"Peter Sammon" wrote in message

http://www.epinions.com/content_3779895428


Many UKRA regulars actually share more beliefs in common with this guy,
than anybody who is technically competent.

Oohhh "technical competence" again !!
sinewave and meters:- here we go again !! - they have NEVER proved
listenabilty, quality -beyond THD, or very much else!
Whilst I will not deny that in some circumstances BOSE have been
superseded.
What is incompetent about the bose designs then:- come on Arny, give
us the benefit of your vast technical competence and tell all, and
tell everyone what they should hear and what they shouldn't out of a
set of LS's in real rooms (not anechoic chambers).
And as to whether Peter Sammon works for Bose marketing or not, is
irrelevant, what is, however is that the Co is now run by the Legal
and Marketing Dept's (shame); hence being superseded by other
manufacturers.

Chris


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Peter Sammon" wrote in message

http://www.epinions.com/content_3779895428


Many UKRA regulars actually share more beliefs in common with
this guy,
than anybody who is technically competent.

"chris" wrote in message

Oohhh "technical competence" again !!

sinewave and meters:- here we go again !! - they have NEVER proved
listenabilty, quality -beyond THD, or very much else!

Yes they have. If you have an amp that miserably fails at reproducing a
sine wave as measured, it will sound bad.

Whilst I will not deny that in some circumstances BOSE have been
superseded.
What is incompetent about the bose designs then:- come on Arny, give
us the benefit of your vast technical competence and tell all, and
tell everyone what they should hear and what they shouldn't out of a
set of LS's in real rooms (not anechoic chambers).

My comments related to the technical incompetence of the writer, not Bose.
Bose as a company is in IMO general very competent. Most knowledgeable
people who have arguments with Bose base them on what Bose does with their
competence, not their basic competence itself.

And as to whether Peter Sammon works for Bose marketing or not, is
irrelevant, what is, however is that the Co is now run by the Legal
and Marketing Dept's (shame); hence being superseded by other
manufacturers.

Whatever...

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 00:06:45 +0100, "chris"
wrote:

Oohhh "technical competence" again !!
sinewave and meters:- here we go again !! - they have NEVER proved
listenabilty, quality -beyond THD, or very much else!

They have however been an essential part of *designing* any
decent-sounding gear.....................


Whilst I will not deny that in some circumstances BOSE have been
superseded.

Actually, try to name one circumstance in which BOSE has *not* been
superceded!

What is incompetent about the bose designs then:-

Almost everything.............

To deal with the 'classic' 901:

The use of multiple full-range drivers leads to smeared midrange and
hopelessly muddled treble. The use of heavy EQ to get *some* kind of
bass response out of those fundamentally poor drivers leads to
horrible distortion of any high-level bass notes. The use of one
forward-facing and eight backward-facing drive units leads to a very
vague soundstage. Also, the 901 was always *grossly* overpriced - as
is true of everything Bose ever made. A company driven entirely by its
marketing and legal departments, and with a *very* nasty attitude.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 00:06:45 +0100, "chris"
wrote:

Oohhh "technical competence" again !!
sinewave and meters:- here we go again !! - they have NEVER proved
listenabilty, quality -beyond THD, or very much else!

They have however been an essential part of *designing* any
decent-sounding gear.....................


Whilst I will not deny that in some circumstances BOSE have been
superseded.

Actually, try to name one circumstance in which BOSE has *not* been
superceded!

What is incompetent about the bose designs then:-

Almost everything.............

To deal with the 'classic' 901:

The use of multiple full-range drivers leads to smeared midrange and
hopelessly muddled treble. The use of heavy EQ to get *some* kind of
bass response out of those fundamentally poor drivers leads to
horrible distortion of any high-level bass notes. The use of one
forward-facing and eight backward-facing drive units leads to a very
vague soundstage. Also, the 901 was always *grossly* overpriced - as
is true of everything Bose ever made. A company driven entirely by its
marketing and legal departments, and with a *very* nasty attitude.

The Bose 901 active equalizer's response curve has changed over the years. I
don't know of one that is online, but there is one online for the 901s
professional audio sibling, the 802.

http://www.audiorail.com/802_controller.gif

Bass rolloff must be -3 dB at about 100 Hz, and treble rolloff is -3 dB at 7
KHz.

The weak spot of the 802 is probabably more in the treble where it takes
about 15 dB boost to do just 12 KHz. Pushing a drum kit with cymbals through
this could
be a recipie for disaster. Just guessing, but I'd suppose that the system
designers were from an era where drum kits were acoustical instruments and
there was no such thing as an electronic drum set or they weren't in
widespread use.

Well hopelessly muddled treble is not a complaint my ears would throw
at the 901's I personally have found the treble very listenable and
not too unlike the sound that the instrument makes.
the Bass is low it may not be critically clean but the lows can be
felt in the gut where it should be felt, the higher bass is not
overblown nor boomy, I've never needed to over drive them, has
dynamics that are very reasonable and certainly better than those over
priced glass jobs from the celestion co that some rags were raving
about last yr, imho I would only give them garage room as a staging
post to the corporation tip .
nor have I experienced poor sound staging when set up correctly.
I agree that they lack a proper high tweeter so they can never be over
bright (grin) and the legals are pretty evil. Over priced -
definitely, but they've got to pay for that marketing some how.
And they a one of the few manufactures in this game that are making
very good money from their products, shame more of the other weren't,
some good manufacturers have gone to the wall due to lack of financial
imperatives, but that's another discussion.
But would I use them for a 6+1 if I had the room ? and the money? most
probably ! But then again im a nutter, i must be, im here (grins
again).

Chris

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 00:06:45 +0100, "chris"
wrote:

Oohhh "technical competence" again !!
sinewave and meters:- here we go again !! - they have NEVER
proved
listenabilty, quality -beyond THD, or very much else!

They have however been an essential part of *designing* any
decent-sounding gear.....................


Whilst I will not deny that in some circumstances BOSE have been
superseded.

Actually, try to name one circumstance in which BOSE has *not*
been
superceded!

What is incompetent about the bose designs then:-

Almost everything.............

To deal with the 'classic' 901:

The use of multiple full-range drivers leads to smeared midrange
and
hopelessly muddled treble. The use of heavy EQ to get *some* kind
of
bass response out of those fundamentally poor drivers leads to
horrible distortion of any high-level bass notes. The use of one
forward-facing and eight backward-facing drive units leads to a
very
vague soundstage. Also, the 901 was always *grossly* overpriced -
as
is true of everything Bose ever made. A company driven entirely by
its
marketing and legal departments, and with a *very* nasty attitude.

The Bose 901 active equalizer's response curve has changed over the
years. I
don't know of one that is online, but there is one online for the
901s
professional audio sibling, the 802.

http://www.audiorail.com/802_controller.gif

Bass rolloff must be -3 dB at about 100 Hz, and treble rolloff is -3
dB at 7
KHz.

The weak spot of the 802 is probabably more in the treble where it
takes
about 15 dB boost to do just 12 KHz. Pushing a drum kit with cymbals
through
this could
be a recipie for disaster. Just guessing, but I'd suppose that the
system
designers were from an era where drum kits were acoustical
instruments and
there was no such thing as an electronic drum set or they weren't in
widespread use.

Seems to me that once you get to a certain standard (above the Dansette with
a penny on the arm) the differences are minor. I listen to a pair of TQWP's
and started to make a pair of Buschhorn's, comparing the two with the same
drive unit there was a difference but it was so small it was not worth
continuing with the project.

It's much the same with cameras, £5 plastic lens disposable, not so bad,
£150 SLR very good, £1500 Leica not much better.

Jem

"chris" wrote in message
...
Well hopelessly muddled treble is not a complaint my ears would throw
at the 901's I personally have found the treble very listenable and
not too unlike the sound that the instrument makes.
the Bass is low it may not be critically clean but the lows can be
felt in the gut where it should be felt, the higher bass is not
overblown nor boomy, I've never needed to over drive them, has
dynamics that are very reasonable and certainly better than those over
priced glass jobs from the celestion co that some rags were raving
about last yr, imho I would only give them garage room as a staging
post to the corporation tip .
nor have I experienced poor sound staging when set up correctly.
I agree that they lack a proper high tweeter so they can never be over
bright (grin) and the legals are pretty evil. Over priced -
definitely, but they've got to pay for that marketing some how.
And they a one of the few manufactures in this game that are making
very good money from their products, shame more of the other weren't,
some good manufacturers have gone to the wall due to lack of financial
imperatives, but that's another discussion.
But would I use them for a 6+1 if I had the room ? and the money? most
probably ! But then again im a nutter, i must be, im here (grins
again).

Chris

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 00:06:45 +0100, "chris"
wrote:

Oohhh "technical competence" again !!
sinewave and meters:- here we go again !! - they have NEVER
proved
listenabilty, quality -beyond THD, or very much else!

They have however been an essential part of *designing* any
decent-sounding gear.....................


Whilst I will not deny that in some circumstances BOSE have been
superseded.

Actually, try to name one circumstance in which BOSE has *not*
been
superceded!

What is incompetent about the bose designs then:-

Almost everything.............

To deal with the 'classic' 901:

The use of multiple full-range drivers leads to smeared midrange
and
hopelessly muddled treble. The use of heavy EQ to get *some* kind
of
bass response out of those fundamentally poor drivers leads to
horrible distortion of any high-level bass notes. The use of one
forward-facing and eight backward-facing drive units leads to a
very
vague soundstage. Also, the 901 was always *grossly* overpriced -
as
is true of everything Bose ever made. A company driven entirely by
its
marketing and legal departments, and with a *very* nasty attitude.

The Bose 901 active equalizer's response curve has changed over the
years. I
don't know of one that is online, but there is one online for the
901s
professional audio sibling, the 802.

http://www.audiorail.com/802_controller.gif

Bass rolloff must be -3 dB at about 100 Hz, and treble rolloff is -3
dB at 7
KHz.

The weak spot of the 802 is probabably more in the treble where it
takes
about 15 dB boost to do just 12 KHz. Pushing a drum kit with cymbals
through
this could
be a recipie for disaster. Just guessing, but I'd suppose that the
system
designers were from an era where drum kits were acoustical
instruments and
there was no such thing as an electronic drum set or they weren't in
widespread use.

In article ,
chris wrote:
nor have I experienced poor sound staging when set up correctly.

You've never experienced a decent one, then.

--
*I am a nobody, and nobody is perfect; therefore I am perfect*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"chris" wrote in message
...
Oohhh "technical competence" again !!
sinewave and meters:- here we go again !! - they have NEVER proved
listenabilty, quality -beyond THD, or very much else!

**Utter nonsense. The battery of tests which are performed on audio
equipment are remarkable predictors of sonic performance. What is clear,
however, is that measurement capabilities presently exceeds the abilities of
most (all?) human ears.

Whilst I will not deny that in some circumstances BOSE have been
superseded.

**ALL cicumstances.


What is incompetent about the bose designs then:- come on Arny, give
us the benefit of your vast technical competence and tell all, and
tell everyone what they should hear and what they shouldn't out of a
set of LS's in real rooms (not anechoic chambers).

**The list of problems with Bose products is quite long. Sticking to the
901, for the moment, there are several major shortcomings:

* ALL rooms are different. There is no point in designing for the "Average"
room, since none exists. It behooves all speaker manufacturers to design for
anechoic environments, since that is the only real reference.
* The Bose 901 uses 9, small drivers, which leads to several problems,
including poor HF dispersion and poor imaging.



And as to whether Peter Sammon works for Bose marketing or not, is
irrelevant, what is, however is that the Co is now run by the Legal
and Marketing Dept's (shame); hence being superseded by other
manufacturers.

**Make no mistake: Bose is run by Amar Bose. Bose Corp is a private company,
not a public one.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au