Not to beat a dead horse...

[Steve1000]

You think the Bose Acoustimass are good? Even the people who run this place tend towards Bose bashing. I ask sincerely. The basic acoustimass systems always measures extremely well in Consumer Reports, and seem to measure slightly better as Bose upgrades the models over time. So there has got to be two sides of the story. Could you please elaborate? What do you know?

Couple any of these with a decent CDP and some speakers...I think some Bose Acoustimass might be a good starting point, maybe Polks... and for around a grand...bada-bing, bada-boom...music.

jimHJJ(...feel free to pick nits...)

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

The basic acoustimass systems always measures extremely well in Consumer Reports, and seem to measure slightly better as Bose upgrades the models over time.

Bose threatened CR with a multimillion dollar lawsuit after a poor review several years ago, and clearly has the muscle to keep CR in court for years, or even decades if they want to. CR can't afford to have all their lawyers busy on just Bose for several years, so they've since rolled-over and give Bose good reviews regardless.

CR also think $80 Sony speakers are the shizzle, so maybe they just have very poor taste in equipment (Except they're usually spot-on with TV ratings).

 

[WmAx]

Bose threatened CR with a multimillion dollar lawsuit after a poor review several years ago, and clearly has the muscle to keep CR in court for years, or even decades if they want to. CR can't afford to have all their lawyers busy on just Bose for several years, so they've since rolled-over and give Bose good reviews regardless.

CR also think $80 Sony speakers are the shizzle, so maybe they just have very poor taste in equipment (Except they're usually spot-on with TV ratings).

I don't know what CR's current testing methodology involves, but when I last read a report on speaker comparisons in CR[maybe 3-4 years ago?], it was basicly worthless. If it's still the same, then someone at CR needs to get off their rear end and catch up on some critical reading, in the form of JAES publications[mostly from Dr. Floyd Toole] that address the issue(s) of measured parameters vs. sound quality.

-Chris

 

[Steve1000]

Care for a little fact mixed in with your fiction? That's an urban myth of sorts, the truth having been slaughtered and butchered beyond recognition in the way most things are on internet audio discussion forums.

Bose sued Consumer Reports over a review of the Bose 901s published in 1970. Bose won at the Federal court trial level, because Consumer Reports had reported information that CR actually knew to be false. Bose lost at the Federal Appeals Court level, though, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court. They lost at the Supreme Court for legal reasons... CR had acted badly, with this no court disagreed, but CRs actions did not rise to the level of libel. So, it was a close case and both sides had a legitimate beef with the other. It was handled well legally and ethically by both sides in the courts and it appears both sides have put it behind them.

Here is the Supreme Court opinion:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=466&page=485

I don't think CR has lost a lawsuit yet regarding its product reviews, BTW.

Bose threatened CR with a multimillion dollar lawsuit after a poor review several years ago, and clearly has the muscle to keep CR in court for years, or even decades if they want to. CR can't afford to have all their lawyers busy on just Bose for several years, so they've since rolled-over and give Bose good reviews regardless.

CR also think $80 Sony speakers are the shizzle, so maybe they just have very poor taste in equipment (Except they're usually spot-on with TV ratings).

 

[furrycute]

3inch woofer working as both a tweeter and a midbass driver? 6inch woofer inside the sub? Plastic cabinets? No thanks.

For computer speakers, these specs might be acceptable. But for home theater, no way.

No highs, no lows, it must be Bose.

 

[Resident Loser]

As Sgt. Shultz oftimes said...

You think the Bose Acoustimass are good? Even the people who run this place tend towards Bose bashing. I ask sincerely. The basic acoustimass systems always measures extremely well in Consumer Reports, and seem to measure slightly better as Bose upgrades the models over time. So there has got to be two sides of the story. Could you please elaborate? What do you know?

..."I know nothink!"...

The nub of my gist is a reaction to the constant diet of it...nothing to say? Hey kid's, let's start a Bose thread!

I can only provide my completely anecdotal opinion of MY 30+yr old 901s...how well they do what they do and the fact that I haven't been bitten with terminal uprade-itis due to my level of satisfaction with them.

I'd been away from the hobby for some time when I simply went looking for info re: the late, lamented AUDIO mag...and, well...here I am back again...And it's Bose this , and Bose that...soooo, I went out to listen to what the hubub was all about, thinking I would hear a poor version of an organ-grinder and his monkey.

Went to a local retailer and it just so happens they are running the Eagles "Hell Freezes Over" DVD on a big screen tee-vee and one of the Acoustimass systems...Anywho, given the size and simplicity of the system I came away impressed...add to it the WAF and they have a winner IMO.

Take into account, all Bose products must(and I can't stress this enough) be placed as per mfrs. recs...this, surprisingly, doesn't even happen in the Bose stores. The most egregious example is the lack of side wall surfaces around the 901 demos...so go figure!!! I built a half-wall in my house simply for a "balanced" environment for my system. Due to some room nodes, I also found it necessary to EQ things with an outboard unit...some time, effort and energy(some folks, at sites like this, say misplaced) was required to reach my "happy quotient"...but I've been listening to music for all that time and not seeking the "grail".

As always, in self-defense, I find it required to repeat, I haven't been doin' an ostrich...I have been out and about listening at various price levels and I'm still satisfied...I am fond of electrostatics, but I have neither the space nor the wallet to allow for them, sooo....

All I would say is go and take a listen for yourself...take everything into consideration and make any decision based on your personal requirements and not on the continued bashing...don't forget Polk was at one time a real "sleeper" and extolled in some audio circles...now Matthew's gone "commercial" and has run afoul of the "cognescenti".

3inch woofer working as both a tweeter and a midbass driver? 6inch woofer inside the sub? Plastic cabinets? No thanks.
For computer speakers, these specs might be acceptable. But for home theater, no way..

You are entitled to your opinion, but none of the items you mention fly in the face of the engineering behind them, are you familiar with the Walsh driver? As long as they create no spurious resonances, plastic is a fine material and allows for sample to sample constancy. IMHO, a 6" woofer in a properly designed enclosure will beat the pants of a 15-incher in some respects, most notably transient response.

As mentioned earlier, FR relative to HT...as long as you have the lows to mimic the footfalls of the mechanical lizards and the highs to localize the laser bursts, what else is there?

And while I'm sure our individual intent is at odds, I also say "...home theater, no way..."...it's simply a waste of time.

jimHJJ(...musician, recordist, Bose-owner...)

 

[RJB]

Oy, ssshhhhh....

There's so much shouting & noise going on here that I can't hear the movie or the music...

 

[furrycute]

.

You are entitled to your opinion, but none of the items you mention fly in the face of the engineering behind them, are you familiar with the Walsh driver? As long as they create no spurious resonances, plastic is a fine material and allows for sample to sample constancy. IMHO, a 6" woofer in a properly designed enclosure will beat the pants of a 15-incher in some respects, most notably transient response.

jimHJJ(...musician, recordist, Bose-owner...)

Are you kidding me? Plastic cabinets?! My computer speakers use plastic cabinets. What other manufacturers of quality speakers use plastic cabinets?!@

And what other manufacturers of quality speakers use 3 inch tweeters? Unheard of.

6 inch woofer trumping a 15 inch woofer in the bass department? Wow, I guess the laws of physics do work differently in Bose world. A 6 inch woofer is barely enough for midbass.

 

[jneutron]

Are you kidding me? Plastic cabinets?! My computer speakers use plastic cabinets. What other manufacturers of quality speakers use plastic cabinets?!@

And what other manufacturers of quality speakers use 3 inch tweeters? Unheard of.

6 inch woofer trumping a 15 inch woofer in the bass department? Wow, I guess the laws of physics do work differently in Bose world. A 6 inch woofer is barely enough for midbass.

Perhaps you should learn about plastics before rashly spoutin here..

The most difficult and demanding use of "plastics" is in the voice coil of the driver. It has to handle ALL the force placed into the woofer cone..and, need I remind you, the forces the cabinet sees is lower than the vc stresses by about 3 orders of magnitude. Kapton is a plastic.. it is used because it imidizes at temps over 300 C., whereas normal epoxies used to hold the vc wires exceed their T_G at 125 to 150 C. I believe Eminence recently moved to Kapton VC structural adhesive to increase the power handling capability of their entire product line...the delta pro 12's I purchased 8 of were recently increased in rating from 300WRMS to 400 WRMS, all other things the same..it's because the voice coil can now get hotter without falling apart. (I won't mention compression, as it's still copper).

Plastics can be stiffer than wood, resist de-lamination forces better than wood, absorb vibration by design, molded, injected, melted, formed...

Filler materials can alter the macro or microscopic properties, the material can be tailored to suit the engineering need...

One word.......Plastics.
3 inch tweeters??? Are you kidding...try 4 inch tweeters on titanium domes..

Look at ALL the big players, JBL, EV, Eminence, Selenium...gauss/cetec..

6 inch vs 15? You need to get out...

How many 15 inch woofers have adequate frequency response in the 20 to 30 hz region, with a cabinet size of half a foot cube?? You are confusing displacement volume with frequency range and efficiency..

Bose is indeed USING physics to their advantage..they are very, very good at applying physics to the problem..

I do not have Bose, I do not use bose...but I recognize excellence in engineering and application..

Cheers, John

 

[WmAx]

Plastics can be stiffer than wood, resist de-lamination forces better than wood, absorb vibration by design, molded, injected, melted, formed...

What you say is true, in the context of an equal playing field. But, in the application(s), such as used by Bose[and a typical computer speaker], the cabinet is made from a very very thin section of plastic, on the order of probably 2-3mm. I don't have a Bose Acoustimass satellite to measure, but I would be suprised if the resonances in the [3mm] plastic enclosure did not effect the sound, considerably. Bose does not strike me as a company that is producing a product of great value.

Filler materials can alter the macro or microscopic properties, the material can be tailored to suit the engineering need...

Yes, it can, but this is Bose.... do you think that they chose plastic because it can be superior, or becuase it can be cheaper(shipping due to weight, cheaper production of cabinets, etc.)?

One word.......Plastics.
3 inch tweeters??? Are you kidding...try 4 inch tweeters on titanium domes..

A 4" tweeter, or 3" tweeter, is very poor choice in a standard dynamic driver[as opposed to bending mode drivers] in any normal reflective room. The large diameter of a [non bending mode]HF driver causes very poor off axis response into HF, relative to the wavelength in relation to the radiation area of the driver. Additionally, a paper 3" driver, the driver most operate into a high frequency range where it is no longer pistonic, rather early, within the audible bandwidth. This results in additional resonances. They could have imporoved, drastically, both of these performance parameters, by using a seperate HF driver[tweeter], or by using a bending-mode driver. But.....that would cost more.

Look at ALL the big players, JBL, EV, Eminence, Selenium...gauss/cetec..

6 inch vs 15? You need to get out...

The required crossover point[to reduce distortion of the 3" drivers sufficiently at their lower limitiations] in such a system means that directional cues from the subwoofer are unavoidable.

Bose is indeed USING physics to their advantage..they are very, very good at applying physics to the problem..

I do not have Bose, I do not use bose...but I recognize excellence in engineering and application..

I agree, that it is impressive engineering, so far as this relates to the actual cost of production to the Bose team. It would probably be tough to build stuff of equivalent quality/performance for the cost that Bose pays to have it manufactured. But it is poor quality, considering the retail price. Look to Infinity, for far more impressive engineering, in terms of what the consumer can purchase. The Primus 150, for example, is an example of a bottom price product with solid[measured] performance, relative to retail price. The measurements of the Bose satellites that have floated around, show a very ragged/rough response throughout the midrange/treble(this means that resonances are severe). While this is only a single parameter, if the level of linear distortion demonstrated in the Bose FR graphs exists, the speaker has lost by default, if it is supposed to be a hi-fidelity device. When I think of impressive engineering[in the context of absolute terms, not just cost-based ones], I personally think of something along the lines of B&W N802 or MBL 101.

-Chris

 

[Resident Loser]

I'm curious...

...anyone know what material the B&W Nautilus is made of...or any of the assorted bubbles and blisters on their other models...they go to great pains to avoid naming it, or so it would seem...I don't think it's wood...

"SACRELIGE!!!" I hear...comparing Bose to B&W? No, not really, just trying to make a point...

Additionally, so what if it might be 2-3mm thick?...if there are ribs or other structural means of buttressing them to minimize any audibly affecting flexing, where is the problem? I have an old pair of 101s which are constructed of some molded industrial-type "plastic" and they are as inert as inert can be...they have a single driver whose magnet/basket structure weigh a ton and do a decent job in nearfield apps...

jimHJJ(...jus' wunnerin'...)

 

[jneutron]

What you say is true, in the context of an equal playing field. But, in the application(s), such as used by Bose[and a typical computer speaker], the cabinet is made from a very very thin section of plastic, on the order of probably 2-3mm. I don't have a Bose Acoustimass satellite to measure, but I would be suprised if the resonances in the [3mm] plastic enclosure did not effect the sound, considerably. Bose does not strike me as a company that is producing a product of great value.

Value is of course, a value judgement... the WAF is huge.

If the product didn't suffer, 1mm would be used, especially if orthogonal stiffiners were used...do you have actual thickness measurements or was that a guess based on the cheapie computer speakers?

The plastic enclosure may indeed introduce resonances, but that would be a thickness/stiffness tradeoff with sound..the incremental cost increase of the plastic would pale in comparison to customer dis-satisfaction should resonance be an issue..

Yes, it can, but this is Bose.... do you think that they chose plastic because it can be superior, or becuase it can be cheaper(shipping due to weight, cheaper production of cabinets, etc.)?

Perhaps both? Why would plastic be used on an F-22 raptor wing? Cheap, lightweight?...nope, it's because it meets the specifications.

A 4" tweeter, or 3" tweeter, is very poor choice in a standard dynamic driver[as opposed to bending mode drivers] in any normal reflective room. The large diameter of a [non bending mode]HF driver causes very poor off axis response into HF, relative to the wavelength in relation to the radiation area of the driver. Additionally, a paper 3" driver, the driver most operate into a range where it is no longer pistonic, rather early, within the audible bandwidth. This results in additional resonances. They could have imporoved, drastically, both of these performance parameters, by using a seperate HF driver[tweeter]. But.....that would cost more.

I gave examples of titanium domes, aluminum domes, phenolic domes...showing that big tweets are out there.

As for cost? They are selling product which enjoys a large market segment..and provides huge benefit of sound in applications where people do not consider a 5, 10, or 100 square foot panel as something they wish to look at in their living room..

I agree, that it is impressive engineering, so far as this relates to the actual cost of production to the Bose team. It would probably be tough to build stuff of equivalent quality/performance for the cost that Bose pays to have it manufactured. But it is poor quality, considering the retail price.

You need to re-think the definition of quality..

Big mac's are quality.

Volkswagons are quality..as are minivans.

Were old Porshe's? My friend's P was always in the shop...certainly not quality, at that time...they are better now...more quality..

Quality is the measure of a product's ability to meet the requirements of the application..Bose builds hundreds and thousands of these thingies, and they all sound exactly the same...you may not like the sound, you may scoff at "plastic", or 3 inch speakers, or the color of the cone...but that is not quality..that is preference.

Anyone can tweak units in the tens of pieces...try making half a million, that is impressive engineering..what you like is just fine, I've no problem with it..

It's not a debate on overall specs..the statement "plastics, ewwwww", and "3 inch speaker, HAH", are meaningless..

Cheers, John

 

[furrycute]

Have you actually seen or touched a Bose cube? I felt and knocked on one not too long ago. The plastic felt really thin cheap. And when I knocked on it, sounded hollow.

My computer satellites seem to be sturdier than those cubes.

 

[WmAx]

...anyone know what material the B&W Nautilus is made of...or any of the assorted bubbles and blisters on their other models...they go to great pains to avoid naming it, or so it would seem...I don't think it's wood...

"SACRELIGE!!!" I hear...comparing Bose to B&W? No, not really, just trying to make a point...

I don't see a point. My reply is already in the first response. B&W's top midrange module on the N802 is a plastic. But in contrast to the Bose Acoustimiass, it's a thick construction.

Additionally, so what if it might be 2-3mm thick?...if there are ribs or other structural means of buttressing them to minimize any audibly affecting flexing, where is the problem?

I've not[ever] seen a modern Bose product measured and confirmed as a good quality product[relative to price]. In fact, the basic measurements that are published of the Acoustimass satelites demonstrate a poor performing product. How can I assume that they have some how managed to avoid the fate of other thin and low cost enclosures, such as found on a common computer speaker?

I have an old pair of 101s which are constructed of some molded industrial-type "plastic" and they are as inert as inert can be...they have a single driver whose magnet/basket structure weigh a ton and do a decent job in nearfield apps...

I never said a thing about plastic being 'bad', if that's the implication.

-Chris

 

[furrycute]

Quality? When has Bose ever published the frequency response of their cube system?

A Hi-Fi sound system by definition should produce a decent frequency response. The Bose cube system fails miserably at this.

The Bose cube system is NOT a quality Hi-Fi sound system.


If Bose sells the cube system for $200, then fine, it is a quality low-fi system.
But Bose sells the cube system for well over several thousand dollars, then the Bose cube system is by NO means a quality hi-fi system.

 

[jneutron]

Have you actually seen or touched a Bose cube? I felt and knocked on one not too long ago. The plastic felt really thin cheap. And when I knocked on it, sounded hollow.

My computer satellites seem to be sturdier than those cubes.

Hmmm..You applied an impulse to the wall, and heard it's response..

What spectral content was in that pulse?

The point of my statement is this: the internal driver will attempt to move that wall...the wall has a resonance frequency...if both line up, you'll hear it..

The fact that you don't means either the wall resonance is above the frequencies that the driver will impart, this is called stiffening..or, the wall doesn't see the acoustic energy, like if the internal walls are covered with dound deadening material..

Either case has been engineered out by the engineers at Bose..

Not being heavy is essentially of no use. It's, how is it built?

Cheers, John

 

[WmAx]

If the product didn't suffer, 1mm would be used, especially if orthogonal stiffiners were used...do you have actual thickness measurements or was that a guess based on the cheapie computer speakers?

The thickness was a guess, based on some computer speaker enclosures, and my tapping on Acoustimass enclosures in a store. Seemed about the same.

The plastic enclosure may indeed introduce resonances, but that would be a thickness/stiffness tradeoff with sound..the incremental cost increase of the plastic would pale in comparison to customer dis-satisfaction should resonance be an issue..

In the computer speakers, a high amount of sound(resonant bands) radiated from the thin plastic enclosure. But dis-satisfaction? That's another issue all together, as the customers who mainly purchase Bose products do not seem to be audio enthusiasts. Sound quality, I suspect, is not a very important component to the customer's satisfaction in these cases. More so: perception(based on marketing) of the product and the cosmetics(or lack of, since the point is a basicly un-noticed tiny speaker).

Perhaps both? Why would plastic be used on an F-22 raptor wing? Cheap, lightweight?...nope, it's because it meets the specifications.

I never said a thing about plastic being bad when used properly. That's why I gave an example of the N802 speakers. It uses plastic for the midrange module enclosure.

I gave examples of titanium domes, aluminum domes, phenolic domes...showing that big tweets are out there.

I did not read this entire thread. I am only replying to the last post that you made. But a large HF driver has inherant physical properties.

You need to re-think the definition of quality..

My definition is based on credible published perceptual research. The Infinity product(for about $75 each) I mentioned, is a far better quality(per known quality parameters and their relation to sound quality) product than the Acoustimass. One can put together a surround system(5 of those buggers + a low cost sub) and have something of far better sound quality than the Bose Acoustimass.

Quality is the measure of a product's ability to meet the requirements of the application..Bose builds hundreds and thousands of these thingies, and they all sound exactly the same...you may not like the sound, you may scoff at "plastic", or 3 inch speakers, or the color of the cone...but that is not quality..that is preference.

It's apparent that there may be a confusion as to what I refer to when I state 'quality'. I refer to sound quality.

Anyone can tweak units in the tens of pieces...try making half a million, that is impressive engineering..what you like is just fine, I've no problem with it..

I already stated that I found it impressive, based on the context I stated earlier.

-Chris

 

[jneutron]

I don't see a point. My reply is already in the first response. B&W's top midrange module on the N802 is a plastic. But in contrast to the Bose Acoustimiass, it's a thick construction.

Thick is meaningless. What is the flexure strength, the mass, the geometry...in other words, is the thickness required for the application, or is it thick because the customers want it to feel substantial?

I've not[ever] seen a modern Bose product measured and confirmed as a good quality product[relative to price]. In fact, the basic measurements that are published of the Acoustimass satelites demonstrate a poor performing product.

Isn't the bass stuff kinda room dependent?? Maybe they shoulda asked JR about some bass traps...
Cheers, John

 

[WmAx]

Thick is meaningless. What is the flexure strength, the mass, the geometry...in other words, is the thickness required for the application, or is it thick because the customers want it to feel substantial?

Specific parameters of the flexure, mass, etc., are not available. But measurements of the transmitted resonance(s) demonstrate an excellent behaviour, relative to most other cabinets, on the N802/N801 design(same midrange module). And when I tried these, no perceptible sound was transmitted from the plastic enclosures, as was not the case with the thin plastic enclosures I have been exposed to.

Isn't the bass stuff kinda room dependent?? Maybe they shoulda asked JR about some bass traps...
Cheers, John

No, not what I refer to, unless your room is the size of a coat closet. The subwoofer on the Acoustimass responds to frequencies that are too high, for a modulized system that sits several feet from the midrange radiators. I did not even mention the very high non-linear distortion that must be present[or can be traded or linear distortion, a.k.a. one-noted bass -- if that is decided by the engineering team], by using a single 6" subwoofer in a normal size room.

-Chris

 

[jneutron]

The thickness was a guess, based on some computer speaker enclosures, and my tapping on Acoustimass enclosures in a store. Seemed about the same.

I figured..it's very hard to guess thickness based on tapping..they do such weird things with plastic nowadays..and, btw, if the fundamental freq you heard when tapping is above the working freq regime of the module, it doesn't make a diff..

In the computer speakers, a high amount of sound(resonant bands) radiated from the thin plastic enclosure. But dis-satisfaction? That's another issue all together, as the customers who mainly purchase Bose products do not seem to be audio enthusiasts. Sound quality, I suspect, is not a very important component to the customer's satisfaction in these cases. More so: perception(based on marketing) of the product and the cosmetics(or lack of, since the point is a basicly un-noticed tiny speaker)..

Nah, they also consider sound quality..but not to the extreme that others do..

They may indeed be audio enthusiasts, but sometimes people can't be bothered trying to cobble together an audio package, when one off the shelf sounds good to them..

I did not read this entire thread. I am only replying to the last post that you made. But a large HF driver has inherant physical properties..

Yup..and, your description of cone drivers and decoupling with frequency was a good one..I use mainly 2 inch vc compression drivers.

I already stated that I found it (the engineering) impressive, based on the context I stated earlier.

I was responding to this:

I agree, that it is impressive engineering, so far as this relates to the actual cost of production to the Bose team. It would probably be tough to build stuff of equivalent quality/performance for the cost that Bose pays to have it manufactured. But it is poor quality, considering the retail price..

Cost is not a quality issue..unless, of course, the production line suffers lots of scrap..

Cheers, John