add a lot of labor cost to the parts.. But the molding changes are trivial, I'm confident bose didn't neglect that.

I've been looking into using that fake wood product in use for boats, the honeycomb aluminum core with thin laminated wood outer surface..it's really strong stuff, actually stiffer than the same thickness marine plywood for decking use.. A pair of subs (18 inch drivers gathering dust as we speak) folded horn, of the rog mogale kind made with this stuff would be really light, I could see mobile use with those..The only thing I gotta work out is the joints on the edges, and perhaps additional bracing as needed.. Don't know how to do that yet, but we have some techs here who are into boats big time..

(When I need bass, I NEED it..even the 128 4 inchers I have don't do what I want..)

The only problems I have, is with the apparent lack of quality directed to sound quality for the relative price vs. other available products.

We concur. I build what I need.

Cheers, John
ps..hmmm.. a thread on honeycomb panels for building speakers in the near future?...that'd be fun.

 

[WmAx]

Actually, I find them to be very good...I just didn't feel like givin ya any satisfaction.. ...(well, ok...that second part was for my laugh..)

I specifically copied all your wall thickness/resonance stuff first, to clarify for you what I was referring to..you have executed "bose" based on assumptions, beliefs, tapping a surface, comparing to shoddy computer speakers, and providing a shoddy response graph..all in support of this "thin plastic no good" shpiel..

hence, the points:

A. without an actual measurement of the wall thickness

B. without a speaker to analyze

C. without the actual resonance frequency of the enclosure

D. without a real response graph from which to speak..what has been linked to is trash.

Beliefs and assumptions[that were made clear as to this is what they were], btw, based on prior experiences with such speaker systems and my design experiences...

Note: the response graph was not provided in any reference to wall thickness. The response graph was sourced from S&V[the page happened to be hosting this graph, and in no other way was the page referenced by me as a source of information], and was provided in reference to resonances of the midrange/treble band, as produced by the transducer. You can not identify resonances of the enclosure walls from a frequency response graph, as such resonances will not usually be severe enough to affect the frequency response plot in obvious ways.

If one were to build a speaker using plastics, of course, many precautions have to be taken to assure the wall parameters don't affect the sound.

I am fully aware of the factors involved, yet, I still don't have confidence in Bose's attention to this detail. How many pennies would have cost them to improve other details? Yet they didn't?

But the molding changes are trivial, I'm confident bose didn't neglect that.

You have a right to be confident. I'm not. Simple as that. BTW, it would hardly be the first time I've seen them[Bose] neglect things that would have created a more durable[thus better] product on other things[that would have cost literally a couple of pennies to change] that left me scratching my head, as well.....

-Chris

 

[jneutron]

The response graph was sourced from S&V[the page happened to be hosting this graph, and in no other way was the page referenced by me as a source of information-Chris

I clearly noted your disclaimer earlier to that effect, and when reading the stuff on the link, admired you for that disclaimer..well done..

To all: Have a happy 4^th (cept anyone on the other side of the pond..

Cheers, John

Gotta go, I hear the sound of incoming cube-shot..

 

[WmAx]

To all: Have a happy 4^th (cept anyone on the other side of the pond..

Same to you, ya' dirty, rotten scoundrel...

-Chris

 

[Resident Loser]

The proverbial proof...

...is in the pudding.

As much as I HATE to use the time-tested line "I know what I hear", well...there you go, I dood it.

I usually try to maintain the perspective of a disinterested third-party when I get involved some exchanges...I fully realize I might be deluding myself in my level of success in that endeavor but...

"Frequency response and SPL charts do not reveal non-linear distortion. A 4.5" driver with that relative movement, would be extremely non-linear, given the state of technology in reference to the speaker motor design and speaker suspension technology in that time period."

A nice, and quite probably accurate, answer...but, I feel it to be inappropriate as applied in this matter. I mentioned FR and SPL charts in support of my anecdotally-based contention of the smoothness MY 901s exhibit in a downward frequency sweep. No more, no less.

I simply take exception to the degree of misdirection your response injected into the dialog. Rather than accept my simple (perhaps incorrectly based)comparison of the "multiple driver as equivalent to" premise, we go off on the "non-linear" tangent.

In my obviously anecdotal opinion, based on my otherwise unsupported experience, the multiple drivers do in fact present a substantial and (as I deem) accurate, low frequency response. Certainly one 4.5in. driver could not provide this performance(unless somehow "loaded"); nine apparently do.

Distortion artifacts(none of which I discern) are immaterial unless that happens to be the topic under scrutiny. In this scenario it was not. My premise was and is simple. The two mid/tweet drivers in concert, have a radiational surface slightly greater than that of a single 3.5in transducer (a suitable size for the frequencies involved IMO) and the higher freqs are naturally divided and handled by progressively smaller areas of the two 2.5 in. units including the dustcaps. Both concepts are exhibited in the 901s. Once again, before we revisit the "focus" issue, the Bose premise is "Stereo Everywhere" as presented by the direct/reflecting concept, "imaging" while not impossible(IME) is not the applicable issue.

Perhaps I'm all wet and my seemingly bone-headed adherence to what appears to be a reasonable proposition is based on completely flawed thinking. As I am always willing to learn, I am more than happy to entertain comments that may enlighten me(and all interested parties)in this application. However...the arbitrary introduction of what surely gives the appearance of, at best, quasi-related subject matter, smacks more of evasive internet debate technique than the advancement of that goal.

jimHJJ(...th-th-th--that's all folks...at least fer now...)

 

[WmAx]

I simply take exception to the degree of misdirection your response injected into the dialog. Rather than accept my simple (perhaps incorrectly based)comparison of the "multiple driver as equivalent to" premise, we go off on the "non-linear" tangent.

I am not interested in discussing the 901. As for misdirection, uhm, the one[and only] comment[from me] in reference to the 901, was a pointification intended to make it known that more than surface area is a relevant factor, when comparing several small drivers vs. one large one. Nothing more. Nothing less. Infer what you will, in regards to misdirection.

-Chris

 

[Resident Loser]

Let's review, shall we?...

I am not interested in discussing the 901. As for misdirection, uhm, the one[and only] comment[from me] in reference to the 901, was a pointification intended to make it known that more than surface area is a relevant factor, when comparing several small drivers vs. one large one. Nothing more. Nothing less. Infer what you will, in regards to misdirection.

-Chris

Not interested? There certainly seemed to be some interest...

Post #63:

...the AM drivers, I believe they take their cues from the premise of the 901s, that nine 4.5in. drivers have the effective radiating area of a 12in. woofer with far less mass...

Me, I think I'm stating some "trickle-down" tech issues vis a vis the Acoustimass..."...I believe..."

Your response post #69:

...while the surface area might be the equivalent, the output is not. A 4.5" driver[especially with 1970 state of technology] has very little linear excursion, and a rather high resonant frequency. A decent quality 12" will have higher displacement[due to extended incursion/excursion]...

But we're NOT talking about the 901s, are we? Yet there are allusions to their substandard excursion parameters...

My response post #76:

...I recall the excursion number of +/- 1/4 in. vs. the driver diameter...seems like a bit to me...they are quite capable of reproducing smooth, deep and balanced organ pedal work and gut-punching tympany...I have the resultant SPL charts and graphs(somewhere)of my fine tuning the room EQing that bear this out...

Still not talking about the 901s? So, now here's a number...no speculation involved...

Yours, post #78:

...Frequency response and SPL charts do not reveal non-linear distortion. A 4.5" driver with that relative movement, would be extremely non-linear, given the state of technology...in that time period...

Did I say anything about distortion of any sort? Never heard any, no doubling or phantom-frequency-difference-induced IM...I mean it's right kindly that you brought it up, but what does it have to do with the price of jellybeans in Denmark? I sorta' get the feelin' had the exchanges continued, fault would have been found with the shade of walnut stain or the weave of the grillcloth. My FR/SPL charts reveal a smoothed 1/3 octave response curve simply in support of my use of the phrase "...smooth and deep..." 'cause dat's what I hear. Distortion products? We don't hear no distortion products! We ain't got no stinkin' distortion products! We do, however, have multi-driver scenario.

Sorta' reminds me of the time JR told of the IBM researchers who had managed to get some sub-atomic particles to line up and spell out I-B-M...in a vacuum, at absolute zero...may have even been aided by lasers and electro-shock voltages...nice but what's it got to do with the subject matter...the superiority of single crystal copper as I recall...

So, "misdirection" is in my mind? Hmmm...can you say "impeach the witness" maybe...

jimHJJ(...just some pre-festivity observations...)

 

[WmAx]

Not interested? There certainly seemed to be some interest...

So, "misdirection" is in my mind? Hmmm...can you say "impeach the witness" maybe...

[1]Believe what you will.

I'm not interested in discussing the 901s.... neither I am interested in talking to you further about a situation that I already explained[completely] .... refer to[1], and *bye.

-Chris

*I will not reply to further posts by you in this thread, in response to the issue(s) herein.

 

[mcwilson]

Never before has so many words ...

accomplished so little. Unless my laughter was your goal...

;-))))))))

 

[jneutron]

accomplished so little. Unless my laughter was your goal...

;-))))))))

For my part in the comedy, you are welcome..glad it put a smile on your face.

Hey, I wouldn't have responded, except for that avatar...man, I love it..

Happy fourth..

Cheers, John

 

[Resident Loser]

We aims to please...

accomplished so little. Unless my laughter was your goal...

;-))))))))

BTW, John sip a few silver bullets for me...

jimHJJ(...although Jack Daniel's and Wild Turkey were my instruments of choice, the odd TC or martooni have been known to pass my lips...)

 

[WmAx]

Revision

Self-correction: My memory of the resonant enclosures of Bose satellites was from a few years ago. Perhaps my memory is in error, or Bose has since revised the design, because: Today, I happened to be in Best Buy, and I decided to check out the current Bose cube satellites. The current satellites are made from a stiff exterior plastic. Tapping lightly with a hard object reveals it is a hard plastic. However, actually attempting to excite a resonance by rapping the side of the[current] enclosure yeilds a negative result: the structure appears to be virtually inert. They seemed to absorb energy. I suspect that a significant level of damping material is on the internal walls, or perhaps some sort of constrained layer construction. But whatever the cause of this behaviour, based on the initial[albeit non-scientific] inspection, I suspect that the current satellites will suffer no audible degradation(s) due to cabinet wall resonant mode(s). Impressive, as I tried the same with several other current small plastic speakers[though all much lower in cost compared to the Bose] on display in the store, and they were all highly resonant: Bose was the only one with a seemingly inert enclosure of the few examples that I checked.

-Chris

 

[jneutron]

Self-correction: My memory of the resonant enclosures of Bose satellites was from a few years ago. Perhaps my memory is in error, or Bose has since revised the design, because: Today, I happened to be in Best Buy, and I decided to check out the current Bose cube satellites. The current satellites are made from a stiff exterior plastic. Tapping lightly with a hard object reveals it is a hard plastic. However, actually attempting to excite a resonance by rapping the side of the[current] enclosure yeilds a negative result: the structure appears to be virtually inert. They seemed to absorb energy. I suspect that a significant level of damping material is on the internal walls, or perhaps some sort of constrained layer construction. But whatever the cause of this behaviour, based on the initial[albeit non-scientific] inspection, I suspect that the current satellites will suffer no audible degradation(s) due to cabinet wall resonant mode(s). Impressive, as I tried the same with several other current small plastic speakers[though all much lower in cost compared to the Bose] on display in the store, and they were all highly resonant: Bose was the only one with a seemingly inert enclosure of the few examples that I checked.
-Chris

I knew I liked you for a reason...very nice, thank you.

I also do not know what the old ones did when rapped, as I never tried. But your info is very much appreciated. I wonder....if the old ones were thin and resonant, perhaps Bose changed the design in a desire to garner customers like you who could hear it if the cabs resonated?

You will not believe what happened to me immediately after all this bruhaha about Bose..I stopped by my parents on the way back home on the fourth, and they had just bought a Bose 3-2-1..talk about ya coincidences. I actually don't know what a 3-2-1 is, but they do..

It was to be installed coupla days after I left, so I never got the chance to listen to it..someday I will. Not having a critical ear w/r to movie soundtracks, it certainly will be fine for me, and I'm sure it will be for them..they were proud of the purchase, I was happy for them..

Btw, the cost included installation, whatever that entails...that's best for my parents, I'm too far away to casually stop by for the ele stuff..

Cheers, John

 

[Steve1000]

Thanks for the info, very interesting indeed!

Your credibility quotient has been adjusted upward from 9.946 out of 10 to 9.973 out of 10...

Self-correction: My memory of the resonant enclosures of Bose satellites was from a few years ago...

The current satellites are made from a stiff exterior plastic. Tapping lightly with a hard object reveals it is a hard plastic. However, actually attempting to excite a resonance by rapping the side of the[current] enclosure yeilds a negative result: the structure appears to be virtually inert. They seemed to absorb energy...

I suspect that the current satellites will suffer no audible degradation(s) due to cabinet wall resonant mode(s). Impressive, as I tried the same with several other current small plastic speakers[though all much lower in cost compared to the Bose] on display in the store, and they were all highly resonant: Bose was the only one with a seemingly inert enclosure of the few examples that I checked...

-Chris