On 2/24/2016 6:33 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 2/24/16 12:06 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/23/2016 5:56 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
John H. wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 10:46:05 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 2/23/16 8:24 AM, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 07:44:01 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:
On 2/23/16 6:58 AM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 20:26:17 -0500, Alex wrote:
John H. wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 21:37:40 -0500, Alex wrote:
John H. wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 19:38:42 -0800 (PST), True North
wrote:
Ditzy Dan Kruger blathers...
True North wrote:
Oh boy...now I feel really cold.
Local CBC says it's minus 12C but feels like minus 23C due
to wind.
I'd better buy a new outdoor thermometer...or place the
current
one further from the house.
"Sure you can afford one?"
I can afford to buy a new boat, dummy.
Wife and I picked out one yesterday at the local boat show.
So? Come on...tell us more. Pictures?
Here I've spent hours reading and listening to computer sound
systems, and you're
doing something constructive!
--
Ban liars, tax cheats, idiots, and narcissists...not guns!
I have these. The controller is outstanding!
https://www.bose.com/en_us/products/...nion5_graphite
I looked at that in Best Buy. If they'd had one in stock, I may
have brought it home.
Luckily, they were out of them. I came home, moved the
subwoofer to a different spot,
and listened to the Saint-Saëns symphony at a reasonable
volume. Sounded great, so
I'm going to stick with these old Logitech Z2300s for a while
longer.
--
I bought mine from the Bose outlet store. 30% off retail and
they seem
to hold their distributors to retail prices.
Amazon, Best Buy, Bose, etc, all want $399 for the Companion 5s.
Only used, on Ebay,
is there a different price that I saw.
If I were to go with a different set, those would be the
speakers, I think.
--
Interesting that Bose doesn't include frequency response in its
on-line
specs, unless I missed it.
http://dreamandreach.bose.com/en_US/...sychoacoustics
--
Ahh, so the frequency response numbers must be pretty crappy in
comparison to similarly priced speakers from other
manufacturers...enjoy.
I've never been disappointed with any set of Bose speakers. Of
course, unlike you I
don't listen to the frequency response numbers. I listen to the music.
Again, don't you ever just get f'ing sick of yourself?
--
Ban liars, tax cheats, idiots, and narcissists...not guns!
As some wag once wrote:
No highs, no lows...must be Bose.
That slogan has been around since the early 1970's, started by either
audio elitists who misunderstood what Bose was marketing and selling in
the 901 series speakers or by one of the competing "high end" speaker
manufacturers of the day. The Bose 901 speaker design was originally
unique in the respect that it employed the "direct/reflecting" concept
in a fairly small enclosure for the standards of the time. You have to
remember that the "high end" speakers of the 1960's (the 901's were
introduced in 1968) were typically large, heavy, (sometimes double
walled and sand filled) monstrosities that contained a large 12" or 15"
woofer, mid-range and various types of tweeter drivers. The 901's were
an attempt to create a sound stage effect by reflecting most of the
sound off the walls behind the speakers.
The big problem is that few people had living rooms that allowed the
901's to be set up properly. They depend on proper spacing away from
hard walls (not curtains or drapes) to sound good. They also shouldn't
be placed symmetrically in a room (meaning both speakers being the same
distance from a side wall). Guys who understood the placement
requirements might have tried but wives usually prevailed in terms of
where they ended up in a room. Been there, done that.
Another bit about the 901's: Without the Bose equalizer they sound
terrible. I've seen vintage 901's set up and being used without the
equalizer because it was either lost or not working. Waste of time.
Try to find a vintage Bose equalizer on eBay or elsewhere. They don't
come up for sale often.
That all said, the 901's *can* sound wonderful if properly set up. I
have had the unique opportunity to compare a fully functional set (with
equalizer) that were made in 1980 to a pair of "high end" (for their
day) four foot high JBL studio monitor monsters. Both speaker sets are
up in a large garage with the 901's having the benefit of hard,
sheetrock walls behind them.
The 901's sound better overall to my ears and to everyone who has
listened to both in a casual "blind" test. The JBL's sound great.
The Bose 901's are clearer though with crisper highs and about the same
level of bass as the JBL's. More importantly is the
sound stage image they project as compared to the JBL's. The Bose
concept works *if* you pay attention to how they are setup.
As for other, contemporary Bose products, they are simply an over-priced
way to get "big" sound out of small enclosures, IMO. The original
direct/reflecting concept has been dropped in favor of things like
waveguides to reinforce bass in a small package. Other audio equipment
manufacturers have adopted similar waveguide designs over the years that
are much less expensive to purchase.
Oh ... one other comment for Harry. Bose has never officially published
the frequency response curves for any of their products.
It's basically meaningless anyway when comparing similar sized speakers.
A set of speakers with a theoretically "perfect", flat
response curve from 20Hz to 20kHz are not going to sound the same
set up in different rooms. The acoustics of the room itself
has a major impact on how they sound. Same is true in your favorite
concert hall. Millions are spent on the design and acoustic treatment
of the hall in order to "equalize" the sound of all the various
instruments in a symphony orchestra.
Thanks. My points of reference these days remain my electrostatics and a
friend's setup with genuine Klipschhorns.
Not to split hairs but Magnepan speakers (I think that's what you said
you have) are not "electrostatic". Maggies have a mylar film that
produces the sound but the mylar has small wires and foil physically
attached to it. Also, the mylar is mounted within a magnetic field that
is produced by strips of permanent magnets. When the conductors on the
mylar are fed the audio signal it causes the mylar to vibrate within the
permanent magnet field.
Electrostatic speakers are similar except there are no conductors
physically attached to the mylar and the mylar film is held within
a *static" field created by a small, high voltage transformer. The
mylar is coated with a extremely thin, transparent, conductive coating
(indium tin oxide) and the audio signal is applied to it.
The only problem with Maggies and electrostatics (like Martin Logan) is
that in order to produce sufficient bass from the mylar, the speakers
have to be huge. However, using a dedicated subwoofer solves that
problem. Martin Logan electrostatics also have a conventional woofer in
the lower section of the enclosure for bass.
The most amazing speakers I have ever heard were a pair of large ribbon
speakers. They were in a very high end audio shop on Long Island and I
had never seen anything like them. They were shaped like the sound
board of a grand piano standing up on end with ribbons going across
varying in length as the enclosure got bigger. They were powered by two
monstrous vacuum tube amps and a vacuum tube pre-amplifer. The cheapest
component in the whole system was a Rotel
CD player that was used as a music source. I've forgotten who made the
speakers or the amps. I stopped in one day and the owner must have
noticed my curiosity (or my salivating) because he asked if I'd like to
hear them. (insert "does a bear **** in the woods?" here")
He played some classical piece that contained soft movements with cellos
being slowly drawn along with soft wind chimes and then explosive
sections with horns and heavy percussion. Blew my mind.
I had never heard anything like them and haven't since.
This was in 1989. The speakers alone were over $100K.