Not to beat a dead horse...

[Steve1000]

Now that I look at it and reviewing some web info, it appears that the now-discontinued AM15, purported to have been tested by Sound and Vision by the person who wrote the article to which you linked, used that same cube array as the Acoustimass 5. The smaller cube arrays appear to be introduced in Bose's higher priced home theater system categories. So it appears that a valid criticism of the AM15 cubes themselves would likely be valid for the AM3 or AM5, at least for the time frame during which the article was written. Still, the differences in measurement between the CR and Sound & Vision measurements are nearly unfathomable to me. It's something I find very interesting. I do vageuly remember reading the Sound and Vision review, now that I think of it, and it was a failry positive review, but of course they have a tendency to veil their criticisms in an Allen Greenspan-esque type way, though to me this is better than the pure fiction you see in most other mags. Also, most Sound & Vision frequency response plots do contain a lot of jagged lines, for whatever reason. It's over my head.

As for the dead horse, actually, a clear, expert, highly informed and unbiased view of Bose products would mark a superior audio web site and would contribute mightily to the research and information available to the average consumer, in addition to significantly increasing web traffic of a particilar site due to the heated nature such discussions take on. I have a feeling it's not nearly so bad as most audiophiles think, though certainly Bose marketing claims cannot help but feed the fire, or at least make you chuckle a little.

Having intelligent, talented people debate the subject is a nice start. What I see is that after the smoke and fire clear there is a lack of adequate information and there are indeed two sides to the story.

I don't know.

-Chris

 

[jneutron]

Having intelligent, talented people debate the subject is a nice start. .

I like to chip in also...

What I see is that after the smoke and fire clear there is a lack of adequate information and there are indeed two sides to the story.

Eloquent posts of this nature will only serve to get you banned for life...

Cheers, John

 

[Resident Loser]

As a layman...

...and more of a hobbist who barely knows the difference between a Helmholtz resonator and a corn-dog(other than the guess that the resonator has greater nutritional value)...I was quite satisfied to see my thoughts were on the same track as jneutron...

I too, am also of the opinion that the bass module would be the focal point for more the substantial "cabinetry" in order to minimize resonances...however if one looks at the shape of the AM satts, a bit more is revealed as to inherent enclosure strength...Viewed from above, these "cabinets" describe an arch, probably one of the more structurally efficient forms in architecture. I would take a guess that, much like their vertical counterparts, this design more evenly distributes and withstands the stress they would encounter as a containment for the backwave of the enclosed drivers...which in my mind raises another point, a 2.5in driver mounted on a 3in. square "baffle" should have fewer problems arising from cabinet refractions, a subject which seems to have become a bit of a bugaboo in modern loudspeaker design...unless of course you resort to a cabinet design that harkens back to the tail-end of a '58 Olds...

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. Since there are two of them per/ch...the total effective radiating area would be the equivalent of a >3.75in. mid unit and the higher freqs would be naturally divided and subsequently handled by the individual smaller transducers and ultimately by their dustcaps...much as the "whizzer" cones from the days of yore. Simple, effective and cheap.

Insofar as the frequency response plots exhibited are concerned, they raise a few questions. Are they skewed in some fashion due to the seemingly wide spread and inherent bias against Bose products in general? Given the fact that the satt modules can be "aimed" to provide from very "focused" to wider dispersion patterns, under what circumstances where these plots arrived at? If at max direct/reflect mode, certainly room effects would play a part. Were the data taken from a point commonly termed the "sweet spot" as it would be positioned, based on the recommended placement parameters from the manufacturer? If not, the results would be suspect IMHO. Also take into consideration the net response of the Acoustimas bass module is placement dependent.

Please take note my comments are based on the Acoustimas 5 system...I have little experience with the 3-2-1 or Lifestyle systems, as I personally have a problem(as evidenced by the connectivity quotient of my "collection") with closed-end plug'n'play products of this type.

I have always submitted that fully appreciating the Bose experience requires a different listening mindset and again, my input is limited to, and based on, my personal experience with the 901-lls and is a direct result of the constant bash, bash, bash. I am not urging everyone to sell what they own and head to the nearest Bose store or retailer...I simply suggest giving their products a listen and deciding for yourself, rather than take the opinions gleaned from, of all places, the internet...as it plumbs the depths of it's vast puddle of knowledge.

jimHJJ(...just some more thoughts...)

 

[WmAx]

Also, most Sound & Vision frequency response plots do contain a lot of jagged lines, for whatever reason. It's over my head.

The jagged lines and spikes are a result of a less software smoothing applied to the response plot. You can apply smoothing to any plot to mask these things in the measurement. It is a function that is supposed to be used for the purposes of estimaing critical band width for tonality representation[for example, human ears closely percieve tonality as a 1/3 octave function], or to just remove small irregularities[in a very conservative fashion]. However, it can be abused, in order to make a bad response look somewhat 'good', thereby hiding sharp spikes/response irregularities. If CR measurements are always smooth looking compared to S&V, that would place additional suspicion on CR's speaker evaluation competance, in my eyes.

-Chris

 

[Privateer]

Is this a joke? Resident Loser, jneutron why even try to argue a point that makes no point? The bose "cube" systems have trouble hitting a 13kHz note at -10db, no other speaker out there is that pathetic. You can argue about the 901's but it does not go very far, in there hay day the 901's were ok but 20-30 years later they are at the bottom of the pack. If you want something small with a high WAF then go spend some decent coin and look at B&O.

 

[WmAx]

Is this a joke? Resident Loser, jneutron why even try to argue a point that makes no point? The bose "cube" systems have trouble hitting a 13kHz note at -10db, no other speaker out there is that pathetic. You can argue about the 901's but it does not go very far, in there hay day the 901's were ok but 20-30 years later they are at the bottom of the pack. If you want something small with a high WAF then go spend some decent coin and look at B&O.

This might very well be the only time that this will ever occur: I agree with Privateer about the relative[based on price] quality of the Bose cubes. To be frank, my opinion is that they are not[for reasons I already listed in this thread] good products for the price. I'm sure that defense of the product might be a noble action, but it simply does not deserve it. The speaker ignores several well-known technical issues[in the name of cost savings] that are required to make a high quality loudspeaker, according to the known parameters set forth by scientific research.

-Chris

 

[Steve1000]

Bias or not on the part of the measurer (after years of reading Stereo Review / High Fidelity / Sound & Vision I have a decent amount of faith in them), the point is well-taken that measuring the Bose Acoustimass AM3 and AM5 speakers will require some level of subjective judgment as to placement not required when measuring conventional loudspeakers. Perhaps I should not be so surprised to see two such dramatically different sets of measurements then. It is not just a factor of smoothing; the CR curves are extended out to very near 20 khz and well into the bass region, and remarkably balanced, whether or not resonances may be hidden by smoothing (as they quite possibly are). CR rates them as excellent and at or near the top year after year after year.

I will say, that I had one opportunity to compare a CR evalution to a Sound & Vision one with a Cambridge Soundworks satellite system. Sound & Vision indicated the speakers were too bright; CR gave no hint of this, and rated them very highly. I tried them at home and they were indeed too bright.

That being said, as I recall, the Sound & Vision Bose AM 15 review was a fairly positive one, IIRC.

I read a S&V magazine during lunch today, read a review of an Energy surround sound speaker system they liked. The dedicated center channel speaker showed a jagged spike and dip of between 10 and 15 db at about 3 khz, much, much worse than what the Bose satellite measurement posted here shows. I have a feeling that a signficant amount of specific knowledge as to the S&V testing procedure is required in able to intepret their graphs without resorting to unacceptable levels of speculation.

Insofar as the frequency response plots exhibited are concerned, they raise a few questions. Are they skewed in some fashion due to the seemingly wide spread and inherent bias against Bose products in general? Given the fact that the satt modules can be "aimed" to provide from very "focused" to wider dispersion patterns, under what circumstances where these plots arrived at? If at max direct/reflect mode, certainly room effects would play a part. Were the data taken from a point commonly termed the "sweet spot" as it would be positioned, based on the recommended placement parameters from the manufacturer? If not, the results would be suspect IMHO. Also take into consideration the net response of the Acoustimas bass module is placement dependent.

Please take note my comments are based on the Acoustimas 5 system...I have little experience with the 3-2-1 or Lifestyle systems, as I personally have a problem(as evidenced by the connectivity quotient of my "collection") with closed-end plug'n'play products of this type.
jimHJJ(...just some more thoughts...)

 

[Steve1000]

Good luck with that!

I agree with Privateer.

-Chris

 

[WmAx]

I too, am also of the opinion that the bass module would be the focal point for more the substantial "cabinetry" in order to minimize resonances...

The bass cabinet is only a small part of the important spectrum for resonances[actually, the bass cabinet should not be very important in this regard if the bass module was responding to the very low, non directional frequencies, that it would only cover if it was a well designed-for-sound system, in the first place].

however if one looks at the shape of the AM satts, a bit more is revealed as to inherent enclosure strength...Viewed from above, these "cabinets" describe an arch, probably one of the more structurally efficient forms in architecture.

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. Not an inert one or one with resonant frequency outside of the relevant band.

raises another point, a 2.5in driver mounted on a 3in. square "baffle" should have fewer problems arising from cabinet refractions, a subject which seems to have become a bit of a bugaboo in modern loudspeaker design...unless of course you resort to a cabinet design that harkens back to the tail-end of a '58 Olds...

The small front profile hardly makes up for the other poor design parameters.

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.

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.

Since there are two of them per/ch...the total effective radiating area would be the equivalent of a >3.75in. mid unit and the higher freqs would be naturally divided and subsequently handled by the individual smaller transducers and ultimately by their dustcaps...much as the "whizzer" cones from the days of yore. Simple, effective and cheap.

Effective? Not for good polar response[dispersion] or for transducer born resonances.

Not that such a speaker can not sound decent, but it's far removed from what is known to be a very high quality sound reproduction device.

-Chris

 

[Privateer]

You are missing the point, the bose systems can not hit a 13kHz note or higher, end of story. Bose is a laughing joke in the audio world.

 

[Resident Loser]

First of all...

The bose "cube" systems have trouble hitting a 13kHz note at -10db, no other speaker out there is that pathetic..

...I defy you to name one instrument(other than perhaps a synth) whose range of fundamentals goes above 5kHz...watch out for that puddle!

You can argue about the 901's but it does not go very far, in there hay day the 901's were ok but 20-30 years later they are at the bottom of the pack.

As I explained earlier I'm referencing the 901 Series lls, last of the acoustic suspension models...I have no long-term personal experience with subsequent ported vintages...I tend not to speak of things with which I enjoy no familiarity.

If you want something small with a high WAF then go spend some decent coin and look at B&O

Sorry...I regard B&O as pricey, kinetic art...

Is this a joke? Resident Loser, jneutron why even try to argue a point that makes no point?

I agree, some exchanges ARE pointless...

jimHJJ(..nudge, nudge...wink, wink...)

 

[WmAx]

CR rates them as excellent and at or near the top year after year after year.

I am not aware of CR having a well-established ratings system, that corellates with real listener preferences. Actually, Sean Olive[often associated with Floyd Toole in scientific perceptual research] says that the CR system is not reliable.

In fact, it was some middling ratings for Harman speakers in Consumer Reports that prompted an examination of just how effective that approach is, and according to Olive, the answer is "not very. In fact, the sound-power model suggests that if you turn a speaker around so it's facing a wall you'll have the same listening experience, and we know that's not the case." Indeed, Olive has discovered a negative correlation between CU's results and listener preferences and has developed his own models (Ref. 2) that indicate what objective measurements best correspond to subjective listener preferences.

http://www.reed-electronics.com/tmworld/article/CA475937.html?industryid=3125

-Chris

 

[Privateer]

...I defy you to name one instrument(other than perhaps a synth) whose range of fundamentals goes above 5kHz...watch out for that puddle!

Is this another joke? So now you say that speakers do not have to go above 5kHz?

 

[Privateer]

Sorry...I regard B&O as pricey, kinetic art...

Atleast the B&O equipment can reproduce the audio spectrum unlike bose!

 

[Steve1000]

Very nice stuff, very interesting stuff, thanks. Of course he had a highly vested interest in attacking CRs methodology by name, but it looks like pretty good information. My listening experience has been that Sound & Vision is more reliable, FWIW. I would reiterate that their review of the AM 15s was a pretty good one, too, with reservations, as I recall. Certainly not as positive as CRs ratings of the AM3s and AM5s though.

I am not aware of CR having a well-established ratings system, that corellates with real listener preferences. Actually, Sean Olive[often associated with Floyd Toole in scientific perceptual research] says that the CR system is not reliable.


http://www.reed-electronics.com/tmworld/article/CA475937.html?industryid=3125

-Chris

 

[Resident Loser]

Just a quickie...

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.

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...

jimHJJ(...gotta' go, time is tight...)

 

[WmAx]

Very nice stuff, very interesting stuff, thanks. Of course he had a highly vested interest in attacking CRs methodology by name, but it looks like pretty good information. My listening experience has been that Sound & Vision is more reliable, FWIW. I would reiterate that their review of the AM

While it may appear[and the he does] have a vested interest. He[and Floyd] are basicly the pinnacle of scientific perceptual research relative to loudpseaker design. Their work[including what he states here] has been published in scientific journal[JAES] and peer reviewed. These two researchers are essentially the most credible people in reference to loudspeaker parameters relative to sound quality, on the planet.

-Chris

 

[WmAx]

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...

jimHJJ(...gotta' go, time is tight...)

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.

BTW, I never claimed that the Bose could not produce satisfactory sound for many people. Just putting that out there....

-Chris

 

[jneutron]

Is this a joke? Resident Loser, jneutron why even try to argue a point that makes no point? The bose "cube" systems have trouble hitting a 13kHz note at -10db, no other speaker out there is that pathetic. You can argue about the 901's but it does not go very far, in there hay day the 901's were ok but 20-30 years later they are at the bottom of the pack. If you want something small with a high WAF then go spend some decent coin and look at B&O.

No, it is not a joke.

I plotted some data on a log chart, to see what that silly little graph was saying..

It looks like the zero dB crossing is occurring somewhere in the 14Khz region, and the -5 dB point is somewhere between 16 and 17 Khz.

Where are you getting this -10 dB at 13K number you keep using as justification???

If you wish to make a point, please use facts..even this eye candy graph shows you to be incorrect.

Cheers, John

 

[jneutron]

To be frank, my opinion is that they are not[for reasons I already listed in this thread] good products for the price.

On this point, we certainly agree. It is also overpriced in my book..Both of you have pointed to speakers which would fare better in a listening appraisel..

I'm sure that defense of the product might be a noble action, but it simply does not deserve it.

I am not defending the product per se..I am pointing out that irresponsible bashing of a very well engineered product by those who do not have the same criteria for purchase as the target market Bose is persuing...is not acceptable..

So far, I've seen "eww, plastic", ewww, 3 or 4 inch driver"..."ewww, boom box resonator", what else, oh yah.. "10 dB down at 13Khz"..ewwww.

And, as has been shown, all those barbs are without merit..

So far, the best and only reasons I've seen here to purchase product other than Bose, has come from you...price vs "quality of sound", and the more subtle issue, mid bass comin outta one box, too far from the sats..localization issues...I also point out the group delay issues inherent in a delivery system which has 4 or 6 energy storage mechanisms..

The speaker ignores several well-known technical issues[in the name of cost savings] that are required to make a high quality loudspeaker, according to the known parameters set forth by scientific research.

Besides the localization issue you deftly pointed out, what else?.

They have engineered very well, gotten around some very high technical obstacles, to deliver product that has garnered worldwide attention. Far better than any other manu.