why bose is the holy grail..

[bubbagump]

Found this in Digg:

http://www.hometheaterblog.com/hometheater/2006/03/what_about_bose.html

[Florian]

This should be a sticky!

[Worf101]

Good job B.G. Thanks for the information. Nothing really ground shaking but it's a great tool to give my friends who just don't want to believe me when I tell them that Bose is merely the "best known" audio brand not "the best". Thanks again...

Da Worfster

[Resident Loser]

...don't we already know...same ol' same ol'...ad nauseum...

There is no best of anything, nothing beyond a personal preference that is...

jimHJJ(...besides, it's the music that matters...)

[E-Stat]

Found this in Digg:
Nothing really new there. Bose excels at marketing, not audio reproduction. Amar laughs all the way to the bank.

rw

[Resident Loser]

Nothing really new there. Bose excels at marketing, not audio reproduction. Amar laughs all the way to the bank.

rw

...in the .pdf of Lou Reed's critique he pretty much does a number on the B&Ws and even the MLs don't escape entirely unscathed...Klipsch and their horns (which as we know are anathema to some) get a rave (mostly for max SPLs?) and, paradoxically, completely against the Bose-bashers mantra of "...no highs no lows, it must be Bose..." Mr. Reed seems to hear quite the opposite, complaining of no mid-range?...curious that. Adding all the possible frequency bands into the mix, one would think they have no output across the entire audio band...

I also question the statement that he would "...pay money not to hear that..." Was he referring to the Acoustimas system or Mos Def?

jimHJJ(...can you say ambiguous...perhaps self-servingly so...)

[E-Stat]

...completely against the Bose-bashers mantra of "...no highs no lows, it must be Bose..." Mr. Reed seems to hear quite the opposite, complaining of no mid-range?
Whatever. I formulated my opinion of the 901s decades ago. Amar kinda forgot to factor in the room as the primary cause of creating the 89% indirect radiation pattern when he measured Boston Symphony Hall. I guess in a completely dead environment the concept would work fine. For me, further reflecting the reflections doesn't. Yes, you can put lipstick on a chicken, but why? You can equalize the bejeezus out of a gaggle of 4" midranges to produce highs and lows (on the order of 30db), but the result is hardly optimal.

I do, however, like one of the underlying concepts behind the design: full range operation devoid of crossovers and differing radiation patterns. That's why I like full range electrostats! My pair has the radiating surface equivalent to three hundred-fifty 4" drivers to produce bass - yet with the total moving mass only a tiny fraction of one 4" cone driver for optimum high frequency reproduction. Look ma, no voice coils!

rw

[Florian]

Hey E-Stat, is this correct.....?

The DIVA is 185cm tall (taking out the slanted side) its 60cm wide (78 with slant) so we have 11100cm2 of radiating are (bass panel) per side. Thats 4370in2 aprox....which means that if we take 4" inch drivers it would have 1092 4" drivers per side per bass panel? Seems like an awfull lot....is there a brian error?

-Flo

[E-Stat]

Hey E-Stat, is this correct.....?
Please do check my math. Per SL website, radiating area per U-1 2200 square inches.

http://soundlab-speakers.com/u1.htm

Area of circle = pi * radius squared

2 * 2 * 3.14 = 12.56

2200 / 12.56 = 175 (each speaker)

Sorry for the inches vs. centimeter calcs.

rw

[Florian]

Aah the darn cones are round. I was wrong.... :)

one DIVA bass panel has a radiating surface of 347 4" drivers (3 less then you), but this is your whole area?

So lets see here

347 4" midrange drivers on the bass panel

23 4" midrange drivers on the midrange ribbon

11 4" midrange drivers on the super tweeter...


Cool!

Our systems push a ton of air!

[E-Stat]

Aah the darn cones are round. I was wrong.... :)

one DIVA bass panel has a radiating surface of 347 4" drivers (3 less then you), but this is your whole area?
Yes. Your math is likely a bit high as we are talking about the dimensions of the diaphragm, not the entire frame.


Our systems push a ton of air!
True, but they must be big given the thinness of the diaphragms. The SLs are one micron thick. Two for the subwoofers. As a point of reference, the mylar on most Maggies is around 8. The ribbons slightly more so to dissipate heat.

rw

[Florian]

Yes. Your math is likely a bit high as we are talking about the dimensions of the diaphragm, not the entire frame.


I took the foil measurements only on the second calculations :-)



True, but they must be big given the thinness of the diaphragms. The SLs are one micron thick. Two for the subwoofers.

rw

I am not sure what the DIVA has but i can ask Graz, he knows that for sure. My new ribbons are thinner then the original ones.

:-)

[JohnMichael]

Aah the darn cones are round. I was wrong.... :)

one DIVA bass panel has a radiating surface of 347 4" drivers (3 less then you), but this is your whole area?

So lets see here

347 4" midrange drivers on the bass panel

23 4" midrange drivers on the midrange ribbon

11 4" midrange drivers on the super tweeter...


Cool!


Our systems push a ton of air!

Now all you have to figure is what the cost of all those 381 4" drivers would be in Bose dollars.

[Florian]

Now all you have to figure is what the cost of all those 381 4" drivers would be in Bose dollars.

Mmh. well lets see.

Itsnt a a setup consist of 14 4" drivers (10 for the cubes and 4 for the bass). If it cost 2500$ we have to know how much the electronics cost :ihih:

[dpacella]

here's a stupid theory on the design of the drivers (midrange-tweeter driver!)...adding to another potential reason why they fare so well in the consumer audio stores:
Consider that a significant percentage of such stores (best buy, etc) sit all the speakers next to each other....you get the most sound toward the listener by radiating/projecting/pointing the drivers at the consumers auditioning the speakers...therby creating the illusion of a clearer sound-in-a crowd..
Ever open the cover on a bose speaker? Sure they claim reflection-radiating-whatever (they do that too), but that also helps in the war between A/B box switching when all the contenders are miserably placed next to each other...
Try pulling that bose out in the room and repeating with a JBL or Polk Audio....what bass then?

And that wispy irritating dry-as-the-sahara treble extension....what on earth....
..Just another example of how good marketing and a great business idea carry the day...
..it's all about the profit margins...not the pure quality of the speaker...in this case...

[Resident Loser]

...but what does this:


Whatever. I formulated my opinion of the 901s decades ago. Amar kinda forgot to factor in the room as the primary cause of creating the 89% indirect radiation pattern when he measured Boston Symphony Hall. I guess in a completely dead environment the concept would work fine. For me, further reflecting the reflections doesn't. Yes, you can put lipstick on a chicken, but why? You can equalize the bejeezus out of a gaggle of 4" midranges to produce highs and lows (on the order of 30db), but the result is hardly optimal.

I do, however, like one of the underlying concepts behind the design: full range operation devoid of crossovers and differing radiation patterns. That's why I like full range electrostats! My pair has the radiating surface equivalent to three hundred-fifty 4" drivers to produce bass - yet with the total moving mass only a tiny fraction of one 4" cone driver for optimum high frequency reproduction. Look ma, no voice coils!

rw

...have to do with the article(s) cited...The Acoustimas stuff (the fodder for the article) and the 901s have little in common...A simplistic and dismissive "whatever" would have been fine...everything beyond that seems...well...just sort of b!tchy...

jimHJJ(...and of little purpose...)

[E-Stat]

...but what does this......have to do with the article(s) cited
You were baffled as to Lou Reed's reaction. I explained why.

...completely against the Bose-bashers mantra of "...no highs no lows, it must be Bose..." Mr. Reed seems to hear quite the opposite, complaining of no mid-range?

The "mantra" you cited originated with the 901. Midranges inherently do neither.

"Why is Bose so popular?

So let's examine some of the reasons Bose has carved out such a strong niche in the audio market and then I'll offer my own observations and hopefully level the playing field a bit. Going all the way back to the Bose 901's (and farther) the company began a campaign of branding and word association that remains with them to this day."

The author is stating that their core competancy is marketing. I agree.

rw

[Resident Loser]

You were baffled as to Lou Reed's reaction. I explained why.

...baffled? No...I said "...funny thing..." Only having read the chant recently and seeing an apparent paradox, I simply questioned the dichotomy...even if I were baffled, how is the following an explanation of anything I might find baffling in some way?


I formulated my opinion of the 901s decades ago. Amar kinda forgot to factor in the room as the primary cause of creating the 89% indirect radiation pattern when he measured Boston Symphony Hall. I guess in a completely dead environment the concept would work fine. For me, further reflecting the reflections doesn't. Yes, you can put lipstick on a chicken, but why? You can equalize the bejeezus out of a gaggle of 4" midranges to produce highs and lows (on the order of 30db), but the result is hardly optimal.

I do, however, like one of the underlying concepts behind the design: full range operation devoid of crossovers and differing radiation patterns. That's why I like full range electrostats! My pair has the radiating surface equivalent to three hundred-fifty 4" drivers to produce bass - yet with the total moving mass only a tiny fraction of one 4" cone driver for optimum high frequency reproduction. Look ma, no voice coils!

It's wonderful that you have an opinion on the 901s but...it would seem somewhat irrelevant at this juncture...given the topic...

As far as I know the only "branding or word association" that goes back to the original 901s was Direct/Reflecting...Were they even a company before the 901s? The article seems a bit...well, b!tchy too...I suppose he has an equal problem with Brylcreem's "a little dab'll do ya" or Ford's "built Ford tough" or other corporate catchphrases?

jimHJJ(..."have it your way"..."the king of beers"...)

[E-Stat]

As far as I know the only "branding or word association" that goes back to the original 901s was Direct/Reflecting...Were they even a company before the 901s? The article seems a bit...well, b!tchy too...I suppose he has an equal problem with Brylcreem's "a little dab'll do ya" or Ford's "built Ford tough" or other corporate catchphrases?

jimHJJ(..."have it your way"..."the king of beers"...)
I'll return to restating my original observation.

Bose is successful not because of superior product, but due to superior marketing that goes back to day one of business. I found that to be the theme of the article and merely agreed.

rw

[Resident Loser]

I'll return to restating my original observation.

Bose is successful not because of superior product, but due to superior marketing that goes back to day one of business. I found that to be the theme of the article and merely agreed.

rw

...I wasn't disputing your original observation (which, by including your quote, is apparently the impression I gave) so much as commenting on some facets of the articles critique...I realize now we were operating at cross purposes...

jimHJJ(...my mistake...)

[E-Stat]

...I wasn't disputing your original observation (which, by including your quote, is apparently the impression I gave) so much as commenting on some facets of the articles critique...I realize now we were operating at cross purposes
No problemo.

I guess I was successfully faked out by your quoting my comments in your initial post rather than from either the original post or article itself. :)

rw

edit: I just saw your comments on another Bose thread. Sorry to attack your 901s - just my honest appraisal. Had you entered your system in profile, I would have been more tactful. Skeptic talked about adding a bunch of dome tweeters to his.

[Resident Loser]

No problemo.

I guess I was successfully faked out by your quoting my comments in your initial post rather than from either the original post or article itself. :)

rw

edit: I just saw your comments on another Bose thread. Sorry to attack your 901s - just my honest appraisal. Had you entered your system in profile, I would have been more tactful. Skeptic talked about adding a bunch of dome tweeters to his.

...to reading your edit...my ego isn't bruised, I don't take any of this stuff personally and certainly don't see it as an attack of any sort, I realize the 901s aren't for everyone (anyone?) so I don't feel bad when folks knock 'em...they've kept me satisified for 30yrs. now and trust me I'm the last one to be concerned with re: tact.

I readily admit to omitting any mention of them on purpose; mtry never admitted to owning anything beyond a boombox so it wouldn't enter into the equation...simple reasoning that I tend to agree with...

jimHJJ(...and they came with a great Mercury demo disk that introduced me to Pictures At An Exhibition...)

[E-Stat]

...to reading your edit...my ego isn't bruised, I don't take any of this stuff personally and certainly don't see it as an attack of any sort, I realize the 901s aren't for everyone (anyone?) so I don't feel bad when folks knock 'em...they've kept me satisified for 30yrs. now and trust me I'm the last one to be concerned with re: tact.
Cool. We're all bozos on this bus anyway. :)


......and they came with a great Mercury demo disk that introduced me to Pictures At An Exhibition...)
Great piece of mucsic. Of all places, I was originally introduced to it through Emerson, Lake & Palmer's version when I was 15 or so. Naturally, I later got the real version.

rw

[Resident Loser]

... I was originally introduced to it through Emerson, Lake & Palmer's version when I was 15 or so. Naturally, I later got the real version...

...Mussorgsky's original solo piano version? Or the orchestration by Leopold Stokowski?

I understand there are quite a number of orchestral and non-orchestral interpretations of the piece, from synth (non-ELP) to solo guitar to 44 grand pianos...

Between that and the multiple uses of the melody of Pachelbel's Canon you'd have an entire music collection based on just two pieces...

jimHJJ(...bada-bing...)