Technology Updates
 

On 1/13/2014 12:16 PM, wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2014 1:04:50 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 12:27 AM, wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 12:26:58 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



On 1/12/14, 11:51 AM, wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 11:25:52 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



That's cool...are those M-Audio speakers? They look very much like mine.



I bought my wife a set of Bose speakers that are the size of a Spam

can and sound like a boom box.



http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41aYSHGKCwL.jpg



A typical Bose sound.

The only problem is you can hear the flaws in low bit rate rips ;-)





I know they are very popular and highly rated, but I've never been fond

of the sound that emanates from the Bose speakers I've heard. I don't

know why that is. My "main" stereo speakers are electrostatics, about

six feet tall, and I like they way they sound. I've got a pair of

M-Audio speakers on my computer desk, and they're adequate for that

purpose.



Like I said, the Bose sound. It seems to be aimed at people who have

very good hearing in the higher ranges. The sound is very crisp. I

worked on line printers long enough that my hearing has a bit of a

notch in that area.

I like that good old 70s deep sound you got from ARs or Sansui with

cabinets that could hold a small child.







Over the years Bose has earned a (often deserved) reputation for phony

sounding speaker systems but that was not always the case. Way back

when the original 901 speakers were introduced, they were met with very

positive reviews by audiophiles of the time. Also, the Bose sound

reinforcement designs in small sound system packages have been copied

and emulated by many other small speaker and/or radio/CD/mp3 players

manufacturers over the years.



Back when "hi-fi" was the rage, there were two distinctive speaker

"sounds", the "West Coast" sound and the "East Coast" sound. The West

Coast sound emphasized the mid range and tended to be brighter sounding.

The East Coast sound was a more mellow sound with the mids somewhat

de-emphasized.



The original 901 and even the original 501 Bose speakers were pretty

good for their time. Obviously technology has advanced and, to me, the

most natural sounding speakers today are ribbon types and some

electrostatics.

Wasn't it the 901s that had a special sound processor box that hooked up between the pre-amp and amp? Basically an equalizer that shaped the audio to compensate for the speaker's lack of a flat frequency response.

I always thought they sounded impressive... for a while. Then listener's fatigue set in, and I didn't like them anymore.

I've been running a set of NHT's for a few years now. Great sound, very accurate.



The 901s required an equalizer as did some of their PA and sound
reinforcement speaker systems.

A friend of mine is heavily involved with his church and was given the
responsibility of upgrading their sound system.

He is also a regular customer at the guitar shop and performance venue I
built and equipped and he asked me to recommend a new system. I visited
the church to scope out it's size and noticed the PAs they were using.
The church is not very large, so a big system was not required. They
were using a pair of older Bose PA speakers .... I've forgotten what
model number and they sounded terrible. They are supposed to be used
with an equalizer (like the 901s) but it didn't exist. The speakers
had been donated minus the equalizer and no one knew they needed it.
We checked eBay, found one and bought it cheap. When it arrived we
hooked it up and he was blown away at how much better they sounded.
Saved them quite a bit of $$.

Technology Updates
 

On 1/13/14, 1:25 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 12:16 PM, wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2014 1:04:50 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 12:27 AM, wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 12:26:58 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



On 1/12/14, 11:51 AM, wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 11:25:52 -0500, "F.O.A.D."
wrote:



That's cool...are those M-Audio speakers? They look very much
like mine.



I bought my wife a set of Bose speakers that are the size of a Spam

can and sound like a boom box.



http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41aYSHGKCwL.jpg



A typical Bose sound.

The only problem is you can hear the flaws in low bit rate rips ;-)





I know they are very popular and highly rated, but I've never been
fond

of the sound that emanates from the Bose speakers I've heard. I don't

know why that is. My "main" stereo speakers are electrostatics, about

six feet tall, and I like they way they sound. I've got a pair of

M-Audio speakers on my computer desk, and they're adequate for that

purpose.



Like I said, the Bose sound. It seems to be aimed at people who have

very good hearing in the higher ranges. The sound is very crisp. I

worked on line printers long enough that my hearing has a bit of a

notch in that area.

I like that good old 70s deep sound you got from ARs or Sansui with

cabinets that could hold a small child.







Over the years Bose has earned a (often deserved) reputation for phony

sounding speaker systems but that was not always the case. Way back

when the original 901 speakers were introduced, they were met with very

positive reviews by audiophiles of the time. Also, the Bose sound

reinforcement designs in small sound system packages have been copied

and emulated by many other small speaker and/or radio/CD/mp3 players

manufacturers over the years.



Back when "hi-fi" was the rage, there were two distinctive speaker

"sounds", the "West Coast" sound and the "East Coast" sound. The West

Coast sound emphasized the mid range and tended to be brighter sounding.

The East Coast sound was a more mellow sound with the mids somewhat

de-emphasized.



The original 901 and even the original 501 Bose speakers were pretty

good for their time. Obviously technology has advanced and, to me, the

most natural sounding speakers today are ribbon types and some

electrostatics.

Wasn't it the 901s that had a special sound processor box that hooked
up between the pre-amp and amp? Basically an equalizer that shaped
the audio to compensate for the speaker's lack of a flat frequency
response.

I always thought they sounded impressive... for a while. Then
listener's fatigue set in, and I didn't like them anymore.

I've been running a set of NHT's for a few years now. Great sound,
very accurate.



The 901s required an equalizer as did some of their PA and sound
reinforcement speaker systems.

A friend of mine is heavily involved with his church and was given the
responsibility of upgrading their sound system.

He is also a regular customer at the guitar shop and performance venue I
built and equipped and he asked me to recommend a new system. I visited
the church to scope out it's size and noticed the PAs they were using.
The church is not very large, so a big system was not required. They
were using a pair of older Bose PA speakers .... I've forgotten what
model number and they sounded terrible. They are supposed to be used
with an equalizer (like the 901s) but it didn't exist. The speakers
had been donated minus the equalizer and no one knew they needed it. We
checked eBay, found one and bought it cheap. When it arrived we hooked
it up and he was blown away at how much better they sounded. Saved them
quite a bit of $$.



Sort of church-related, but not. The last time I was in New Haven, one
of our hosts played a CD of Bach he had being played on the 1928-1929
Skinner Pipe Organ at Woolsey Hall (you know that place, right?), and he
was playing it over a Bose 901 system he's had in his house for years.
Well, the "lackabass" of that sound system was really noticeable,
because what we heard through his Bose speakers didn't sound anything
like the Skinner, which I've heard dozens and dozens of times. The pedal
notes sounded like intestinal gas being passed. :)

Technology Updates
 

"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 1/13/14, 1:25 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 12:16 PM, wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2014 1:04:50 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 12:27 AM, wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 12:26:58 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



On 1/12/14, 11:51 AM, wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 11:25:52 -0500, "F.O.A.D."
wrote:



That's cool...are those M-Audio speakers? They look very much
like mine.



I bought my wife a set of Bose speakers that are the size of a Spam

can and sound like a boom box.



http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41aYSHGKCwL.jpg



A typical Bose sound.

The only problem is you can hear the flaws in low bit rate rips ;-)





I know they are very popular and highly rated, but I've never been
fond

of the sound that emanates from the Bose speakers I've heard. I don't

know why that is. My "main" stereo speakers are electrostatics, about

six feet tall, and I like they way they sound. I've got a pair of

M-Audio speakers on my computer desk, and they're adequate for that

purpose.



Like I said, the Bose sound. It seems to be aimed at people who have

very good hearing in the higher ranges. The sound is very crisp. I

worked on line printers long enough that my hearing has a bit of a

notch in that area.

I like that good old 70s deep sound you got from ARs or Sansui with

cabinets that could hold a small child.







Over the years Bose has earned a (often deserved) reputation for phony

sounding speaker systems but that was not always the case. Way back

when the original 901 speakers were introduced, they were met with very

positive reviews by audiophiles of the time. Also, the Bose sound

reinforcement designs in small sound system packages have been copied

and emulated by many other small speaker and/or radio/CD/mp3 players

manufacturers over the years.



Back when "hi-fi" was the rage, there were two distinctive speaker

"sounds", the "West Coast" sound and the "East Coast" sound. The West

Coast sound emphasized the mid range and tended to be brighter sounding.

The East Coast sound was a more mellow sound with the mids somewhat

de-emphasized.



The original 901 and even the original 501 Bose speakers were pretty

good for their time. Obviously technology has advanced and, to me, the

most natural sounding speakers today are ribbon types and some

electrostatics.

Wasn't it the 901s that had a special sound processor box that hooked
up between the pre-amp and amp? Basically an equalizer that shaped
the audio to compensate for the speaker's lack of a flat frequency
response.

I always thought they sounded impressive... for a while. Then
listener's fatigue set in, and I didn't like them anymore.

I've been running a set of NHT's for a few years now. Great sound,
very accurate.



The 901s required an equalizer as did some of their PA and sound
reinforcement speaker systems.

A friend of mine is heavily involved with his church and was given the
responsibility of upgrading their sound system.

He is also a regular customer at the guitar shop and performance venue I
built and equipped and he asked me to recommend a new system. I visited
the church to scope out it's size and noticed the PAs they were using.
The church is not very large, so a big system was not required. They
were using a pair of older Bose PA speakers .... I've forgotten what
model number and they sounded terrible. They are supposed to be used
with an equalizer (like the 901s) but it didn't exist. The speakers
had been donated minus the equalizer and no one knew they needed it. We
checked eBay, found one and bought it cheap. When it arrived we hooked
it up and he was blown away at how much better they sounded. Saved them
quite a bit of $$.



Sort of church-related, but not. The last time I was in New Haven, one of
our hosts played a CD of Bach he had being played on the 1928-1929
Skinner Pipe Organ at Woolsey Hall (you know that place, right?), and he
was playing it over a Bose 901 system he's had in his house for years.
Well, the "lackabass" of that sound system was really noticeable, because
what we heard through his Bose speakers didn't sound anything like the
Skinner, which I've heard dozens and dozens of times. The pedal notes
sounded like intestinal gas being passed. :)

Pipe organ will show up lack of low frequency quicker than anything else.
The low sounds are below human hearing, so they are more felt, than heard.
Had a friend in the 1960's who played pipe organs at a few venues in San
Francisco as a side hobby to programming.

Technology Updates
 

On 1/13/14, 1:50 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 1/13/14, 1:25 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 12:16 PM, wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2014 1:04:50 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 12:27 AM, wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 12:26:58 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



On 1/12/14, 11:51 AM, wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 11:25:52 -0500, "F.O.A.D."
wrote:



That's cool...are those M-Audio speakers? They look very much
like mine.



I bought my wife a set of Bose speakers that are the size of a Spam

can and sound like a boom box.



http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41aYSHGKCwL.jpg



A typical Bose sound.

The only problem is you can hear the flaws in low bit rate rips ;-)





I know they are very popular and highly rated, but I've never been
fond

of the sound that emanates from the Bose speakers I've heard. I don't

know why that is. My "main" stereo speakers are electrostatics, about

six feet tall, and I like they way they sound. I've got a pair of

M-Audio speakers on my computer desk, and they're adequate for that

purpose.



Like I said, the Bose sound. It seems to be aimed at people who have

very good hearing in the higher ranges. The sound is very crisp. I

worked on line printers long enough that my hearing has a bit of a

notch in that area.

I like that good old 70s deep sound you got from ARs or Sansui with

cabinets that could hold a small child.







Over the years Bose has earned a (often deserved) reputation for phony

sounding speaker systems but that was not always the case. Way back

when the original 901 speakers were introduced, they were met with very

positive reviews by audiophiles of the time. Also, the Bose sound

reinforcement designs in small sound system packages have been copied

and emulated by many other small speaker and/or radio/CD/mp3 players

manufacturers over the years.



Back when "hi-fi" was the rage, there were two distinctive speaker

"sounds", the "West Coast" sound and the "East Coast" sound. The West

Coast sound emphasized the mid range and tended to be brighter sounding.

The East Coast sound was a more mellow sound with the mids somewhat

de-emphasized.



The original 901 and even the original 501 Bose speakers were pretty

good for their time. Obviously technology has advanced and, to me, the

most natural sounding speakers today are ribbon types and some

electrostatics.

Wasn't it the 901s that had a special sound processor box that hooked
up between the pre-amp and amp? Basically an equalizer that shaped
the audio to compensate for the speaker's lack of a flat frequency
response.

I always thought they sounded impressive... for a while. Then
listener's fatigue set in, and I didn't like them anymore.

I've been running a set of NHT's for a few years now. Great sound,
very accurate.



The 901s required an equalizer as did some of their PA and sound
reinforcement speaker systems.

A friend of mine is heavily involved with his church and was given the
responsibility of upgrading their sound system.

He is also a regular customer at the guitar shop and performance venue I
built and equipped and he asked me to recommend a new system. I visited
the church to scope out it's size and noticed the PAs they were using.
The church is not very large, so a big system was not required. They
were using a pair of older Bose PA speakers .... I've forgotten what
model number and they sounded terrible. They are supposed to be used
with an equalizer (like the 901s) but it didn't exist. The speakers
had been donated minus the equalizer and no one knew they needed it. We
checked eBay, found one and bought it cheap. When it arrived we hooked
it up and he was blown away at how much better they sounded. Saved them
quite a bit of $$.



Sort of church-related, but not. The last time I was in New Haven, one of
our hosts played a CD of Bach he had being played on the 1928-1929
Skinner Pipe Organ at Woolsey Hall (you know that place, right?), and he
was playing it over a Bose 901 system he's had in his house for years.
Well, the "lackabass" of that sound system was really noticeable, because
what we heard through his Bose speakers didn't sound anything like the
Skinner, which I've heard dozens and dozens of times. The pedal notes
sounded like intestinal gas being passed. :)

Pipe organ will show up lack of low frequency quicker than anything else.
The low sounds are below human hearing, so they are more felt, than heard.
Had a friend in the 1960's who played pipe organs at a few venues in San
Francisco as a side hobby to programming.


Indeed. One of my relatives down south has a Bose system he uses to play
what many would call "easy listening" music, and as an outlet for TV
surround sound. The system seems adequate for that. I am not knocking
what many people think is good sound as much as I am critical of the
prices Bose asks for its goods. There are better speaker systems out
there for significantly less $$$.

Technology Updates
 

On 1/13/2014 1:36 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/13/14, 1:25 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 12:16 PM, wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2014 1:04:50 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 12:27 AM, wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 12:26:58 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



On 1/12/14, 11:51 AM, wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 11:25:52 -0500, "F.O.A.D."
wrote:



That's cool...are those M-Audio speakers? They look very much
like mine.



I bought my wife a set of Bose speakers that are the size of a Spam

can and sound like a boom box.



http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41aYSHGKCwL.jpg



A typical Bose sound.

The only problem is you can hear the flaws in low bit rate rips ;-)





I know they are very popular and highly rated, but I've never been
fond

of the sound that emanates from the Bose speakers I've heard. I don't

know why that is. My "main" stereo speakers are electrostatics, about

six feet tall, and I like they way they sound. I've got a pair of

M-Audio speakers on my computer desk, and they're adequate for that

purpose.



Like I said, the Bose sound. It seems to be aimed at people who have

very good hearing in the higher ranges. The sound is very crisp. I

worked on line printers long enough that my hearing has a bit of a

notch in that area.

I like that good old 70s deep sound you got from ARs or Sansui with

cabinets that could hold a small child.







Over the years Bose has earned a (often deserved) reputation for phony

sounding speaker systems but that was not always the case. Way back

when the original 901 speakers were introduced, they were met with very

positive reviews by audiophiles of the time. Also, the Bose sound

reinforcement designs in small sound system packages have been copied

and emulated by many other small speaker and/or radio/CD/mp3 players

manufacturers over the years.



Back when "hi-fi" was the rage, there were two distinctive speaker

"sounds", the "West Coast" sound and the "East Coast" sound. The West

Coast sound emphasized the mid range and tended to be brighter
sounding.

The East Coast sound was a more mellow sound with the mids somewhat

de-emphasized.



The original 901 and even the original 501 Bose speakers were pretty

good for their time. Obviously technology has advanced and, to me, the

most natural sounding speakers today are ribbon types and some

electrostatics.

Wasn't it the 901s that had a special sound processor box that hooked
up between the pre-amp and amp? Basically an equalizer that shaped
the audio to compensate for the speaker's lack of a flat frequency
response.

I always thought they sounded impressive... for a while. Then
listener's fatigue set in, and I didn't like them anymore.

I've been running a set of NHT's for a few years now. Great sound,
very accurate.



The 901s required an equalizer as did some of their PA and sound
reinforcement speaker systems.

A friend of mine is heavily involved with his church and was given the
responsibility of upgrading their sound system.

He is also a regular customer at the guitar shop and performance venue I
built and equipped and he asked me to recommend a new system. I visited
the church to scope out it's size and noticed the PAs they were using.
The church is not very large, so a big system was not required. They
were using a pair of older Bose PA speakers .... I've forgotten what
model number and they sounded terrible. They are supposed to be used
with an equalizer (like the 901s) but it didn't exist. The speakers
had been donated minus the equalizer and no one knew they needed it. We
checked eBay, found one and bought it cheap. When it arrived we hooked
it up and he was blown away at how much better they sounded. Saved them
quite a bit of $$.



Sort of church-related, but not. The last time I was in New Haven, one
of our hosts played a CD of Bach he had being played on the 1928-1929
Skinner Pipe Organ at Woolsey Hall (you know that place, right?), and he
was playing it over a Bose 901 system he's had in his house for years.
Well, the "lackabass" of that sound system was really noticeable,
because what we heard through his Bose speakers didn't sound anything
like the Skinner, which I've heard dozens and dozens of times. The pedal
notes sounded like intestinal gas being passed. :)




The performance stage I built last winter has a JBL sound system
consisting of two 650 watt powered speakers and two, JBL 18 inch
subwoofers. It sounds great but there's no way in hell it could
reproduce the overall sound quality of a pipe organ, especially the lows.

The human ear and mind are very forgiving sonic devices though. Unless
you are actually comparing sound sources in real time, your mind tends
to fill in what you don't hear ... or at least adapt for the decreased
fidelity. It's the reason most people can listen to music on an iPhone
or something and get some sort of enjoyment from it. I can't.

I've told some of this story before about Bose, but it's related to this
topic and since you brought up pipe organs:

At one point years ago we were boat shopping and went to check out an
Albin that was advertised. The seller turned out to be a retired sound
and recording engineer who had worked for the Boston Symphony Orchestra
back in the Arthur Fiedler days. The subject turned to music and
recording and he showed me the collection of very expensive microphones
that he had.

At one point I noticed a pair of older Bose 901s set up in his
"listening" room. I asked about them and he offered to let me hear them.

He played some recordings he had mastered, played on an ancient reel to
reel tape deck. The recordings including the massive, Aeolian-Skinner
pipe organ located in Boston's Symphony Hall. I've been there several
times in my life and have heard it being played live twice.

The sound of the organ in his listening room was simply amazing. Lows
were being produced that reminded me of hearing it live and they shook
the room. I didn't believe the Bose 901s could do that and I questioned
him on it. He just smiled and led me to a place in the floor that he
had modified and had installed a custom built, 18" sub woofer driver
with it's own dedicated, 3000 watt amplifier. That was the source of
all the lows. He had also modified the equalizer for the 901s so they
only produced frequencies from about 150Hz and up.

Right now my sound system has a 15" Velodyne servo driven sub woofer.
I've had and tried many and I think the Velodyne, especially the 15 inch
version, produces the most natural sounding bass from a musical
perspective of all I've tried. I also had an 18" Velodyne sub that
produced ground shaking THX effects for home theater applications but it
was not as musically accurate as the 15" version.

Technology Updates
 

On 1/13/14, 2:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 1:36 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/13/14, 1:25 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 12:16 PM, wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2014 1:04:50 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 12:27 AM, wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 12:26:58 -0500, "F.O.A.D."
wrote:



On 1/12/14, 11:51 AM, wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 11:25:52 -0500, "F.O.A.D."
wrote:



That's cool...are those M-Audio speakers? They look very much
like mine.



I bought my wife a set of Bose speakers that are the size of a Spam

can and sound like a boom box.



http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41aYSHGKCwL.jpg



A typical Bose sound.

The only problem is you can hear the flaws in low bit rate rips
;-)





I know they are very popular and highly rated, but I've never been
fond

of the sound that emanates from the Bose speakers I've heard. I
don't

know why that is. My "main" stereo speakers are electrostatics,
about

six feet tall, and I like they way they sound. I've got a pair of

M-Audio speakers on my computer desk, and they're adequate for that

purpose.



Like I said, the Bose sound. It seems to be aimed at people who have

very good hearing in the higher ranges. The sound is very crisp. I

worked on line printers long enough that my hearing has a bit of a

notch in that area.

I like that good old 70s deep sound you got from ARs or Sansui with

cabinets that could hold a small child.







Over the years Bose has earned a (often deserved) reputation for phony

sounding speaker systems but that was not always the case. Way back

when the original 901 speakers were introduced, they were met with
very

positive reviews by audiophiles of the time. Also, the Bose sound

reinforcement designs in small sound system packages have been copied

and emulated by many other small speaker and/or radio/CD/mp3 players

manufacturers over the years.



Back when "hi-fi" was the rage, there were two distinctive speaker

"sounds", the "West Coast" sound and the "East Coast" sound. The
West

Coast sound emphasized the mid range and tended to be brighter
sounding.

The East Coast sound was a more mellow sound with the mids somewhat

de-emphasized.



The original 901 and even the original 501 Bose speakers were pretty

good for their time. Obviously technology has advanced and, to me,
the

most natural sounding speakers today are ribbon types and some

electrostatics.

Wasn't it the 901s that had a special sound processor box that hooked
up between the pre-amp and amp? Basically an equalizer that shaped
the audio to compensate for the speaker's lack of a flat frequency
response.

I always thought they sounded impressive... for a while. Then
listener's fatigue set in, and I didn't like them anymore.

I've been running a set of NHT's for a few years now. Great sound,
very accurate.



The 901s required an equalizer as did some of their PA and sound
reinforcement speaker systems.

A friend of mine is heavily involved with his church and was given the
responsibility of upgrading their sound system.

He is also a regular customer at the guitar shop and performance venue I
built and equipped and he asked me to recommend a new system. I visited
the church to scope out it's size and noticed the PAs they were using.
The church is not very large, so a big system was not required. They
were using a pair of older Bose PA speakers .... I've forgotten what
model number and they sounded terrible. They are supposed to be used
with an equalizer (like the 901s) but it didn't exist. The speakers
had been donated minus the equalizer and no one knew they needed it. We
checked eBay, found one and bought it cheap. When it arrived we hooked
it up and he was blown away at how much better they sounded. Saved them
quite a bit of $$.



Sort of church-related, but not. The last time I was in New Haven, one
of our hosts played a CD of Bach he had being played on the 1928-1929
Skinner Pipe Organ at Woolsey Hall (you know that place, right?), and he
was playing it over a Bose 901 system he's had in his house for years.
Well, the "lackabass" of that sound system was really noticeable,
because what we heard through his Bose speakers didn't sound anything
like the Skinner, which I've heard dozens and dozens of times. The pedal
notes sounded like intestinal gas being passed. :)




The performance stage I built last winter has a JBL sound system
consisting of two 650 watt powered speakers and two, JBL 18 inch
subwoofers. It sounds great but there's no way in hell it could
reproduce the overall sound quality of a pipe organ, especially the lows.

The human ear and mind are very forgiving sonic devices though. Unless
you are actually comparing sound sources in real time, your mind tends
to fill in what you don't hear ... or at least adapt for the decreased
fidelity. It's the reason most people can listen to music on an iPhone
or something and get some sort of enjoyment from it. I can't.

I've told some of this story before about Bose, but it's related to this
topic and since you brought up pipe organs:

At one point years ago we were boat shopping and went to check out an
Albin that was advertised. The seller turned out to be a retired sound
and recording engineer who had worked for the Boston Symphony Orchestra
back in the Arthur Fiedler days. The subject turned to music and
recording and he showed me the collection of very expensive microphones
that he had.

At one point I noticed a pair of older Bose 901s set up in his
"listening" room. I asked about them and he offered to let me hear them.

He played some recordings he had mastered, played on an ancient reel to
reel tape deck. The recordings including the massive, Aeolian-Skinner
pipe organ located in Boston's Symphony Hall. I've been there several
times in my life and have heard it being played live twice.

The sound of the organ in his listening room was simply amazing. Lows
were being produced that reminded me of hearing it live and they shook
the room. I didn't believe the Bose 901s could do that and I questioned
him on it. He just smiled and led me to a place in the floor that he
had modified and had installed a custom built, 18" sub woofer driver
with it's own dedicated, 3000 watt amplifier. That was the source of
all the lows. He had also modified the equalizer for the 901s so they
only produced frequencies from about 150Hz and up.

Right now my sound system has a 15" Velodyne servo driven sub woofer.
I've had and tried many and I think the Velodyne, especially the 15 inch
version, produces the most natural sounding bass from a musical
perspective of all I've tried. I also had an 18" Velodyne sub that
produced ground shaking THX effects for home theater applications but it
was not as musically accurate as the 15" version.



I've a pair of Magnepan electrostatic speakers that were given to me by
a friend breaking up his household after a nasty divorce. :) They're
hooked up with a pretty decent subwoofer. The array suits me.

Technology Updates
 

On Monday, January 13, 2014 2:30:43 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:


I've a pair of Magnepan electrostatic speakers that were given to me by
a friend breaking up his household after a nasty divorce. :) They're
hooked up with a pretty decent subwoofer. The array suits me.

Magnepans can sound very good, but they require massive amounts of power (current) from an amplifier that can drive a low impedance, and they do require a subwoofer.

I have a friend with a pair of them, driven in a bi-amp configuration with over $6k worth of hi-end amps, plus pre-amps, etc. Great sound, but costly.

Oh, and technically, Magnepans aren't electrostatics. They are dipole magna-planars.

Technology Updates
 

On 1/13/14, 2:57 PM, wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2014 2:30:43 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:


I've a pair of Magnepan electrostatic speakers that were given to me by
a friend breaking up his household after a nasty divorce. :) They're
hooked up with a pretty decent subwoofer. The array suits me.

Magnepans can sound very good, but they require massive amounts of power (current) from an amplifier that can drive a low impedance, and they do require a subwoofer.

I have a friend with a pair of them, driven in a bi-amp configuration with over $6k worth of hi-end amps, plus pre-amps, etc. Great sound, but costly.

Oh, and technically, Magnepans aren't electrostatics. They are dipole magna-planars.


Dipole magnaplaners? Holy toledo! I of course have not a clue what that
means.

My "magies" are driven by a pretty high powered McIntosh amp running
through a preamp. I got the McIntosh at a pawn shop in Virginia. It was
practically a give-away, since it had been sitting in the pawnbroker's
store for months, and about every two months, I'd stop by and make him a
ridiculous offer for it. I've got what I think is called a "passive"
subwoofer that strips the lows off the lines running to the magies.

Technology Updates
 

On 1/13/2014 3:22 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/13/14, 2:57 PM, wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2014 2:30:43 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:


I've a pair of Magnepan electrostatic speakers that were given to me by
a friend breaking up his household after a nasty divorce. :) They're
hooked up with a pretty decent subwoofer. The array suits me.

Magnepans can sound very good, but they require massive amounts of
power (current) from an amplifier that can drive a low impedance, and
they do require a subwoofer.

I have a friend with a pair of them, driven in a bi-amp configuration
with over $6k worth of hi-end amps, plus pre-amps, etc. Great sound,
but costly.

Oh, and technically, Magnepans aren't electrostatics. They are dipole
magna-planars.


Dipole magnaplaners? Holy toledo! I of course have not a clue what that
means.

My "magies" are driven by a pretty high powered McIntosh amp running
through a preamp. I got the McIntosh at a pawn shop in Virginia. It was
practically a give-away, since it had been sitting in the pawnbroker's
store for months, and about every two months, I'd stop by and make him a
ridiculous offer for it. I've got what I think is called a "passive"
subwoofer that strips the lows off the lines running to the magies.


Magies are excellent speakers. Like 3452471@gmail says however they
are not considered to be electrostatic. They are a form of ribbon
speaker technology that have fine wires on a mylar film, causing the
mylar to vibrate. Also, as mentioned, both electrostatic and hybrid
ribbon speakers like the Magnepans are notoriously inefficient and
require higher powered amps to drive them properly. With due respect to
your McIntosh, it may not have enough power to drive them for max
performance. McIntosh are fine amps but typically are not noted for
being high powered, except some of the solid state types. If that's the
case, it's not a true McIntosh .... :-)

I had a pair of the original Martin Logan SL3 electrostatics that also
had a small "sub" in the lower section. Electrostatic speakers have a
transparent, semi-conductive thin film deposited on the mylar (rather
than having thin wires attached to it). I am quite sure the thin film
is indium tin oxide which is commonly used to form the transparent
matrix on touch screens like smart phones and other touch screen
displays. The Martin Logan design includes a high voltage static charge
on the mylar that "suspends" it. The audio signal is applied to the
transparent thin film coating, causing the mylar to vibrate in it's
suspended field. The concept is very similar to that of a huge,
condenser type microphone in reverse.

Both Magies and the original Martin Logans are audiophile delights and
have been the subject of debate for years over which is the better.
Most feel that Magnepans have a slight edge.

I bi-amped the SL3s I had but also used a subwoofer as well. I ended up
selling them because they were big and very temperamental to location.
Like the Magies, they are dipole speakers meaning there is as much sound
being generated from the rear as from the front and positioning for best
performance is critical due to reflections off of walls. It's not so
important if you are not a nerd about it like I was, but I was always
trying to expand the "sweet spot" and had a very critical ear. Martin
Logan has tried to address this by curving the mylar surface but they
are still very sensitive to position relative to the listener. I was
driving my wife nuts setting up a room that was purely dedicated to
sitting in one spot to listen to music, so I finally gave up.

The concept of near mass-less drivers makes sense to me. The mylar can
instantaneously respond to an input as opposed to a heavy voice coil
suspended in a permanent magnet field like conventional speakers. Also,
because there is mass, there is inertia to deal with in conventional
speakers. Once in motion, the voice coil can tend to continue to
oscillate when the input is removed causing distortion or "muddiness".
Near mass-less mylar can stop moving much faster. The result is a very
"airy" and natural sound.

One thing unique to electrostatics (and I think the same is true of
Maggies) is their impedance. Speakers have a nominal impedance (usually
8 ohms) but the actual impedance the amplifier sees varies with
frequency. In conventional speakers with a voice coil, the reactive
impedance is inductive, therefore the impedance goes down with
frequency. Electrostatics appear to be a capacitive load to the amp, so
impedance goes up as frequency goes down (and visa-versa). It's
important to select the correct amp to drive them.

I had no desire to drive myself and everyone nuts with another system
but happened to hear some speakers made by Focal. Focal is a French
company (actually called JM Laboratories) and build mid to high end
speakers as well as other audio products. I ended up with a pair of
Chorus speakers as well as matching surrounds and a center channel.
Very pleased with their sound reproduction although I don't think it
compares to the Martin Logans. At least they are not as position
sensitive and don't dictate the room's setup. I use the previously
mentioned Velodyne 15" subwoofer with them.

http://www.focal.com/en/chorus-700/401-chorus-726-3544056691074.html

Technology Updates
 

On 1/13/14, 5:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/13/2014 3:22 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/13/14, 2:57 PM, wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2014 2:30:43 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:


I've a pair of Magnepan electrostatic speakers that were given to me by
a friend breaking up his household after a nasty divorce. :) They're
hooked up with a pretty decent subwoofer. The array suits me.

Magnepans can sound very good, but they require massive amounts of
power (current) from an amplifier that can drive a low impedance, and
they do require a subwoofer.

I have a friend with a pair of them, driven in a bi-amp configuration
with over $6k worth of hi-end amps, plus pre-amps, etc. Great sound,
but costly.

Oh, and technically, Magnepans aren't electrostatics. They are dipole
magna-planars.


Dipole magnaplaners? Holy toledo! I of course have not a clue what that
means.

My "magies" are driven by a pretty high powered McIntosh amp running
through a preamp. I got the McIntosh at a pawn shop in Virginia. It was
practically a give-away, since it had been sitting in the pawnbroker's
store for months, and about every two months, I'd stop by and make him a
ridiculous offer for it. I've got what I think is called a "passive"
subwoofer that strips the lows off the lines running to the magies.


Magies are excellent speakers. Like 3452471@gmail says however they
are not considered to be electrostatic. They are a form of ribbon
speaker technology that have fine wires on a mylar film, causing the
mylar to vibrate. Also, as mentioned, both electrostatic and hybrid
ribbon speakers like the Magnepans are notoriously inefficient and
require higher powered amps to drive them properly. With due respect to
your McIntosh, it may not have enough power to drive them for max
performance. McIntosh are fine amps but typically are not noted for
being high powered, except some of the solid state types. If that's the
case, it's not a true McIntosh .... :-)


You mean, my McIntosh amp was made by...gawk...Apple?

I don't know who made it, if you are claiming it was someone other than
McIntosh. Too esoteric for me. But when I first saw it in the pawn shop,
I knew I wanted it. It was sitting there, like Scarlett Johannson.

The spec sheet reads as follows. I have no idea what most of these
numbers below THD mean:

Power Output per Channel

450W @ 2, 4 or 8 Ohms

Number of Channels

2

Total Harmonic Distortion

0.005%

S/N below rated output

124dB

Dynamic Headroom

1.8dB

Damping Factor

40 Wideband

Rated Power Band

20Hz to 20kHz

Frequency Response +0,-0.25dB

20Hz to 20kHz

Frequency Response -3dB

10Hz to 100kHz