 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
97.82.221.142
In Reply to: RE: How do omnidirectional speakers compare to surround sound? posted by jimbill on November 23, 2020 at 14:49:49
View YouTube Video
Ab Esse Ad Posse Valet Fellatio
Follow Ups:
The Bose 901's front-firing driver ALSO contributed reflected sound, so even IF his "89%" figure was a worthy goal for a home audio speaker, imo his execution fell short.
That 89% figure was I'm sure dependent on WHERE in the hall you measured, and perhaps on whether or not the hall was filled with a frequency-dependent sound-absorbing biomass (the audience).
Duke
Me being a dealer makes you leery?? It gets worse... I'm a manufacturer too.
Problem is the percentage depends on the frequency and the environment. And besides a great live recording already has good hall sound so Bose distorted the halls sound by reflecting it in the listening room And for poor recordings it was artificial hall sound. His premise was almost correct. His application was ALL wrong.
I have heard 901's in three different setups in three different homes. All where different in sound due mostly to poor setup of two of the systems. The third one I heard the guy took the time and set them up according to the manual and had enough power to push them properly. That setup with the Bose 901's was what really got my attention on how good they were when setup properly. Not can Bose 901 play all music well, I would say most of it but what I heard them really excel at were smooth Jazz, Big Band, and orchestra/classical music. They sound really nice.
People would say the same thing about the Carver Amazing, no bass and didn't sound good. but when I asked how they set them up, it was how "They thought they should be" and according to the Craver setup guide. When the Carver were setup properly, they has very good deep bass, not boomy like a box speaker but more defined. Today, these are the best sounding speakers I had in my system, so good that they made me sell my Vandersteen 3A's
My cousin gave me a pair of BOSE 901 Series II with the matching EQ. These are supposed to be the best sounding of the bunch. I heard them at his house and even though he didn't have them setup properly (Not Even close) they sound pretty good in his room.
Which data? The 89% is Bose data and I think done at MIT and basically correct. That different frequencies are absorbed differently shouldn't be a question.
I agree about set up. It's true on all speakers, more true on speakers that radiate in many directions. It's easier to mess up their set up. But liking and fidelity are two different questions. I'm sure many liked 901s and that's cool. But citing accuracy is questionable. I recall Gordon Holt's Stereophile review and he said that their frequency response was like a comb filter.
'That different frequencies are absorbed differently shouldn't be a question'
it's not ... the question was 'does anyone know how it was measured'
plus, how did Bose come to the conclusion that 89% of music etc. etc.
you've only trotted out your impressions and assumptions on the design of one of his speaker models ... so your answer is the same as mine isn't it?
I don't know ... and it's evident that you don't either
if I did know, I would have contributed that knowledge
again you don't know either, yet felt you should contribute an opinion critical of Bose as a speaker designer and the implementation of that design paradigm ... blissfully unaware that the original question sailed over your head ... while you're certainly entitled to that opinion you basically hi-jacked the thread, and you're unaware of that too!
do you see that now? it's like your asking me 'how do you breed a cockapoodle' and I answer by telling you they get fleas, dig holes, and crap in your yard.
ah well, carry on, as ya do
be well,
I only referred to the 901s because that's the only one that was designed according to his research. All his other designs only bounce the tweeter portion of the frequencies they reproduce and try to piggyback on his claim.
The 89% is not important. It's an approximation. But natural recordings include the room affect and if you add your room in it's a distortion. You can't ignore your room but in this case you want to minimize it. As for studio recordings which have no space in them you can do what you want with them. But it's personal taste which is perfectly valid on a personal basis but has nothing to do with fidelity.
yes of course, thank you. well, let me answer that by saying ...
they are really cute but are prone to 'hot spots' where they get a localized skin
irritation causing them to scratch and lick the area often to the point fur is lost.
this can be mistaken for fleas, but your vet can prescribe certain meds that will calm this down
good luck and please make sure that all shots are kept up to date.
but of course you're probably aware of this and the only reason I
mention it is that you didn't ask.
with regards,
no answer to above, of course. puppies win all the time. but what was the question?
See ya.
Ab Esse Ad Posse Valet Fellatio
And your point is? Say something specific that may contradict me.
why frequency? are you saying that some reflect but others don't?
nah, that can't be right
you made that up, didn't you?
be well,
materials have quite distinct frequency-dependent absorption/reflection coefficients. At lower frequencies the interior construction of walls matter.They're very colored acoustically, and it takes special engineering to make the equivalent of 'frosted white' diffusers.
And furthermore, air itself absorbs more at high frequencies because of viscous and thermal effects. Thunder right near a lightning bolt is a 'crack' (mixed high and low frequencies), but far away it's a rolling low frequency boom (high frequencies absorbed).
Edits: 11/28/20
yeah but he didn't say that you did ... which I agree with
not to mention comb filtering effects
but I'm fond of questioning declarative statements in audio to both challenge potentially false premises and educate myself
so far so good so far
but the question was how did Bose determine that ambient content comprises the largest percentage of what is heard from performances and how was that measured ... which remains unanswered ... and probably will
with regards,
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
