On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 03:10:11 GMT, TonyP
wrote:

You're welcome. Now, to listen to speakers that put the 901's to same.
My little Advent Marbl's.....

Is that a typo or a Freudian slip?

Kal

Peter Sammon wrote:
I recognize these sorts of posts. You've spent thousands of dollars on
fine expensive speaker wires, esocterically engineered speakers, the
"right driver", the right "name" on the front of the cabinet etc. You
have no choice now, either admit to years of being wrong or steadfastly
standing your ground in the face of the science, popularity and audio
technology Bose puts before you.

I know that this HAS to be a troll. But anyways, my speakers don't have
anyone's name on them. Von Schweikert VR4's. Wires? Shotgunned
Audioquest Indigo 2's (not much money). And, they sound so much better
than any Bose. Any.

As long as you enjoy the music. Cheers!

You can hear some semblance of music with the Bose. I hear more.

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 03:15:49 GMT, TonyP
wrote:

But anyways, my speakers don't have
anyone's name on them. Von Schweikert VR4's.

They have Albert's name on them.

Kal

In article ,
Kalman Rubinson wrote:

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 20:01:47 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

If one affixed a giant cardboard cone to the front face of an ESL 63
901-like sound might result.

How about a complete cardboard front cover with an asymmetrically
placed 5" hole?

The cardboard mod has merit, if only because one could remove it and be
left with an ESL 63.

Stephen

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 13:50:59 +1300, "Geoff Wood"
-nospam wrote:

Are you really an enthusiastic (but-misguided) Bose-user, or a part of the
Bose Inc marketing department. It never looked objective, but now this
tripe is popping up several times with changed subjects, across a bunch of
newgroups, it is starting to look like SPAM.

Or is it all really a tongue-in-cheek joke ?

geoff


A Bose 'review' is a sure-fire TROLL.

x Nonesense. They are base upon sound engineering principles, so sound
in fact the US Air Force has depended upon Bose equipment.


yeah - for noise cancelling headsets, not for quality audio....

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 22:57:24 -0000, Peter Sammon
wrote:

dave weil wrote in
:

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 17:06:38 -0000, Peter Sammon
wrote:

Peter Sammon wrote in
:

http://www.epinions.com/content_105506836100

I love it when people say that Bose is not taken seriously by the rest
of the industry...of course if you are referring to the so called HIGH
END...there is a great reason why...because the high end hates Bose
and the 901 and generally will go to great lengths to deter people
from giving the speakers any credibility by using the same stupid
excuses like "older technology", Direct/Reflecting sound obscures the
image rather than enhances it, no direct competition in the particular
store of purchase etc. etc. I, for one DO NOT play politics

You just did.

THUD

I recognize these sorts of posts. You've spent thousands of dollars on
fine expensive speaker wires, esocterically engineered speakers, the
"right driver", the right "name" on the front of the cabinet etc. You
have no choice now, either admit to years of being wrong or steadfastly
standing your ground in the face of the science, popularity and audio
technology Bose puts before you.

As long as you enjoy the music. Cheers!

Actually, it soumds more like you've got years of emotional investment
to justify.

Nothing wrong with that, mind you. But trashing others to try to build
up *your* investement is pretty ****ty, if you ask me...

"Peter Sammon" wrote in message


"Robert Morein" wrote in
:


When these speakers were originally designed, little was known of
modern acoustic theory, which firmly established that bouncing 89% of
the sound off the room walls may be intended to be a beneficial
effect, but is actually a severe degradation.

Agreed.

The 901's do not conform to modern theory or practice, and are
notably inferior to practically any modern speaker sold at more than
a moderate price point.

Agreed.

Nonesense. They are base upon sound engineering principles, so sound
in fact the US Air Force has depended upon Bose equipment.

OK, so some USAF marching band has some Bose SR equipment.

I have been an AUDIO enthusiast for over 34 years and have had a ton
of fun owning and listening to various well-made systems at all price
levels. I've owned or had the pleasure of seriously auditioning in my
home many respectable manufacturers' models including the said 901's
and Vandersteen's 1C w/the 901 as top reference and 1C as a second!


I can see how someone who favors the bloated imaging of a pair of 901's
could fail to appreciate the tight imaging of Vandersteens.

Bose is base in cutting edge science. Science, sound engineering and
physics not magic!

I think you would do well to try to rebut my deconstruction of the 901
technology, as I presented in another post.

Here it is again:

Myth number one: A reasonable number of small drivers can move as much air
as a single large one, all other things being equal.

The hidden agenda is linear stroke.

Let's compare a 4" driver and an 8" driver. How many 4" drivers does it take
to move as much air as an 8" driver?

The naive answer is 4, presuming that cone area is proportional to diameter,
squared. True for theoretical geometry, not true for speakers.

Speakers have flexible surrounds and a fraction of the area of the surround
must be deducted from the area of the cone. However, the width of the
surround is not proportional to the diameter of the speaker, but rather is
dependent on the designer's goals for maximum linear stroke. IOW an 8"
speaker with a certain linear stroke will have a surround that is a certain
width. If the 4" speaker has the same linear stroke, then its surround will
have to be the same width. However, since the diameter of the smaller
speaker is quite a bit smaller, the surround takes up a greater proportion
of the diameter of the speaker. IOW, the area of the actual moving part of
the smaller cone is even less than proportionately smaller.

For small speakers, it may take 5 4" speakers to have the same moving cone
area as an 8" speaker due to the loss of effective moving diaphragm area
because of the width of the surround.

Secondly, smaller speakers, all other things being equal, don't have the
same linear stroke as larger speakers. Speakers tend to scale in all
dimensions. Not only is a 4" speaker half the diameter of an 8" speaker, but
it will have half the linear stroke, all other things being equal.

In short, it might take as many as 10 4" speakers to have the air-moving
capacity of a single 8" speaker, all other things being equal.

The multi
chambered ACOUSTIC MATRIX enclosure vents the speaker in a most
unusual way with air
speeds exceeding 60 mph! Three ports or jets protrude through the
rear of the 901 enclosure.

Knowledgeable speaker designers know that high air velocity in ports is
anathema. High air velocities lead to higher turbulence, and turbulent flow
tends to be noisy flow. One sign of a quality ported speaker is a large,
low-velocity port.

Because of the use of small full range drivers, an active equalizer
which is absolutely essential to the system is used in place of the
normal CROSSOVERS that introduce distortion no matter how well
engineered. The 901 EQ simply smooths out any bumps or irregularities in
he system's
power response.

Plan B: build a system that is essentially acoustically flat. Not mission
impossible in this day and age.

Now for the seriously damning facts about the Bose 901. When the 901 was
built, not that much was generally known about optimizing the performance of
arrays of small drivers. It turns out that arrays of small drivers can be a
real can of worms, if smooth, well-balanced frequency response is desired.
I'm quite sure that if Bose were to design the 901 today with a clean piece
of paper, they'd do it quite a bit differently.

Probably the most serious problem with designs based on ad-hoc collections
of identical small drivers is that they can have very rough frequency
response (lobing and comb-filter effects) when you move slightly off-axis,
and they can also have frequency response that is a strong function of
distance from the speaker to the listener. There are ways to manage these
problems with generally involve putting the drivers on curved baffles,
and/or adjusting the level and/or frequency response of the drive to the
various drivers. However, the classic Bose 901 design really does neither of
these things well.

Here's an AES paper that points out these problems and potential solutions
in some detail:

Author(s): Keele, Jr., D. B.
Publication: JAES Volume 38 Number 10 pp. 723·748; October 1990
Abstract: The Bessel array is a configuration of five, seven, or nine
identical loudspeakers in an equal-spaced line array that provides the same
overall polar pattern as a single loudspeaker of the array

One important point is that the no way is the Bose 901 a Bessel array.
A second important point is that of all the Bessel arrays analyzed, 5
drivers in a row was found to be the only one that was recommend

For God's sakes, we're talking real science, research
and engineering concepts!

To paraphrase Robin Williams -- "Concepts! What a concept!"

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 17:06:38 -0000, Peter Sammon
wrote:

Peter Sammon wrote in
:

http://www.epinions.com/content_105506836100

I love it when people say that Bose is not taken seriously by the rest of
the industry...of course if you are referring to the so called HIGH
END...there is a great reason why...because the high end hates Bose and the
901 and generally will go to great lengths to deter people from giving the
speakers any credibility by using the same stupid excuses like "older
technology", Direct/Reflecting sound obscures the image rather than
enhances it, no direct competition in the particular store of purchase etc.
etc. I, for one DO NOT play politics nor will I succumb to these ploys by
the so called experts who have their noses too high in the air that they
cannot even smell what life is made of. Thanks anyway for your comments.

Peter

BOSE are the worst speaker company of all at doing exactly what you
have just stated. Overpricing their underperforming speakers to appeal
to exactly that sort of buyer. The sort where image and price are more
important than performance and listening pleasure.

Next you'll be telling us that B&O are reasonably priced with 'high
end' (whatever that is) sound.

If the BOSE technology were so great, why then are they the only (?)
people creating reflex speakers for the home market?

Ray.