Experiance with BOSE

[E-Stat]

It's a failure?

The engineering concept of equalizing the bejesus out of a gaggle of 4" cones and bouncing most of the sound off a wall did not survive. Why there are....well zero other companies who find wisdom in that approach.

rw

[goatspeed]

The engineering concept of equalizing the bejesus out of a gaggle of 4" cones and bouncing most of the sound off a wall did not survive. Why there are....well zero other companies who find wisdom in that approach.

So, now success is based on how many other companies copy your product? That's silly. Granted, if you have a good product, others may follow your lead. Ultimately though, it comes down to the dollar. Whether you sell determines whether you are a failure or a success.

[skeptic]

The engineering concept of equalizing the bejesus out of a gaggle of 4" cones and bouncing most of the sound off a wall did not survive. Why there are....well zero other companies who find wisdom in that approach.
rw

So if it did not survive, I guess you can't get it any more.

Doesn't anybody bounce sound off of walls in their speaker design? How about every bipolar loudspeaker maker from every electrostatic full range unit to every magneplanar unit to Mirage and to every high end speaker that uses an indirect firing tweeter such as top models from Revel, Vandersteen, and Snell just to name a few.

As for "equalizing the bejesus" out of something, there are a few engineering concepts that not only survived using drastic equalization but could not have functioned without it. Among these are, the long playing phonograph record, analog audio tape, and FM radio. In fact, of all the popular high fidelity music storatge media that doesn't use equalizaton, the only one I can think of is the digital compact disc, the ones audiophiles seem to like the least. Not only that, but most of your favorite recordings had their signals equalized the bejesus out of. Especially if it's some form of pop music.

So what does all this teach us?
If you used a $200 equalizer without knowing what you were doing and didn't like the results, read a lot of nonsense about equalization being no good, and don' t know any better, you can rant and rave about speakers which use the advanced and widely accepted concept of equalization. BTW, a crossover network is also an equalizer.

If you don't own a particular loudspeaker and have little direct experience wiht it, that shouldn't stop you from bashing it if that's the popular thing to do on the internet, even if you are up against someone who has and disagrees with you.

It doesn't matter if you wouldn't know an engineering book if it came flying out of space and hit you in the head if you want to bash a doctor of electrical engineering and acoustics who teaches at MIT if everybody else says it's ok to bash him too.

On the internet, you can say anything you want to say and nobody can stop you. You can also make a complete jackass of yourself and nobody will stop that either. Just don't run afoul of the moderator by breaking the rules of civility.

[This Guy]

LARGE mode means a full range signal bud. So you're saying those Bose cubes could handle low frequencies without blowing up? All you are doing is reading what Bose it telling you, if you think about it, playing those cubes in Large mode makes no sense at all.

[goatspeed]

I agree it doesn't make sense. But according to the manual, that's how they run. Download an acoustamass manual if you don't believe me. They handle the full range of sound without blowing up. I've been running an AM-15 system as 5.1 in full LARGE setup for 4 years, and recently moved the AM15 to be the middle and back chanels of a 7.1 setup. Same deal.

[DrBoom]

My guess as to why an Acoustimass system has to be run "large" is that these things predate the era of bass managment.
So the fullrange signal gets routed through the Acoustimass Module which has a high-pass filter in every channel, and it sums up all of the bass information in those channels and sends it to the woofer section.
Then the higher frequencies are sent along to the cubes.
Ofcourse in this day and age, a receivers bassmanagment takes care of this already when speakers are set to "small", so it doesn't have much use nowadays.
The AM modules also have a separate LFE input, which connects to the subwoofer output on your receiver.
If you would set your speakers to "small", all the redirected bass would still go to the AM module.
I installed an AM10 today for a customer of ours, man those things keep blowing me away with their crappyness.
I honestly don't know why anyone with decent hearing would want to buy these things, except for WAF ofcourse.

[E-Stat]

How about every bipolar loudspeaker maker from every electrostatic full range unit to every magneplanar unit to ...

As I said in my post, the Bose design bounces "most" of the sound of the wall. None of your examples do. My bipolars bounce half, not 89%. And I have room treatments to prevent some of those reflections from confusing the image from my sitting position.

As for "equalizing the bejesus" out of something, there are a few engineering concepts that not only survived using drastic equalization but could not have functioned without it.

There is a difference in trying to make a 4" cone speaker reproduce frequencies greatly outside it's intended performance envelope and the purely electronic nature of the RIAA or Dolby curves. That's why there are larger cones!

Not only that, but most of your favorite recordings had their signals equalized the bejesus out of. Especially if it's some form of pop music.

Your wild ass guess as to "my music" is wrong. I generally prefer acoustical instrument expressions of bass. Here are a few of my favorites:

Prokofieff "Lieutenant Kije" CSO, Reiner on Chesky
Saint Saens "Symphony 3" Philadelphia, Ormandy on Telarc
Tippett "Midsummer Marriage" LSO, Davis on Philips
Holst "Suites No. 1 & 2" Cleveland, Fennell on Telarc

Did you realize that polyphonic synthesizers can easily produce first octave tones?

So what does all this teach us?
If you don't own a particular loudspeaker and have little direct experience wiht it, that shouldn't stop you from bashing it if that's the popular thing to do on the internet, even if you are up against someone who has and disagrees with you.

I didn't bash it. What I said was the qualitative aspect of it's first octave bass is not up to the lofty "better than most today" level you suggest. I have heard the Bose enough over the years to know it's sound. Don't get me wrong. There are some design objective parallels between what Bose was attemping to achieve and the type of speakers I prefer. I am very much a fan of full range designs for their innately coherent image. 18 little cones flapping in the breeze do not, however, produce the same low level of distortion than does 50 square feet of ES panel or 8 servo driven 12" woofers. Your "it has better bass response than most speakers today" comment is laughable when you consider the qualitative aspects and what is really available today. Ever hear the Alon Grand Exoticas? Soundlabs U-1?

It doesn't matter if you wouldn't know an engineering book if it came flying out of space and hit you in the head if you want to bash a doctor of electrical engineering and acoustics who teaches at MIT if everybody else says it's ok to bash him too.

The man did produce a singular product back in 1968. It's a shame the product never evolved for the better. I'm more impressed with someone who can translate hearing the musical experience over some guy who has any number of degrees. As to the engineering book, tell me about the preponderance of speaker designs today that choose to push a midrange speaker into subwoofer territory? Is every other doctoral EE on the planet inept as you suggest? I think not. Especially having heard speakers that are worlds more accurate from top to bottom than the 901.

rw

[skeptic]

"As I said in my post, the Bose design bounces "most" of the sound of the wall. None of your examples do. My bipolars bounce half, not 89%. And I have room treatments to prevent some of those reflections from confusing the image from my sitting position."

Actually, most speakers bounce much of their sound off the walls whether we like it or not. That is because they are not nearly as directional as we think that they are except at high frequencies where they are highly directonal. The fact that this particular design radiates with 8 speakers facing backwards and one speaker facing forwards doesn't mean that speakers like Mirage don't have similar radiating patterns. Even though the apparant ratio is 50/50, much of the forward facing drivers radiated energy is to the sides at most frequencie so the sound that reaches the listener may be 25/75 direct reflected. The indirect radiation is probably one of the reasons so many people like this speaker. It has far less "hole in the middle" effect than systems with forward only facing radiators. It also radiates its energy into the room in a way far more similar to the way real musical instruments do than forward only firing units.

"There is a difference in trying to make a 4" cone speaker reproduce frequencies greatly outside it's intended performance envelope and the purely electronic nature of the RIAA or Dolby curves. That's why there are larger cones! "

The four inch cones have the same total radiating area as a 12 inch woofer. The chief problem with all of the versions (series) of this design is that given the current state of the art of material science, the cones have to have on the one hand a great deal of mass to be sufficiently strong so as not to break up moving a lot of air at low frequencies to produce bass and therefore on the other hand so much inertia that it becomes impossible to achieve adequate output at high frequencies even with equalization. This will change as stronger lighter materials are available.

Polyphonic synthesizers can produce tones of any desired frequency. What makes you think classical recordings weren't equalized as well. Columbia Records for example had an exasperating way of cutting off the low frequencies below 50 hz to increase playing time on all but organ recordings. What do you think RCA Dynagroove was if not equalization. They switched the loudness compensation on for you whether you wanted it or not. Deutche Gramaphone the darlings of the classical music recording companies tweaked its recordings as well. They call their "balance engineer" a "tonemeister" in German. Now what do you suppose that means? I admit, they were usually less severe in their adjustments then engineers who mastered pop recordings but they all did it if for no other reason than to compensate for the response of their microphones.

"18 little cones flapping in the breeze do not, however, produce the same low level of distortion than does 50 square feet of ES panel or 8 servo driven 12" woofers"

They do not "flap" in the breeze. They are under the same control that other well designed dynamic drivers with large magnets exercise. ES panels have to be large to produce any bass because the excursion of their moving membrane is very limited so they make up for lack of a long piston throw with a large piston area. But ES panels have other problems producing bass. First of all, they have no way to control the out of phase back wave from cancelling the front wave. Secondly, unlike dynamic drivers which have relatively long areas of linear magnetic force, the further away the electrostatic plates move from each other, the weaker the force of repulsion and attraction causing dynamic compression as they play louder. As for 8 servo driven 12" woofers, that is a horse of a different feather. You are looking at a great deal of money and space. They should outperform most other designs. They are not in the same price class as Bose 901. Furthermore, Bose 901 abandoned the acoustic suspension principle with series three probably sometime in the 1970s and with it the lowest audible octave of sound reproduction. This decision was part of a radical departure from the two prior versions.

"It's a shame the product never evolved for the better."

This is where we agree. Bose went for the money. Instead of evolving his design into a high end audiophile speaker with high accuracy, he developed it into a mass market product attractive to a less sophisticated customer. In doing so, he created an enormously profitable money machine that will afford him all of the luxuries life has to offer including the luxury of experimenting endlessly on high end loudspeaker designs in his own laboratory to his heart's content that the world will never see. Was that the right choice? You bet it was. Facing the same choice, I would have done exactly the same thing.

[E-Stat]

What makes you think classical recordings weren't equalized as well. Columbia Records for example had an exasperating way of cutting off the low frequencies below 50 hz to increase playing time on all but organ recordings.

Let me restate my point for clarity. I have few, if any recordings where the bass boost at 20hz sounds on the order of 12-15db as required by the 901 system.

But ES panels have other problems producing bass. First of all, they have no way to control the out of phase back wave from cancelling the front wave.

That assumption would be wrong. There are different approaches used, but my Acoustats use felt damping on a large section of the rear of each of the eight panels. Angling is essential. My panels are eight feet out from the back wall.

As for 8 servo driven 12" woofers, that is a horse of a different feather. You are looking at a great deal of money and space. They should outperform most other designs.

Trust me, they do. Especially when driven by their own 600 watt amps. I confirmed my travel plans today to meet up with JWC in Seacliff next month. The Alons are a treat to hear.

This is where we agree. Bose went for the money. Instead of evolving his design into a high end audiophile speaker with high accuracy, he developed it into a mass market product attractive to a less sophisticated customer.

I agree and perhaps I would have followed in his same path. And maintained an honest view that I marketed mediocrity to the masses. It is only when folks lose their objectivity and attempt to place such products on a qualitative pedestal far beyond their worth that I take exception to.

rw

[WmAx]

The engineering concept of equalizing the bejesus out of a gaggle of 4" cones and bouncing most of the sound off a wall did not survive. Why there are....well zero other companies who find wisdom in that approach.

rw

As a matter of record, their are several companies that use this approach(with much better execution then bose, IMO) of broadband 'bouncing sound off the walls' approach, as you refer to the phenomena. All of these companies are very well respected(from what I have noticed): Linaeum(now out of business),MBL, Airfoil, German-Physiks, Walsh Ohm, Gallo Acoustics(the old reference sereies). Most of these companies have recieved very *unique praise by many reviweres, usually seeming(*too me) to elicit greater enthusiasm than most conventionall designs. Their is a reason: I believe that when omnidirectional loudspeakers are done right, and in a facilitating environment, the results can be astounding when recreating a spatial illusion. Their is a catch: most people would never be willing to accomdate this type of speaker. Therfor is it not really a viable system for 'mass' consumers who are unlikely to dedicate special area/room just for their speakers.

As for the EQing of 4" or any small cone speaker in this size range to respond to bandwdith as low as 40hz, much less 20, I must agree with you that this is indeed a recipe for disaster. The Sd(surface area) vs linear excursin limit(s) make this non feasible. Even if a motor/vc was used that was capable of linearity at the required excussin-incursion distances, a conventional surround/spyder suspension capable on this size driver would not be able to remain linear along required excursion-incursion distances to produce these low frequencies while remaining linear to a reasonable SPL. The only feasible use of small diamter speakers for bass reproduction is with a large array of the units(to increase Sd dramatically, even beyond an equivalent large size driver Sd, becuaes of the suspension difference(s)), such as found on a line array. Their is one additinal problem... as dedicated larger Sd drivers are usually allotted to reproduce low frequencies, the implentation such as in the Bose system uses the driver into the midrange and even terble region. The non linearities will severely contanimate the full range of sound with relatively high level of harmonic and inter-modular distortions; obviously the human auditory system is even more sensitive to distortion(s) in the midrange band as opposed to bass band.

-Chris

[spacedeckman]

Beautifully stated. "I only wish I had failures as profitable." Amar got a silk purse filled with gold from that sow's ear. The audiophile side of me detests him, but my capitalist side just loves him. It was the Pet Rock, Hula Hoop, Skylab Repellant, and a dozen other fads rolled into one. Product success through differentiation.

Goatspeed, I think a better comparison would be Bell, Compak, and Gateview. You know, along the lines of Kenford and Rockwood. Bose's market base is the uninformed audio buyer. We the informed comprise less than 10% of the overall potential market, the uninformed are over 90%. The uninformed will spend more for less if they think they are getting something "extra" for it. In this case, status, personal satisfaction, and the envy of their uninformed friends. They don't want my business, nor anyone who posts here. For every person that post here, there are 10,000 standing in line with check or credit card to buy a simple system that makes them feel better. That is, until they see what they could have had...but most will never know.

vivi: No, the rep didn't think much of them, but wanted us to really get behind the 601 which was by far the most gawdawful speaker they ever produced. Essentially two pairs of 301s combined together. It sounded awful, was a complete pig to drive, and impossible to sell to anyone who wasn't Bose-blind. But I don't want to trash your speakers, nor make you feel bad. I was kind of cranky and on a roll yesterday. I need a vacation. But, take any consumer review with a grain of salt. Tucked inside is a lot of "they are great because I bought them", or "my friend has them", or "they are just the best". This coming from a person who hasn't really listened to, nor evaluated any other product, nor probably owned another product of any consequence. You really need background for a review to be worthwhile, and you really lack that here. Then add to this the fact that there are more bogus reviews of Bose products than any other. You have both bashers, and shills. The important thing with a speaker is YOU have to be happy with it. I don't have to live with them, which is okay, since I have these somewhat stupidly expensive bookshelf speakers made by an obscure Danish company that I love to death. I've owned them for 5 years and the honeymoon isn't over yet. I spent years listening to speakers before I found them, which is why I am still satisfied. They have shown improvement from every upgrade I've done, and are certainly not a bottleneck in my system...IMHO of course. I listened to almost everything I could. Martin Logans, Thiels, Dynaudio, B&W Nautilus, Triangle, Spendor, Paradigm, PSB, Energy, and over a dozen more. Self satisfaction is what this is all about. This is a hobby to make you happy. Begin a search that never really ends, but above all, enjoy the music on the way.

PS: Amar runs his 901s backwards too. I got that from a VERY reliable source who has actually been to his house on occasion. And CVs are too big and resonant to make good speaker stands. The 401s have a much smaller cross section and would be much better. Plus the cement block bolted into the bottom would help reduce resonances, and keep the center of gravity lower.

[skeptic]

I feel I am in a strange situation when these Bose 901 discussions come up. I am defending a speaker I don't particularly like and the man who designed and built them many of whose ideas I don't agree with. Believe me that is strange.

Victor Campos of Acoustic Research and later of KLH in their heyday once said which speaker you like depends on what type of distortion bothers you the least. Believe me, the conventional high end high fidelity loudspeaker which audiophiles value so highly, has many aspects to it which I find detestable and I often wonder if the people who design these things aren't deaf. And while on the other hand the Bose 901 also has some awful attributes, even the ones I have left over from 1970, the things it does wrong are different and in some ways less objectionable, in some ways more.

The seemingly endless bashing these speakers get seems to express preference for one set of prejudices and acceptance of certain shortcomings over another set. Apparantly, not everyone agrees with those sentiments because the public at large which votes with its dollars has other ideas and it is not just all due to advertising. Furthermore, the bashing seems to be more like a religious cause to stamp out the heathen cult rather than an objective view of an inanimate object. Highly irrational. It makes me wonder how many of the people who do it aren't secretly jealous of Bose's success.

In the end, when I come home from a concert where I've heard a great symphony orchestra play in a large concert hall and listen to a recording no matter on what equipment, I am always struck by how primitive the state of the art of sound reproduction still is. Reading these comments, I have drawn the conclusion that most of the people who make and buy this equipment are primitives themselves. Maybe that is why nobody tries anything very new or different and why for all the advertising hoopla with every new me too product that comes out, nothing much has happened in audio in the last 20 or 30 years and it doesn't look to me like that's about to change anytime soon.

[WmAx]

In the end, when I come home from a concert where I've heard a great symphony orchestra play in a large concert hall and listen to a recording no matter on what equipment, I am always struck by how primitive the state of the art of sound reproduction still is. .

If you really want the most realistic playback, it's really very simple: Binaural encoding. However, generic solutions will not yeild optimal results due to the wide variance of ear and head features of different people. Have your ears/pinnae molded and cast rubber models. Have an approximated size hold of your specific ear canal drilled into a dummy head that represents yours in overall size. Install linear electret capsules into the ear canals, install the ears: arrange with your local symphony hall to let you set up your recording torso/head and digital recorder at the performances...... now get a headphone such as the MDR-CD3000(has very few resonances compared to other closed headphones, and is often noted for it's exceptional perfornamce on binarual recordigns...plus it's very comfortable), get a precision DSP equalizer to correct/tune for reponse irregularities of the headphone(none are perfect). Now, this quiate a bit of trouble, but you will have playback that is extremely accurate in all audible aspects of teh original event when all is said and done. Just don't move your head around when you listen to the headpone recording or the illusion will be shattered since the sound wll move with you. :-)

Me? I'm happy with my omni-directional speaker system, which with proper setup, allows a very good reproduction(too me) of the front and sides(as far as ambient reflections such as reverb when present after a transient attack) illusion of events such as an orchestra hall, with the right recordings. I'm not suggesting you would like it; i could be delusional, have brain dmage effecting my perception, i could be so heavily biased that i would be lucky to tell an AM clock radio from an "approved' audiophile system(whatever that means or is, exactly). Very few recordings do allow this "illusion/delusion" for me, but hey, can't be too picky with the limited level of technology and lack of industry recording standards avaiable today. I'm just happy i can experience this illusion(or is it delusion?) from time to time with some recordings on a home playback system.

-Chris

[E-Stat]

As a matter of record, their are several companies that use this approach(with much better execution then bose, IMO) of broadband 'bouncing sound off the walls' approach, as you refer to the phenomena.

I find a pretty big difference between the omnidirectional models you refer you, some of which that use different driver technology, and the 8 back / 1 forward cone approach of the 901 where the predominance of the sound is indirect. Omnis, like bipolars have far more even radiation patterns. While it may be true that 89% of what we hear is reflected, I have yet to see a concert where 89% of the symphony musicians are near the back wall facing to the rear and the other 11% out front facing the audience. It was suggested by one poster than Amar himself reverses his "works good on paper" theory for his own set.

rw

[WmAx]

I find a pretty big difference between the omnidirectional models you refer you, some of which that use different driver technology, and the 8 back / 1 forward cone approach of the 901 where the predominance of the sound is indirect. Omnis are well omni.

rw

Thank you for clarifying your position.

Omni speakers primarily depend on the evenly reflected broadband signal being reflected off of walls(at distances resulting or greater then 5ms in signal/path difference delay, of course!). I mistakenly thought you were referring to any design that depends heavily on the reflected signals. I do agree that the bose application has a different polar response then omnis(omis attempt to produce a symmetrical radiation at all angles from speaker, though, it should be clarified that the AirFoil speaker i referenced is not an omni, that is to be placed directly against the side walls, and uses it's linear 180 degree dispersion to turn all the adjacent walls into phantom sources, and depdn on wall refletions, details of which not relevant here).

-Chris

[goatspeed]

Goatspeed, I think a better comparison would be Bell, Compak, and Gateview. You know, along the lines of Kenford and Rockwood.

Is this in reference to my analogy with PC's? I've been in technology for a good while, but I've only heard of Compaq from that list by name. But, I believe you support my point either way, and I agree with yours.

[skeptic]

You are correct, binaural recordings are the most accurate until you turn you head just slightly. At that point, you brain draws the only possible conclusion from the fact that the sound field turns with you head and that is that the source of sound is inside your head. What a shame. Some people have devised crazy ideas using accelerometers to sense head movement and multiple binaural recordings to adjust the field to compensate but I don't think they have gotten very far.

JVC once sold a pair of headphones back in the 1970s with condenser microphones built in specifically for making binaural recordings. Then all you have to do is get the people who give concerts to allow you to make live recordings of their performances. Good luck with that one.

[WmAx]

JVC once sold a pair of headphones back in the 1970s with condenser microphones built in specifically for making binaural recordings. Then all you have to do is get the people who give concerts to allow you to make live recordings of their performances. Good luck with that one.

Siegfried Linkwitz claims to typically use two tiny electret microphones attached to his glass frames to make recordgins at concerts....... :-)

However, the problem here(and with any generic binaural encoding) is that it ignore the very important individual structure of each person's ear, pinnae and head. A personalized binaural mold set up will yeild the most realistic results. The most common effect by using generic binaural setups is a loss of the front images/soundstage---of course this varies between person to person due to the different ear/head structures. Someone who happens to resemble the features used on a dummy set up will have the best results. However, these feautures(ear, head, pinnae) are about as unique as fingerprints. Therfor generic results are unpredictable/unreliable. They ahve tiny micropones that you can insert into your ears(like a hearing aid, almost), to include the pinnae structure effect, however, they dont actually sit back into the canal, and this is very important to get optimal results.

Concerning positional sensors on the headphones..... if i remember correctly, military aviation navigators on fighter planes wear a headset, have their ear characteristics mapped with insertable mics into the canals and measured in an anechoic chamber. The results are used in a DSP in war planes for object sensory by auditory means. The positinoal sensors work with the DSP system to orient cue sounds in the correct space, stabilized.

-Chris

[spacedeckman]

"near brands" which are different from "off brands" because they try to duplicate a name or use a different spelling to create a similar sound that is different enough to claim it isn't confusing to consumers when that was the original point of the name. The two names I mentioned, Kenford and Rockwood, are real "near brands", exchanging the front half of Kenwood and the back half of Rockford, the other is the opposite. Either one makes you think of one of the real brands, even though these are not related. Some mental comfort. It worked in a sense for you. I typed Compak and you immediately thought of Compaq. So if I started doing auditorium computer sales with a full lineup of Compak computers, some would fall for it. Gateview would make you think of Gateway (hey, I pulled these out of thin air), and Bell would make you think of Dell and maybe Bell the phone company.

I'm pretty much heading down the goat path with you.

[skeptic]

IMO, the difference between the sound field at a live performance and a binaural performance is the fact that the live performance creates a vector field where each element of sound whether arriving at you directly from the instruments or reflected as an echo is a vector having both magnitude and direction. It is therefore external to you and as you move your head, your brain can draw conclusions about its source. Binaural sound consists of two scalar fields having only magnitude. This may sound like a fine distinction but it isn't. It is the crucial difference. It is very difficult to recreate a vector field from a series of scalar fields especially if the source for the scalars, the headphone drivers, moves with your head.

[WmAx]

IMO, the difference between the sound field at a live performance and a binaural performance is the fact that the live performance creates a vector field where each element of sound whether arriving at you directly from the instruments or reflected as an echo is a vector having both magnitude and direction. It is therefore external to you and as you move your head, your brain can draw conclusions about its source. Binaural sound consists of two scalar fields having only magnitude. This may sound like a fine distinction but it isn't. It is the crucial difference. It is very difficult to recreate a vector field from a series of scalar fields especially if the source for the scalars, the headphone drivers, moves with your head.

But this is only a dynamic, in relation to your movement. Let's say your head is held in one place by a vise, and listeing to a speaker playing an high frequency band limited warble tone, for example. The vector of the reflections/origin in the room will remain fixed. Let's add some variable: have you and your viced head on a turntable rotating at a fixed rate. the sound source itself is stationary, your sensory system is the variable. I completely agree that the movemen of the head(which is of course natural) while listening is important for a portion of the localization cues, as i made note of in an eariler response. However, the way the ear produces a directional cues is by the specific combing/filtering effects it produces in high frequencies at persepctive angles relative to the source(HRTF=the complex ineraction of the canal, pinnae, head shape, ear shape/size). It seems to me, that the head sensory system is dynamic variable in this instance, not the source it self. If a sound is produced over these headphones to match the HRTF of the listener using a dynamic DSP processer, and linking a rate change sensor to the headphone to control/direct the DSP, the localizatin cues can be just about as good as the 'real' thing. It is conceivable(though I can't point to a completelely succesful example yet) that this could be applied to a linear recording of an acoustic event(using still proper space/timing of micrpohones to represent head, this is critical--though deletion of a specific ear/canal model is probably feasible, i believe), and the comb/filter effects nescarry applied by a DSP according to the rate/change sensor that measures your head position, applied to a headset to emulate correct perspective.

-Chris

[skeptic]

"have you and your viced head on a turntable rotating at a fixed rate"

That sounds very uncomfortable.

[thepogue]

arsewhoopin'!! keep it up boys...

[aroostookme]

I guess you need to hear another wounded audio lover's testimony about how marketing campaigns and brochures and slick controlled travelling Bose sound rooms convined me to buy and keep two sets of Bose 901's for about a decade.

Logically, 9 little speakers pounded by an active equalizer to try to sound like a woofer and a mid and a tweeter seems a tough sell all these years later. But I bought them anyway.

Here's my lasting anquish about my Bose years. I found myself trying to lie to myself to justify my choice. These are, like the Acoustimass models, not hifi speakers really. They are middle of the road imiatations of hi-fi with a lot of hype. I have not regreeted Day 1 without them and still use them as comparisons in my listening when I hear a real low end on a speaker or a real soundstage from a pair of speakers or real hi-fi from a $100 pair of Paradigm Atoms.

Really, go past the Best Buy audio offerrings and get to a hi-fi store that has something similarly priced. Take your own CD and listen to a few reputable hi-fi brands.

I went from 901's to Kef Reference 1's and had to relisten to my entire LP collection. That much of a difference. I also own some reasonable priced older Snells and still keep my Paradigm Atoms.

The Atoms are an excellent A-B test with the 901s. I asked myself how can these things come so close and even be better on the high end? That got me to question and dig out of denial.

Then I went to a small audio shop and listened to Kef floorstanders. All I felt were exceptionally better than my Bose.

By the way, my final reason for buying the 901's (over ESS at the time) was a friend's opinion. I should have followed my instincts.

PS -- the 901's are incredibly inefficient and require massive power to even come to life. Figure that in the overall speaker costs.

Good luck.

[Florian]

Why anyone would buy a 901 is beyond me but ok. Those things do not handle real power believe me. The reason why they run on large is properbly that they have an internal x-over that doesnt feed anything below 200 Hz in there. I would love to see a 901 feed on my Krell :-)

People cannot compare any BOSE speaker every made or some other speakers with High End products. They may be good for the enthusiast, but not for a perfectionist. The Paradigm Atom is a great speaker for the price, but its still far far away from the truth.

If you like to rock and have a pretty cool system to jam too then look for a old Klipsch Horn and use a single triode tube am with 8wpc or something. They will make your ears giveout before they do and have dynamics that no BOSE can even dream about.

-Flo