|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
74.74.162.231
I have some experience with some home and pro Bose speakers without dome tweeters.I do not feel that high is lacking or absent in Bose speakers. Instead, I feel the Bose' high is somewhat revealing: it is prone to become harsh depending on the quality of amp, source gear, or recording.
I saw some non-Bose speakers with dome tweeters having sweeter highs that is more forgiving to the quality of amp, source gear, or recording.
How was your experience?
Edits: 08/27/16Follow Ups:
i have heard 901s "properly" set up and they do project a field of sound but it turns out to be unnatural as Estat has said.
in the process of selecting speakers for a friend, i went to a demo at frys where yes, the sound was better than your tv but the top didn't extend nor did the bass do so with any resemblance to accuracy. furthermore, they had no life.
i went to a now defunct audio store and listened to a sub/sat system of the same price level of the bose my friend was considering at circ city. when i had him come and listen, he was flabbergasted.
i went to CC and they had polk sub/sats at the same price that were likewise superior to the bose. hotel california really shone here in distinguishing the better speaker. suffice it to say, be bought the polks.
i would LOVE to have had access to impulse testing with the waterfall plots and all but i had t just use my ears and it was obvious enough. rapid ABX listening would have yielded the same results.
...regards...tr
My choice of the word "revealing" may upset many people who believe Bose must be poor in every respect. So I re-phrase my post here to receive large number of honest responses.==============================
I have some experience with some home and pro Bose speakers without dome tweeters.I do not feel that high is lacking or absent in Bose speakers. Instead, I feel the Bose' high is somewhat dependent on the sound character or quality of amp, source gear, or recording.
For example, I had the following type of experience.
The high frequency of Program Source A (speech or music) sounds pleasing through a Bose speaker. The high frequency of Program Source B sounds harsh through that Bose speaker.
Through some speakers with dome tweeter, the high frequency of Program Source A and the high frequency of Program Source B both sound pleasing.
How was your experience?
Edits: 08/28/16
Still, you haven't said which models of Bose and other brand speakers you're talking about. Without that important information, any discussion is pointless. Refer to my earlier post:
"This thread has morphed/devolved into an argument about EQ. It originally was about Bose's non-dome models - which you've heard - highs being revealing, or not, versus speakers with dome tweeters - again, which you've heard.
It's pointless to continue this thread without identifying models. Bose makes a wide range of loudspeakers, and, there are hundreds of other brand models which use dome tweeters.
So, in the interest of having a meaningful discussion, please point to some specific representative models which you're using as the basis for your assertions/observations."
In other post in this thread. I wrote Bose models I listened to.Even if I do not write specific models, the discussion can be continued.
Sometimes people here write "The Spendors I listened to sounded seamless." "The Thiels I listened to sounded a little bright" "The Creeks I listened to sounded sweet" "The Krells I listened to sounded punchy" etc. without listing all the model numbers, versions, and production years she/he listened to. Nobody comes up and claims the discussion must be stopped in such cases. I do not understand what you are trying to do. Do you have some serious and intense emotional problem with Bose?
The phrase "some experience" clearly indicates that I merely talked about my limited personal experience. Nobody needs to try to prove whether my generalization is correct or not, because I did not even make a generalization about Bose sound. Moreover, I talked about my subjective feeling: no on-axis frequency response, no in room sound energy response, etc.
Edits: 08/28/16
"Even if I do not write specific models, the discussion can be continued."Not with any substance, only conjecture and useless generalization. Although, I appreciate E-stat's attempts to help you to continue to learn.
Of the dozens of Bose models (see their website), you are speaking of?
Of the "dome tweeter" models, you are speaking of?
A useful reply would be appreciated by all here.
Your initial post, and this entire thread, is one example of why I've posted here less often lately: Too much useless armchair "I think" stuff, and not enough substance. But, in the interest of trying to maintain/elevate some level of usefulness, I ask you again to please be specifc about the speakers to which you are referring.
And, yes, I saw your useless graphic.
:)
Edits: 08/29/16 08/29/16
There was no generalization. Some fear in you makes you believe a story you created inside your head. Thank you for repeatedly expressing your emotional problem with the name "BOSE." It is interesting.I am sorry that you did not post any of your own experience with specific model.
In the thread nobody yet posted his/her own experience. hifitommy posted his experience (and I appreciate it), but according to your (Inmate51) criteria, it is not a valid post, because he did not reveal the model he listened at Circuit City - I do not know which brand/model passive sub/sat system was on display at Circuit City with a $1400 price tag -.
Some people posted their own armature level engineering hypotheses.
Edits: 09/03/16 09/03/16
referring to a specific model allows a much more accurate response. That is why you are here right? Most manufacturers of speakers make many different models (including Bose). Using the words Bose and Professional in the same sentence is a little funny though when talking about loudspeakers. Is there something you are hiding?
......................
I am so sorry guys. I suspect there is more to the story than we know. This is the wrong spot to speak highly of Bose speakers.
In my original post: I have some experience with some home and pro Bose speakers without dome tweeters.
cloudwalker: "Using the words Bose and Professional in the same sentence is a little funny"
Then I explained: You know this: home audio market, pro audio market. (nt)
This thread has morphed/devolved into an argument about EQ. It originally was about Bose's non-dome models - which you've heard - highs being revealing, or not, versus speakers with dome tweeters - again, which you've heard.
It's pointless to continue this thread without identifying models. Bose makes a wide range of loudspeakers, and, there are hundreds of other brand models which use dome tweeters.
So, in the interest of having a meaningful discussion, please point to some specific representative models which you're using as the basis for your assertions/observations.
:)
Comments to your post will vary widely as does the Bose HF response on their full range driver based stuff vs those with tweeters or mids and tweeters.
ET
"If at first you don't succeed, keep on sucking till you do suck seed" - Curly Howard 1936
dependence on quality of amp, source gear, or recording
901
dependence on quality of source gear, or recording
Lifestyle Powered Speaker System (active, single cone full-range)
Wave Radio (active, single cone full-range)
802, 402 (passive, but I had no opportunity to put other power amps)
the bejesus out of those poor midrange drivers at the top from 20 to 30 db depending upon setting.
Perhaps the top is there from a quantitative standpoint...
Whether it is done actively of passively. Just make sure your amplifier doesn't clip. (not easy to do on transients with + 25 to 30dB Gain) Bose sold a 250 Watt amplifier back in the day (model 1801?) for use with the 901 when played loud. The 901 Series 4 and newer have a higher sensitivity by 8dB I think compared to series 1 & 2, but this can be negated by the increase EQ in those models.
"The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat" - Confucius
On a 901VI EQ with bass and high at max position, I measured about 23dB voltage gain at 18kHz.The second order harmonic distortion of that frequency lies outside the audible frequency band. So even if there is very short term clipping at that frequency, the audible result might not be very terrible.
I, however, am a very discerning consumer of audio products, an audiophile. And thus I want to avoid clipping.
I was curious about the overall peak level with real-world program source, not sinusoidal test tones.
I fed several film and music program sources with enough attenuation (To avoid clipping in the Bose EQ. The experiment is to see the effect of high voltage gain at high frequency of the Bose EQ.) into the 901 VI EQ with bass and high at max position, and measured the peak level of the output.
The maximum peak level observed was merely 6dB lower than the peak level from 0dBFS 18kHz sinusoidal signal source.
A passage which I think "loud" in Cinderella, Disney, C 2015 (DVD, Dolby 5.1) (5.1 to 2ch downmix done by Sony DVP-SR510), and music in Sheffield/Coustic Test CD produced high peak level: about 6dB lower than the peak level from 0dBFS 18kHz sinusoidal signal source.
The peak level from Stereophile Test CD2 tracks 3-14 was about 13dB lower than the peak level from 0dBFS 18kHz sinusoidal signal source.
The AD converter was Mackie Onyx Blackjack, which has less than 1dB attenuation at 18kHz, and the peak level indication software was Ableton Live 9 Lite.
Anyway, I would arrange an audio system containing Bose 901 EQ so that 0dBFS (or -6dBFS) 18kHz sinusoidal signal source does not clip with the EQ at all max positions. Some people may blame me saying "You are too unrealistic with real-world music material," "You would lose S/N ratio," etc.=====================
The max high setting in Bose 901 VI EQ is likely to be used in a dead sounding room. In someones living room with hard floor (no wall-to-wall carpeting), leather sofa, and large glass window, the center position of the high adjustment slider produced bright tonal balance. The owner had been listening with the high slider below center, and I agreed with him about that EQ setting.
Edits: 09/03/16 09/03/16
At the bottom of the frequency spectrum, I would agree.
You cannot, however, get the best top octave transparency using a midrange driver - regardless of how you equalize it. There's that pesky mass thing.
Do you understand why Magnepan uses ribbon tweeters in their better models?
.............
Each mirrors the original EQ curve and restores the signal at playback to flat response.
That is a completely different concept from forcing a driver to do at playback what it was never intended to do.
Conventional multi-way speakers have "cross-over" circuit.
Real world crossover circuit is not pure low-pass, high-pass, or band-pass filters It does amplitude-frequency equalization, too, in many cases.
"forcing a driver to do at playback what it was never intended to do"
Technically, this does not make sense at all. Whose "intension" is it? What does "forcing" technically mean?
It does amplitude-frequency equalization, too, in many cases.
Not by 20-30 db at the top! High quality tweeters naturally operate to 20 kHz and beyond without any need for boosting.
Technically, this does not make sense at all.
Perhaps to you.
As Kal indicated, using a four inch piston to reproduce a one inch wavelength (and smaller) creates inconsistent directivity through its range. Then, placing a large number of them together spaced greater than the wavelengths reproduced creates copious amounts of comb filtering, aka "chaotic interference" which kills coherence.
What does "forcing" technically mean?
Using artificial means for a driver to reproduce frequencies beyond its inherent bandwidth. A 4.5" driver is good to about 3 khz for consistent directivity. That's why they call them midranges!
1. Just proceed with the choice of full-range coneEclipse TD508Mk3
What Hi fi 5 star
("Even the best of their conventional rivals, such as the ATC SCM 11 and KEF LS50 speakers, sound vague and imprecise in comparison.
Read more at http://www.whathifi.com/eclipse/td-508-mk3/review#uCDUzOmjfDZ4Ypw4.99)Eclipse TD-712z Mk.2 (a single 4.7" driver cone)
Stereophile 2016 Recommended Component Class A (Restricted Extreme LF)2. Proceed with some remedy other than crossover
Bose 901, 402, 802
3. Use crossover (not using the cone(s) for full frequency range)Of course, this choice has side effects. One is shown in the displayed picture (Adam Audio A3X 2-way active near-field studio monitor loudspeaker).
Edits: 08/28/16 08/28/16
Look at the referenced review in Stereophile here . View Plot 4.
"The dispersion is superbly even below 4.35kHz, but there is a sharp discontinuity at that frequency, with a rapid rolloff to the speaker's sides...
As RD notes, this is not a speaker that will go very loud or very deep, and tonally it is not all that neutral.
To each his own.
Actually, since I am a coherence freak, I am very much in favor of single driver designs that:
1. Deliver near ten octave response without active equalization
2. Exhibit consistent directivity across the bandwidth
My Sound Lab U-1PX speakers meet those criteria. :)
. . . . . . .
You are provided some latitude to vary the response to accommodate your room or specific recording content via controls on the backplate.
Lows and mids have a +3/-6 range while the top only offers attenuation. Mine remain flat.
Cool speaker!Does your room have much high frequency absorbers? The high knob appears to be at max.
Edits: 08/28/16
Does your room have much high frequency absorbers? The high knob is appears to be at max.
I use some diffusion. You can see pics in my gallery.
Once again, MAX=flat. Your only option is attenuation.
Beautiful speakers!
I also like the space and the bass traps behind those panel speakers.
I spent considerable time experimenting with speaker and bass trap position measuring the results each time to achieve the final room response.
An RTA plot would necessarily show more variation, but I find they sound quite neutral.
This post has been interesting to read. You have been very Kind E-Sat. I can't think of anyone I would rather have responding to this. My friend has a pair of Bose 901's too. He thought they were good. Until he tried a pair of real speakers. It is pretty obvious that the top end is lacking. I think of their accompanying equalizer as a box that is intended to make up for their weaknesses as performing some sort of "black magic"
It is pretty obvious that the top end is lacking.
Well, its there but as you say lacking in natural air and transparency to these ears.
as performing some sort of "black magic"
No *magic* - just addressing the inherent bandwidth limits of 4" drivers. Which works just fine at the bottom with wavelengths measured in feet.
There is no pre-determined scientific rule that 10dB is "natural" and 20dB is "artificial" "mammoth" "forced." You, like many Bosh bashers with poor engineering background, merely expressed your prejudice using words containing your subjective hatred. Your other comments are similarly nonsense.In the engineering point of view, your claims has no value to discuss.
A engineering choice in a speaker may be different from that in dozens of other speakers one knows. That is not a logical basis for bashing. I do not bash Quad ESL merely because it has a design choice different from that in dozens of other speakers I know.
You did not bring objective measurement showing that the end result is poor.
If you said you did not like the sound of a specific Bose model you actually auditioned carefully, I would fully respect that.
Edits: 08/28/16 08/28/16
There is no pre-determined scientific rule that 10dB is "natural" and 20dB is "artificial" "mammoth" "forced."
I can't think of a single conventional speaker that requires any active equalization at the top. Please cite an example.
You did not bring objective measurement showing that the end result is poor.
The concepts of uniform directivity and comb filtering are well established. Read up on them if you'd like to understand.
It is a commonly understood engineering practice when using conventional drivers to choose those where the piston size is smaller than the wavelength to reproduce. The directivity sharply narrows beyond those frequencies whether you equalize them or not.
Click here for a wavelength calculator.
"I can't think of a single conventional speaker that requires any active equalization at the top. "Thank you for expressing this. Not surprising. Internet Bose bashers have been like this, which is very well known.
Active or passive is not a big deal here.
How did you form a belief that all conventional speakers systems (except Bose) have no amplitude-frequency equalization at the top by some circuit (active or passive) before the driver?
How can you claim that a speaker system is inferior, if a speaker system has such a circuit (active or passive)?
Edits: 08/28/16
Active or passive is not a big deal here.
What is relevant is the magnitude.
How did you form a belief that all conventional speakers system (except Bose) have no amplitude-frequency equalization at the top by some circuit (active or passive) before the driver?
I view frequency response, waterfall and directivity plots of individual drivers. Tweeters don't need boost at the top. If anything, modest amounts of EQ is used to attenuate resonant spikes.
How can you claim that a speaker system is inferior, if a speaker system has such a circuit (active or passive)?
Ultimately, it lies with the listening experience. The primary limitation of the 901 design for me is its unnatural imaging where individual instruments are stretched across the back wall. The lack of HF refinement due to using high mass drivers arrayed as they are follows.
. . . . . . .
you don't understand what uniform directivity means. You can see the results in the other post about the Fujitsu Ten Eclipse.
Its absence results in poor and unnatural imaging. Read some of Floyd Toole's work on that topic to learn about it.
As for exhibiting gross amounts of comb filtering, read Kal's post again.
yes but the Bose equalization is mammoth compared to conventional designs which mainly use drivers inside their comfort zone and equalize a bit for smoothness. Where crossovers get extreme is to roll off unlike bose where the speakers are driven very hard in the bass and treble to flatten out drivers that otherwise would be rolled off massively.
"the speakers are driven very hard "
I understand your subjective feel upon visual look of the curve.
Do you have any data? E.g. since bass is "mammoth"(your subjective feel) boosted, it can play music only at small volume level, etc.?
I wouldn't call them revealing at all. The physical arrangement of the drivers and their size predicts a chaotic interference among them in the HF. That alone would preclude the coherence necessary for it to be revealing.
Relocating the HF to a single purpose-designed dome driver can only be an improvement.
"The physical arrangement of the drivers and their size predicts a chaotic interference among them in the HF."
Why "chaotic?" There are a finite number of drivers arranged in an organized way. Have you any test results that show this results in HF chaos?
Now if you were to say that the physical arrangement of the drivers and their size predicts a highly reverberant HF presentation, which by its nature will obscure HF detail, I wouldn't argue with you.
However, I don't think Bose ever sold the 901s as being revealing, but as being realistic. The gravamen of their claims is that in a live environment, actual instruments do not sound like the closely miked representations so often present in audio, but instead play within highly reverberant sound fields.
The Bose 901 first debuted in 1968. It can still be purchased today, for roughly the same price in US$ as when it was first released. Not many audio components can make comparable claims. Somebody must like these things.
"Audiophiles" can deride Bose 901 buyers as stupid, or suckers, but I think they are simply music lovers with different priorities than "audiophiles." Bose 901 lovers could care less about ultimate resolution, but instead value a broad sound stage that is consistent from place to place in the listening room. They want to know their companions are hearing an end result comparable to what they too are hearing.
While I myself identify with the audiophile, parked in the sweet spot, greedily sucking in as much detail and nuance as I can, I also have to admire the 901 buyer who accepts a lower level of fidelity that all of his friends and family can share in.
JE
"A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all." - William James
What Kal is referring to is a very complex interference pattern, which varies greatly with frequency and direction, resulting from a multiplicity of drivers arranged in a manner where they don't compliment each other's output, but rather interfere both constructively and destructively, depending on angle of measurement and frequency. This type of interference is termed "chaotic" because of its non-uniform and difficult/impossible to predict/measure nature. It's a physics term.:)
Edits: 08/29/16
...are not a significant issue for the 901s if used as designed. While there may indeed be lots of nulls and reinforcements resuting from the rear array of the 8 full range drivers, if set up and used as designed, you're not listening to the direct radiation of these drivers. Since they're aimed rearward at walls and whatever else is behind them, there's an "averaging" effect where the array artifacts are homogenized into a reverberant mish-mash. If the setup is correct, the forward facing drivers can be clearly discerned over this room sound providing some degree of localization and imaging.
1. The HF inference due to multiple drivers arranged so that they are more distant from each other than the wavelengths being produced is well documented.
2. Using the argument that music played in a reverberant venue should be reproduced in one confuses the creation of sound a performance with the attempt to reproduce that sound. It results in the superimposition of a listening room's acoustic signature upon that of the the performance space and is, by definition, unrealistic.
3. The observation that a significant number of listeners like the results is not disputed. However, that does not mitigate the logical arguments about the flaws of this approach.
In the case of 901, the first arrival to the ear is from single 4.5" cone.
The four rear facing drivers in the half of the rear are on flat baffle to increase directivity in the mid. The increased directivity helps the first arrival of mid be just from the front facing single cone.
Just to be clear, aren't there eight rear firing drivers in each 901?
When I've heard them sounding their best one set of four was firing into the corner of the room, and one set of four was firing toward the wall in the center of the room. The ninth speaker (nine oh one, get it?! ;-)) of course faced forward.
The resultant sound field was a far cry from the typical audiophile approach, which can frankly sound less than stellar when not seated in the sweet spot. On the other hand, the 901s could never seem to have that focus and snap you can get from a good sweet spot. However, for energizing an entire room with music where ever I sat or stood I thought the 901s did pretty well. Certainly, they never made my ears bleed as many an audiophile approved speaker has done.
JE
"A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all." - William James
"Just to be clear, aren't there eight rear firing drivers in each 901? "
That is right. In my post: The four rear facing drivers in the half of the rear
4 drivers "in the half of the rear "
"The HF inference due to multiple drivers arranged so that they are more distant from each other than the wavelengths being produced is well documented."
I'm curious. Does this also apply to planar drivers as well? A lot of folks rave over their Maggies, Quads, Sound Labs, etc., and one of the more frequently cited claims is their excellent high frequency sound. I don't know the proper term, if there is one, but shouldn't there be some sort of summing or averaging of the response as you move away from the speaker that would smooth out the response? Wouldn't this make the multiple drivers behave as a virtual planar driver, at least in dispersion?
What do you think of the current McIntosh Labs speaker line? This would seem to be an extreme amount of effort if the concept itself is basically flawed.
JE
"A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all." - William James
Sony SS-NA2ES
Stereophile Recommended Components 2016 Class A (Restricted Extreme LF)
For the wavelength, the sound source is very "multiple," and very physically separated away in space.
the purely vertical array results in interference primarily in the vertical plane. Set at or aimed at ear level, the interference is not noted unless one lies down or stands up. Horizontal driver displacements would be an problem with normal head movements (leading to the failures of many speakers supposedly designed for center-channel use).Multiple horizontal/vertical/oblique arrays? Fuggedaboutit!
Edits: 09/05/16
I'm sorry, no offense was intended with my post on the number of drivers in the 901.
"For the wavelength, the sound source is very "multiple," and very physically separated away in space."
Could you elaborate on this please? I'm sorry, but I don't see what the point is that you are making. What does this have to do with the question I posed to Kal Rubinson?
As I understand Kal's argument, multiple drivers, that are arrayed farther from each other than the wavelengths being produced, will result in high frequency "inference." (I think Kal meant "interference.")
My question is, couldn't this argument be applied to pretty much every single point on a planar diaphragm? If eight separate drivers compromise the high frequency sound of a speaker, should not the literally thousands of virtual drivers contained in a planar diaphragm compromise the high frequency sound even more? Yet many brands of planar speakers are celebrated for their revealing high frequency response. Why are they said to perform well and the Bose 901s are said not to perform well?
It's too bad Kal Rubinson has seemingly stopped posting to this thread, as a reply from him could be very edifying to me and to the rest of this asylum.
JE
"A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all." - William James
The diaphagm of a planar driver is continuous so, in a way, there is no spacing between the virtual sources.
I did not feel your post was an offense. My post is not against your question to Kal.What you wrote indicates that you understand what I wrote.
Edits: 08/31/16
Thank you for your theoretical guess. I appreciate it.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: