Solving the BOSE issue!

Hey guys,

it occured to me that we always complain about the none-existing frequency reposnce graphs. Why dont we measure them? I have a RTA device and my friend has a sound proof booth. Anyone in my area with some BOSE speakers?

Why dont you just use yours?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shokhead

Why dont you just use yours?

---

I would but unfortunatly my 301's has burned drivers! Can i use yours instead?

I never did really understand why there was ever a "bose issue" in the first place. What percentage of people around the world actually have even a midfi system? Whether it is 2 channel or home theater most people have as a comparison either a boombox or the crappy speakers attached to the TV. Even the most strident Bose bashers would almost have to agree that the Bose system, whatever it is, is going to be substantially better then what they have become accustomed to.

Bose is almost ubiquitous. You can find Bose systems on display everywhere from furniture stores to Best Buy and CC. Find them in print ads in virtually every place imagineable. Naturally these are going to be impressive compared to what the average listener has experienced in their lifetime. I believe that there are faults with the speakers, systems, and tactics of the corporation but the bottom line is that they make money and have millions of customers. Doesn't really sound like much of an issue to me.

I'm not a bose apologist. I just realize how unique I am among every single friend I have. I literally had to go online to find someone near me that had a similar interest in audio. In between where probably hundreds of Bose systems with perfectly happy people. I never did see any real harm in that.

In the end you can go out and measure anything you want but I don't see how that or anything else will change my perspective.

Regards,
jc

Well there is no issue, esp. for me but since there are so many threads popping up i thought that someone migh be interested in some facts. Maybe they meausre better then a Paradigm or B&W speaker and are more true to the source? I dont believe that, but measuring them would be interesting!

I am not necessarily a 'Bose-basher', but I do not typically like all-in-one packages in general. I've listened to Bose on display and they don't appeal to me on any level. The only thing that they seem ideal for is 1. a dorm room 2. a bathroom 3. a closet 4. a bomb shelter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Florian

I would but unfortunatly my 301's has burned drivers! Can i use yours instead?

---

Sure but i'll have to rip them out of my car. LOL:ihih:

Flo

I appreciate your ambition but I don't think it will resolve the issue one way or the other. When I look at the Bose threads the main chorus seems to be against their HTIB or all-in-one systems and even within those Bose makes several so you would be testing for a long time. I would be interested in results for their stand alone speakers such as the 301's, 201's etc. that might help separate the wheat from the chaffe as they say because both Bose bashers and defenders tend to paint with a broad brush and I think there is a difference (both in price and sound quality) between their bookshelf speakers and their all-in-one units.

In the end I am not sure even conclusive results one way or the other would change most minds. In my short time in this forum the opposing camps seem dug in pretty well. As anyone here wanting to check can see I have a Bose set-up for my HT. While generally satisfied with it I know there are better speakers out there-not something most Bose owners/defenders would admit. At the same time not every single Bose product is an over-priced, poor sounding collection of plastic and paper-not something most audiophiles would admit.

Good luck with your quest and I hope to see some results posted in the future!

I would be interested to see their stand alone speakers measured as well. Sure it's not apples to apples to compare them to other speakers but as long as you set each type of speaker up properly it'd be interesting to see the differences in the listening area.

But for arguments sake it'd be nice to see one of their HT setups tested too just to get an idea of how big of a frequency gap exists between the cubes and the "bass module."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Florian

Well there is no issue, esp. for me but since there are so many threads popping up i thought that someone migh be interested in some facts. Maybe they meausre better then a Paradigm or B&W speaker and are more true to the source? I dont believe that, but measuring them would be interesting!

---

Well, believe it. The numbers don't lie, and first-hand listenings only reinforce what the technical data says. Sound & Vision published the benchmark results for the Bose Acoustimass 15 a few years ago, and they did not fare very well. (especially note the 10.5 db variation used in the frequency response measurement) I don't know of any Paradigm or B&W system that measures this poorly:

SATELLITES
Frequency Response: 280 Hz to 13.3k Hz at ±10.5 dB
Sensitivity (SPL at 1 meter)* 85.1 dB
Impedance (minimum/nominal) 5.3/8 ohms
Bass Limits (-3/-6 dB) 280/220 Hz

BASS MODULE
Frequency Response: 46Hz to 202Hz at ±2.3 dB
Sensitivity (SPL at 1 meter) N/A
Impedance (minimum/nominal) N/A
Bass Limits (-3/-6 dB) 46/40 Hz

Contrast this with the Sound & Vision specs for Paradigm's Cinema package (the previous version), which at that time cost about $400 less than the Acoustimass 15.

SATELLITE
Frequency Response: 125 Hz to 20 kHz at ±4.6 to ±5.2 dB
Sensitivity (SPL at 1 meter)* 86 db to 89 db
Impedance (minimum/nominal) 4.9/12 ohms (L/R/LS/RS), 8.1/10 ohms (C)

SUBWOOFER
Frequency Response: 46Hz to 115Hz at ±2.1 dB

Wooch

These specs/results don't surprise me.
IMO what Bose has done for their Accoustimass systems etc has divided a speaker in two with the cube serving as the tweeter and the bass module just a modified woofer.
By dividing a speaker this way I do not see how they could avoid gaps in their response levels.

I am not an expert but I wonder what the others think of my analogy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thekid

Wooch

These specs/results don't surprise me.
IMO what Bose has done for their Accoustimass systems etc has divided a speaker in two with the cube serving as the tweeter and the bass module just a modified woofer.
By dividing a speaker this way I do not see how they could avoid gaps in their response levels.

I am not an expert but I wonder what the others think of my analogy.

---

I think what differentiates Bose from other systems is that they have a much wider frequency gap and that gap occurs higher into the frequency range. This gap is very audible and the tonal imbalances throughout the rest of the frequency range make the Bose Acoustimass systems very poor performers compared to competing systems. The satellite units only extend down to 280 Hz, while the bass module has to go up to around 200 Hz. This means that the bass module is actually going into the lower midrange.

Also, by design the Bose Acoustimass systems require that you patch all of the outputs through the bass module where the crossover is located. This means that if you ever want to improve the bass response by adding a subwoofer, you actually have to keep the Bose bass module connected! The satellite units cannot be individually connected to the amp/receiver.

That Paradigm Cinema system is not ideal either because the satellites can only go down to 125 Hz, but if you use a home theater receiver with a crossover point of 120 Hz, then you have a much smaller gap between where the subwoofer takes over and where the satellite units drop off. And if you ever decide to upgrade the bass, all you have to do is swap out the subwoofer, or buy the satellites individually and get a different subwoofer from the outset. The Paradigm design is an open design that allows the user to upgrade different components, and this is how most other manufacturers design their systems. The closed loop design that Bose uses is another way that they rip off the customers, because it does not allow the user to swap out any components without upgrading the entie package.

Thanks Wooch for the specs, saves me some time!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woochifer

I think what differentiates Bose from other systems is that they have a much wider frequency gap and that gap occurs higher into the frequency range. This gap is very audible and the tonal imbalances throughout the rest of the frequency range make the Bose Acoustimass systems very poor performers compared to competing systems. The satellite units only extend down to 280 Hz, while the bass module has to go up to around 200 Hz. This means that the bass module is actually going into the lower midrange.

Also, by design the Bose Acoustimass systems require that you patch all of the outputs through the bass module where the crossover is located. This means that if you ever want to improve the bass response by adding a subwoofer, you actually have to keep the Bose bass module connected! The satellite units cannot be individually connected to the amp/receiver.

That Paradigm Cinema system is not ideal either because the satellites can only go down to 125 Hz, but if you use a home theater receiver with a crossover point of 120 Hz, then you have a much smaller gap between where the subwoofer takes over and where the satellite units drop off. And if you ever decide to upgrade the bass, all you have to do is swap out the subwoofer, or buy the satellites individually and get a different subwoofer from the outset. The Paradigm design is an open design that allows the user to upgrade different components, and this is how most other manufacturers design their systems. The closed loop design that Bose uses is another way that they rip off the customers, because it does not allow the user to swap out any components without upgrading the entie package.

---

Good point, and even now there are probably some packaged sets that don't have that gap which are reasonably priced. I'd be curious about the SVS system for example, among others.

Perhaps most suprising or at least enlightening for me is to see how the Bose speakers cut off just above 13KHz. I don't think it is so much a matter of me not believing it but that I've never seen the numbers specifying it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emorphien

Good point, and even now there are probably some packaged sets that don't have that gap which are reasonably priced. I'd be curious about the SVS system for example, among others.

Perhaps most suprising or at least enlightening for me is to see how the Bose speakers cut off just above 13KHz. I don't think it is so much a matter of me not believing it but that I've never seen the numbers specifying it.

---

That old saying "No Highs, No Lows, Must Be Bose" did not exactly originate in a vacuum! I would guess that their older bookshelf speakers have similar specs in the highs because they use comparable 2 1/2" paper cones. But, Bose's direct/reflecting speakers in general are very difficult to obtain accurate frequency response measurements for because the direct/reflecting design relies on bouncing half of the high frequency output off the walls. Consumer Reports has had to make special accommodations to their testing methodology to measure the Bose bookshelf speakers.

That SVS system is very promising because the satellite units can legitimately extend below 70 Hz, and the roll off is gradual due to their sealed design. This more ideally melds with the more typical crossover point of 80 Hz used on HT receivers. Combine this with their PB10-ISD subwoofer, and the SVS system should have minimal frequency gapping and legitimate bass extension down past 25 Hz in-room.

The thing to keep in mind with the SVS system though is that the satellite units are much larger than what you'd typically find with a sub/sat system. It's more like a typical bookshelf speaker, but somewhat smaller because most bookshelf speakers are ported and thus require a larger cabinet volume.

And I think that's the ingenious part of how SVS designed that system. They took a very different approach from the other manufacturers at this price point by using a soft dome tweeter, a 5 1/2" mid/woofer, and a sealed box. Some other sub/sat systems also use a sealed design with the satellite units to reduce the box dimensions, but they also use much smaller drivers, which necessitate either going with a higher crossover point with the subwoofer (if your receiver even has a variable crossover point to begin with), or putting up with a frequency gap between about 80 Hz to 120 Hz. This SVS system seems optimized towards creating the smallest satellite units possible that can legitimately cover the full frequency range while using a THX standard crossover point of 80 Hz.

I'm very curious as to how this system sounds because in the past I have always liked the sound of acoustic suspension bookshelf speakers. And this is really the first system I've seen that uses those types of speakers in a 5.1 speaker package. I'm just surprised that no one had thought of this before because it makes so much sense.

True the SVS is different, I was just using it as a pricing example compared to what the Bose systems can go for. Even though it needs a receiver and a source, you could spend $500 on that and outclass the Bose with no trouble.

I really haven't read in to the SVS system too much. There must be some reviews out now worth reading. I just remember the amusing fervor over it on the AVS forum. It was the best thing since sliced bread, even before it was shipping.

How 'bout someone try to measure the so-called comb-filter effect I keep hearing everyone refer to as if it were the Gospel? I wonder how easy that would be to measure?

at what frequency range can the human ear hear anyway?

Some say 15-18,000Hz and most say 20-20,000Hz

On the average, as you get older the 20k drops off (if you could even hear that high to begin with). And although you may not be able to hear anything below 20htz, you sure can feel it.

When I sold component audio systems for Lafayette Radio in the 60's and 70's, I continued to be amazed at how many people who could afford better, and who should have known better also, purchased outright crap and were thorougly satisfied with it. The Electrophonic/Morse-manufactured all in one combo units (record changer with ceramic cartridge, 8-track player (yecchhh!!!) and a truly horrible FM tuner/amp with about 3 watts of real power) continually outsold component audio systems, and were just as often purchased by people who could have afforded to spend the extra money on something that sounded inifinitely better.

Bose is a master of marketing, and should be commended for its efforts. It has managed to convince people who should know better that the only way to go is with Bose equipment, even though substantially better performance can be had elsewhere, and for a lot less money. Getting everything in one box is still appealing to the average consumer, even if the net result is genuinely crummy performance.

...does the torture never stop?

I'd go scrounge up the finalized plotting charts of my 901s and 301s and post 'em, but they would really prove zip-ola...

All Bose speaker systems are not designed to be direct radiators...

Comparing their FRs to that of any other loudspeaker, including dipoles, is meaningless...

The difference in FR between 13kHz and 20kHz is around 2/3 of an octave...an octave being eight whole steps (or notes) apart, that means the fa-so-la-ti-do of that final octave rolls-off...

But then again there are no notes at that point in the frequency spectrum since, as we all know, most fundamentals produced by musical instruments and the human voice pretty much top-off in the 3.5k to 5kHz region...most everything above is harmonic in content...which doesn't mean they aren't important, just not quite as important as the numbers themselves would seem to imply.

Think in terms of polar dispersion...similar to microphone response patterns...from omnidirectional to hyper-cardoid and any permutation thereof. Obviously this is an oversimplification and generalization, but comparing them is really useless as they all do their jobs, but in a distinctly different way...

jimHJJ(...apples and oranges anyone?...)

They operate on that weird reflecting/direct technology gimmick, don't they?
Maybe they're not suppose to measure flat?

Personally, I've always found FR to be somewhat over-rated. I've heard speakers that measure poorly (ie: +2/-9 dB) sound okay.. The key is the -9 dB and where it was at in the spectrum. I gave the speaker soundstage a sense of depth in the midrange.
Sometimes it was a bit annoying, most of the time you couldn't tell though. I think errors of addition are worse than errors of omission in that case. A +9 dB peak would probably make the same speaker unlistenable.

I'm just saying, maybe that's a sound people like, and is exactly what Bose is trying to do?

A few years back Parts Express was selling the Bose drivers they bought out for $0.15 or so...I can measure those if anyone has any?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Resident Loser

...does the torture never stop?

I'd go scrounge up the finalized plotting charts of my 901s and 301s and post 'em, but they would really prove zip-ola...

All Bose speaker systems are not designed to be direct radiators...

Comparing their FRs to that of any other loudspeaker, including dipoles, is meaningless...

The difference in FR between 13kHz and 20kHz is around 2/3 of an octave...an octave being eight whole steps (or notes) apart, that means the fa-so-la-ti-do of that final octave rolls-off...

---

Actually, the Acoustimass system whose specs I posted is designed such that the cubes can be positioned with all drivers pointed directly towards the listening position and nothing pointed towards the back and/or sidewalls, and that's what the S&V measurements reflect. This is different from the fixed driver angles and more deliberate aiming of the tweeters towards the walls that Bose uses in its direct/reflecting bookshelf and floorstanding speakers.

While you might dispute the importance of highs that roll off at 13 kHz vs. 20 kHz, the second part of that measurement that you left out is the magnitude of the variation within that frequency response. A ±10.5 dB variance is not trivial, especially compared to the ±5 dB variation in the less expensive Paradigm system that I posted for comparison. Having heard both systems before, the colorations rendered on the AM15 are far more glaring and obvious, and the measurements simply confirm what I heard first hand.

And that frequency gap between where the bass module leaves off and where the satellite unit picks up is also very consequential, and substandard compared to the competition. You're always going to have frequency gaps with these small sub/sat systems, especially if they're connected to home theater receivers with the crossover points fixed at 80 Hz or 90 Hz. But, Bose created this large gap by design and pushed it into a higher frequency range where there is a lot more musical content (lower male voices can sound very strange when played through an Acoustimass system).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Resident Loser

...does the torture never stop?

I'd go scrounge up the finalized plotting charts of my 901s and 301s and post 'em, but they would really prove zip-ola...

All Bose speaker systems are not designed to be direct radiators...

Comparing their FRs to that of any other loudspeaker, including dipoles, is meaningless...

The difference in FR between 13kHz and 20kHz is around 2/3 of an octave...an octave being eight whole steps (or notes) apart, that means the fa-so-la-ti-do of that final octave rolls-off...

But then again there are no notes at that point in the frequency spectrum since, as we all know, most fundamentals produced by musical instruments and the human voice pretty much top-off in the 3.5k to 5kHz region...most everything above is harmonic in content...which doesn't mean they aren't important, just not quite as important as the numbers themselves would seem to imply.

Think in terms of polar dispersion...similar to microphone response patterns...from omnidirectional to hyper-cardoid and any permutation thereof. Obviously this is an oversimplification and generalization, but comparing them is really useless as they all do their jobs, but in a distinctly different way...

jimHJJ(...apples and oranges anyone?...)

---

Sounds to me like you're trying to rationalize the poor performance of the Bose speakers.

It aint worth the effort. Even properly setup they're lacking IMO.