Not to beat a dead horse...

[Buckeyefan 1]

The Bose model has to it all figured out. It is the ultimate "WAF" friendly system. Doesn't anyone get it? Haven't you been to a "parade of homes" lately? It's not about sound. It's not about technology. It's about how to sell more systems to more people. They've realized the WAF effect, and how 50% of the market has some say in what goes into living rooms. Are 3.5" drivers with hidden 6" subs better than nothing? They know if they can improve upon the sound of a 36" CRT, they've won the battle. It's all about marketing 101. The reason they don't debate in these forums is because they don't give a rats @ss about this miniscule segment of the A/V population. It's too small, and insignificant.

I had a storm delay before my 6pm appointment tonight, and decided to stroll on into Best Buy at Polaris. After picking up a $49 LG water filter for my overpriced refridgerator and a $18 2.8Ghz phone to replace the dead one on the family room (rechargable batteries ran as much as the new phone!), I demo'd the Bose 321 or 123 system. I almost lost my luch. The HTIB's out now surpass the quality of these $1000 Bose setups. I had to stroll on back to the Yamaha/Athena flat screen 3.5" towers again. As no surprise, the Yamaha's sounded very good, and the Athena's were horrific. I feel sorry for the general public, who has to make decisions based on what BB and CC offer in the realm of audio. Bose has mass marketed the newest wave of snake oil at prices even Bill Gates would refuse to pay. What's the latest stock quote? Can I get in?

 

[jneutron]

A bending-mode driver is a transducer that is engineered to work optimally, in a bending mode fashion, as opposed to engineering it to work optimally as a rigid piston. Typically, a diaphgragm that has been designed to have a high level of mechanical dampening, that increases losses rapidly as frequency rises and you move outwards from the center of the diaphragm. The result[in practice] is a driver that responds to a broader band of frequencies, but with fewer resonances[in the upper frequency bands] and wider high frequency dispersion, as compared to standard drivers[which design with the goal of retaining a perfectly pistonic behaviour -- which is usually not achieved anyways] that are used in an extremely wide bandwidth. Examples of bending mode drivers that were effective are: Manger, Airfoil and Linaeum produced drivers.

-Chris

Ah, thank you..I've never heard that name before.. In the old days, the typical full range driver had a tapered cone angle, steep at the vc, shallow at the surround, to provide de-coupling of the higher frequencies from the bulk of the driver surface. Also, they used circular ribs as decoupling mechanisms..they looked like some kind of stiffeners, but were actually half round isolations, much like the half round foam surrounds in shape, but on the paper.

Cheers, John

 

[jneutron]

Why does not a single Bose speaker have THX certification? Surely the cost of certification is not a barrier for a company as large and profitable as Bose.

With all the money they spend on R&D, the fantastic engineering that goes into their speaker designs, the "better sound through research" claims, why I would think they could breeze through the tests.

Why should they worry about THX certification? Do they feel there is any value in obtaining it?

Does their target market even care, or know the difference? No.

If they felt it would increase their market share, they'd do it..simple..

Cheers, John

 

[jneutron]

I think Bose designs are based more on business principles rather than audio.

No. They have produced the smallest boxes they are capable of, with the best sound they can get out of them, to appeal to half the world's population..the ones who really rule the roost..and they have done so by extending the science behind resonant enclosures..that acoustimass is a 7th order bandpass? Geeze, those equations are huge..

Satisfying their target market is their business model, and they have historically done quite well at that. And they have developed significant advances in enclosure mathematics..

I purchased a phillips dvd/5.1 system for 250 bucks, I love it...it met the need. Small speakers, low profile player/amp..decent small sub that hides behind the tv..that is the Bose market...turnkey solutions that sound good.

Cheers, John

 

[Resident Loser]

Well...

...this pretty much went as I surmised it would...

What started out as topic "A" has included so much other stuff that we've pretty much run out of letters to designate by...

Beginning with someone who nearly goes into terminal giggles at the sight of a demo sample, to another who actually seems to think there are musical notes flitting about the 13Khz range it's all been there...misinformation at the ready...after slaking one's thirst at the vast puddle that is the 'net, we're good to go!

And cheez, WmAx...you really come off as a disgruntled former employee of the company whose name starts with "B" and ends with "ose"...I'm even hesitant to type the word in toto for fear of the convoluted turn the response might take.

For every caveat you have mentioned, I have supplied what I consider at least, a resonable counter...you criticize structural stability, I suggest the "arch" analogy and your response is "yeah, but...". I mention the potential for a "trickle-down" of the radiating-area-of-multiple- drivers- concept from the 901s and again another "yeah, but..." moment, so now THEY are under scrutiny(even tho' mentioned merely as reference point) and doubts raised about needed excursion parameters. I supply the spec'd tolerances and we're off to "non-linear distortion" land...I've never heard any IM or harmonic artifacts in the years I've had them, but I guess since I'm told they should be there, they probably are...although I've neither the gear nor the inclination to test for them...I really should be dissatisfied with them, shouldn't I? I guess I'll disregard the "live vs. playback" quality of the master tapes I've made on my 3440...the reproduction via my 901s CAN'T be as good as I've thought it is...

Again, I'll take this opportunity to refresh the memories of those of the "sound-bite" generation. I am referencing my experience with MY properly set-up 901-lls and further limiting my comments to an admittedly cursory acquaintance with the AM5...which MSRPs @$399 BTW...The 3-2-1 and the Lifestyle systems are not under consideration, at least from my POV, as they are closed-end and overpriced, IN THAT ORDER!

Now, back to our story...Discontinuity? Well, probably...particularly if the bass module is placed far enough from the satts...How do things fare if all members of the system are placed in a reasonable and logical configuration to minimize said discontinuity? Decor? I mean sticking it behind your couch or under your dog makes absolutely no sense at all...except of course in the WAF aspect...and besides, as I have said previously, I generally have a significant problem with the single-summing sub or bass module...I for one don't buy into the whole bass non-directionality issue...of course I've never DBT'd to prove or disprove it but, like the guy who demands his full 20-20kHz, d@mmit, it's stereo and I want two!

Objections to my "dustcap" reference?... poorly focused or some such...IT'S "STEREO EVERYWHERE"...DIRECT/REFLECTING...THAT'S THE WAY IT WORKS...where do they tout "imaging" or any thing like it?

If nothing else, I have a new appreciation for the trials I may have put some of the "wire guys" through...although still no sympathy and if I didn't know before this(although I did) I fully understand why mtry admits to owning little more than a boom-box.

So my general advice is, for those into HT, buy Bose, it's got the right stuff...exagerated lows and beamy highs...more than sufficient for those laser-toting, mechanical lizards...

jimHJJ(...did I mention HT is a waste of time?...)

 

[Mort Corey]

And hopefully now this poor old horse can rest in peace.

Mort

 

[JohnA]

BANG...it's dead....no wait....BANG BANG BANG...STAB STAB STAB...HACK HACK HACK...OK it's dead!!

 

[Resident Loser]

I wouldn't bet on it...

jimHJJ(...NFT...)

 

[JohnA]

You don't see me putting money down do you?

 

[furrycute]

So my general advice is, for those into HT, buy Bose, it's got the right stuff...exagerated lows and beamy highs...more than sufficient for those laser-toting, mechanical lizards...

$3,000 on an inferior Bose cube system? No thanks.

 

[WmAx]

And cheez, WmAx...you really come off as a disgruntled former employee of the company whose name starts with "B" and ends with "ose"...I'm even hesitant to type the word in toto for fear of the convoluted turn the response might take.

If this is your perception, well, so be it. My critical attitude of the product in question is one of legitimate concern, and one that you would understand, if you were aware of the critical parameters and how they affect reproduction/behaviour, perceptually.

For every caveat you have mentioned, I have supplied what I consider at least, a resonable counter..

Since you are no longer replying to or addressing the actual posts, I'll not comment on these issues in this off-take reply that does not place the situation(s) into proper context.

....the reproduction via my 901s CAN'T be as good as I've thought it is...

Again, my critical take of this[other] product was a direct result of your interjection, that I answered reasonably, but I will not address it in this off-take. I never 'bashed' anything, nor intended to do so, so if you interpreted this, then re-consider. In case you missed it: I never said the 901 could not produce satisfactory sound for many people.

-Chris

 

[Resident Loser]

Pity the poor college drop-out...

...I'm sorta' OK to here:

My critical attitude of the product in question is one of legitimate concern...

Concern for? Price? Hype? Quality?...sorry, but if your concerns are those three issues, there are much bigger fish to fry IMHO.

... and one that you would understand, if you were aware of the critical parameters and how they affect reproduction/behaviour, perceptually...

Here's where things go askew...of what significance are these "critical parameters" if they don't cause problems that I can percieve? Paper or Plastic? I mean, would you be happy with a $2800 Accuton pure diamond tweeter in a $20K+ loudspeaker? If the tweeter is <$3k how could they charge that much more?

...Since you are no longer replying to or addressing the actual posts, I'll not comment on these issues in this off-take reply that does not place the situation(s) into proper context...

OK...contextually, howzabout most, if not all, of post #63.

Again, my critical take of this[other] product was a direct result of your interjection, that I answered reasonably, but I will not address it in this off-take. I never 'bashed' anything, nor intended to do so, so if you interpreted this, then re-consider. In case you missed it: I never said the 901 could not produce satisfactory sound for many people.

Never said you "bashed" and I did catch the "many people" reference, however the focus did shift away from the subject-at-hand to my simple point of reference which, in turn, became the crux of the biscuit.

jimHJJ(..."no it's not said little Nicole...")

 

[WmAx]

...I'm sorta' OK to here:

Concern for? Price? Hype? Quality?...sorry, but if your concerns are those three issues, there are much bigger fish to fry IMHO.

That may very well be. But the thread concerned a specific fish.

Here's where things go askew...of what significance are these "critical parameters" if they don't cause problems that I can percieve? Paper or Plastic? I mean, would you be happy with a $2800 Accuton pure diamond tweeter in a $20K+ loudspeaker? If the tweeter is <$3k how could they charge that much more?

How can anyone estimate your personal perception(s), except for you? You can be happy, or percieve anything that you like[obviously]. No one brought up extreme priced tweeters such as the Accuton, it's not an issue here. I don't know why it's mentioned. Nor did I ever raise an issue of paper vs. plastic.

OK...contextually, howzabout most, if not all, of post #63.

Refer to post #69. The direct reply to post #63.

-Chris

 

[Resident Loser]

And here's where...

That may very well be. But the thread concerned a specific fish.



How can anyone estimate your personal perception(s), except for you? You can be happy, or percieve anything that you like[obviously]. No one brought up extreme priced tweeters such as the Accuton, it's not an issue here. I don't know why it's mentioned. Nor did I ever raise an issue of paper vs. plastic.



Refer to post #69. The direct reply to post #63.

-Chris

...the legitimate discourse devolves into the rhetorical p!$$ing match of did, didn't, he said, he said...

jimHJJ(...all together now, in a vigorous circular motion...)

 

[jneutron]

Chris

I think I can explain it like this...please take no offense..

You've basically alluded to:

1. Bose is poor quality. (I provided you a correct definition of quality)

2. Bose is too expensive. (For what they do, perhaps..perhaps not..)

3. Bose uses substandard engineering. (trust me, they are excellent)

4. Bose is only interested in money, at the expense of quality. (It's a tradeoff, like every other manu)

5. Bose uses substandard materials. (they use what is needed..no more, no less)

Essentially, your point on localization/crossover freq, is rather good. But, as to all your other points (again, take no offense please, as I didn't re-read all the posts, some may not be to what you personally said.), the engineering of the product is, on quite a few points, awesome..some not so.. but those are the tradeoffs.

You might as well complain about my minivan not having acceleration capabilities that "true" car enthusiasts prefer...you can look down your nose, rhetorically speaking, at my choice, but I can carry a tub, a toilet, a sink, all the flooring grout and mortar, and three sheets of CCB on the roof rack in one trip. I don't care about the 1/4 mile, I don't need a drop top, I don't even have a CD player in it..but it fits my criteria, and does so very, very well..that is quality. (well, except for the transmission...it is a plymouth, after all )

You can harp all you want, what you may like in cars doesn't float my boat..what you prefer in speakers, others may not...

I value your opinion regarding audio, and would certainly listen to your recommendations....But at the same time, I am wary of those who get emotionally tied to trashing a specific product with inaccurate statements.. wall thickness comes to mind..and things like poor engineering..

Perhaps this thread is left alone, perhaps locked down..as it appears to have wound down and away from specific audio stuff..

Cheers, John

 

[WmAx]

Chris

I think I can explain it like this...please take no offense..

You've basically alluded to:

1. Bose is poor quality. (I provided you a correct definition of quality)

Quality is a word that can be applied to different things. The specific things that I referred to were specific and defined in prior posts. Your definition is no more correct than mine, since they were applied to different things.

2. Bose is too expensive. (For what they do, perhaps..perhaps not..)

3. Bose uses substandard engineering. (trust me, they are excellent)

Also covered in prior posts. Excellent, sure, within the context of the meager cost they spend in producing them, and that they do exactly what Bose want them to do for that meager cost. They are not excellent examples of engineering, in regards to the objective of sound quality, based on current standing journal publications. My use of the word engineering is not exclusive in referring to designing a product to established specfications.

4. Bose is only interested in money, at the expense of quality. (It's a tradeoff, like every other manu)

Right. This was covered in-depth.

Each point was carefully contexted in the relevant replies. Including the quality, etc.. This short re-cap only serves to confuse matters, really.

Essentially, your point on localization/crossover freq, is rather good. But, as to all your other points (again, take no offense please, as I didn't re-read all the posts, some may not be to what you personally said.), the engineering of the product is, on quite a few points, awesome..some not so.. but those are the tradeoffs.

So, why is the localization issue so important as to consider, and not the other issues? I'm just wondering why you single out this point. Sound quality issues don't seem like a matter you are concerned with, so far as the Bose product in question is concerned.

You might as well complain about my minivan not having acceleration capabilities that "true" car enthusiasts prefer...you can look down your nose, rhetorically speaking, at my choice, but I can carry a tub, a toilet, a sink, all the flooring grout and mortar, and three sheets of CCB on the roof rack in one trip. I don't care about the 1/4 mile, I don't need a drop top, I don't even have a CD player in it..but it fits my criteria, and does so very, very well..that is quality. (well, except for the transmission...it is a plymouth, after all )

I thought this was already covered: I never said the product would not satisfy many people.

I value your opinion regarding audio, and would certainly listen to your recommendations....But at the same time, I am wary of those who get emotionally tied to trashing a specific product with inaccurate statements.. wall thickness comes to mind..and things like poor engineering..

Inaccurate statements? Please specify. So far as poor engineering, I can't remember exactly what I might have said, verbatim[I don't feel like re-reading the thread], but I did state that it was very good engineering in the context of a very low cost[to produce for the manufacturer] item that meets the Bose objectives. You really should go back and re-read the posts in reponse to the wall thickness, engineering comments, and the specific wording and contexts presented. Your re-cap, overall, appears[to me] to be suggesting[through implications] things that are not accurate in context to the state of the thread as of your posting time. So far as emotions: I don't have emotional interest invested in Bose, one way or the other, at least not of which I'm consciously aware.

Here is my impression of the discussion so far:

-You are impressed with the engineering of the Bose product, so far as it meeting the Bose objectives for the minimum manufacturing cost possible.

-I am impressed, in the same as above. I am not impressed with the engineering of the product, so far as issues that relate to sound quality are concerned.

-You take issue of my various things I have raised, such as enclosure wall resonance, and I don't know what else. But you, as of this point, have seemingly not paid attention to the specific context and wording of the posts in regards to this issue[wall thickness, for example], otherwise, I don't think you would have made the last post.

-Chris

 

[jneutron]

Inaccurate statements? Please specify. So far as poor engineering, I can't remember exactly what I might have said, verbatim[I don't feel like re-reading the thread],.......You really should go back and re-read the posts in reponse to the wall thickness, engineering comments, and the specific wording and contexts presented.Chris

Done..I have attempted to organize your statements that I have been discussing..and I hope I did not take anything too far out of context..my intent is discussion, not arguing..

Wall thickness:

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

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?

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

In the computer speakers, a high amount of sound(resonant bands) radiated from the thin plastic enclosure.

That is true, but in extreme examples, like computer speakers[and bose acoustimass satellites], it so thin, it's hard to think of how it would not have a negative impact.

Meaning both. The Bose seem about as thick as the computer speakers of with which I was comparing them. On the computer speaker it was insufficient. But it's true, that I don't have an Acoustimass in order to analyze. But I don't have confidence in Bose, as they have not shown that they cared in other choices that effect sound quality.

Tapping on the side of an acoustimass reveals the resonant frequency is located in the [critical] midrange. True, that this is not quantitive, but it seems rather extreme effect on this product

Indeed, it is true[what you say about an arch]. However, that can not fix everything. A quick rap on the side of one of these reveals a resonant and thin structure.

Within one paragraph, you stated the walls are very very thin plastic..but you don't have one to measure, but then they are guessed as 3mm..

Then, "thickness is a guess."

Then, by extension, they resonate like computer speakers..

Then, "it's hard to think how it could not have a neg impact".

But, then you state: "But it's true, that I don't have an Acoustimass in order to analyze.

And, all of this, you have stated:

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.

While your sweeping generalizations of thinwall bad, small woof bad, big tweet bad, etc, are actually fairly good generalizations, you approach the issue not with actual facts, but with an overall dislike for anything remotely resembling Bose..

-You take issue of my various things I have raised, such as enclosure wall resonance, and I don't know what else. But you, as of this point, have seemingly not paid attention to the specific context and wording of the posts in regards to this issue[wall thickness, for example], otherwise, I don't think you would have made the last post.

Incorrect. I have read, understood, and appreciated every word you have typed. And have learned, as well, thank you.

You have come in, armed for a fight, because it is Bose..that is very clear..

If you wish to state "very high non linear distortion" is a part of the product, then I expect to see measurements...not the words.."that must be present", or "Yes, I am generalizing", statements not supported by factual information..

I planted about half your statements in this post, I figured you get the flavor.but my ride is here, gotta go..

I do thank you for remaining quite civil..as always, a pleasure...

Cheers, John

PS...I am confident we share an awful lot regarding sound quality concerns, and that nobody in this thread is gonna be converted..but I am also confident that regardless of our disagreements, others are learning..a pleasure Chris..thanks..good day.

 

[WmAx]

Within one paragraph, you stated the walls are very very thin plastic..but you don't have one to measure, but then they are guessed as 3mm..

Then, "thickness is a guess."

Then, by extension, they resonate like computer speakers..

Then, "it's hard to think how it could not have a neg impact".

But, then you state: "But it's true, that I don't have an Acoustimass in order to analyze.

And, all of this, you have stated:

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.

While your sweeping generalizations of thinwall bad, small woof bad, big tweet bad, etc, are actually fairly good generalizations, you approach the issue not with actual facts, but with an overall dislike for anything remotely resembling Bose..

You find my generalizations to be "fairly good". Well, in this discussion, that's all that they were, and this was carefully qualified in almost every post, using the qualifiers such as seem, think, etc.. I'll be certain to italicize every qualifier in this post, so that they are not missed.

Incorrect. I have read, understood, and appreciated every word you have typed. And have learned, as well, thank you.

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.

You have come in, armed for a fight, because it is Bose..that is very clear..

That's your perception. I just happened to come across this thread, and found it interesting enough to participate within. I have no problem with the product being a Bose. The only problems I have, is with the apparent lack of quality directed to sound quality for the relative price vs. other available products. They just don't strike me as a high-value[in regards to sound quality vs. retail price] product for consumers, based on my research and experiences as of this point in time.

If you wish to state "very high non linear distortion" is a part of the product, then I expect to see measurements...not the words.."that must be present", or "Yes, I am generalizing", statements not supported by factual information..

What I said, verbatim:

"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."

The movement in question was +/- 1/4". This is a historical matter of speaker transducer design. The suspension system(spider and surround), as well as the motor systems that were popular in that era, and lack of FEA software design capabilities, did not yeild drivers of that size with linear movement in that range, of which I am aware. Even today, many small size midbass/midwoofer drivers[even high priced ones] of this size have trouble remaining linear, even at low to moderate power input, at low frequencies[due to the relatively large excursion/incursion required with a driver of that diameter and resonant frequency]. If you are curious about the non-linear behaviour of modern high-quality midwoofers of the approximate size as the ones in the 901, you can find some measurements here:

http://206.13.113.199/ncdiyaudio/mark/Testing_page.htm

I did not make a single comment about what excursion limits the Bose 901 drivers operate within at normal operating conditions. I stated that the drivers would be non linear, and this was specifically intended to apply to the +/- 1/4" figure that a previous poster mentioned. The original exchange with that poster was due to comparing several 4.5" drivers of the same surface area with a large single woofer of equivalent surface area. Where he stated:

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

Which I replied:

"While the surface area might be 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 far higher displacement[due to extended incursion/excursion] and a lower resonant frequency."

Both factors[resonant frequency and linear excursion], as compared to a large bass driver or reasonable design, that has equivalent surface area, do not lead me to believe that the comparison would be equal.

-Chris

 

[mulester7]

.....ok, but then you bring into the mix that 8 of the 9 drivers of a 901 reflect off a back surface.....

 

[mulester7]

.....(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).....