|
Anyone got a docking thing for an iPod?
"jamesgangnc" wrote in message
... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "jamesgangnc" wrote in message ... "HK" wrote in message ... jamesgangnc wrote: Without any compression? Are you sure about that. Cause the lossless formats only achieve about a 70% reduction in file size so you get around 2 cds or so per gig. Default ripping with itunes uses the apple acc compression which is a lossy algorythm. Mp3 is also lossy. "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Don White" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... Like this: http://www.alteclansing.com/index.ph...iproduct_id=64 or: http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/iHome...oductDetail.do The heir to my fortune and empire is apparently enamored of these toys. Interested in feedback if you've got something like this. I think it's a mistake and that a guy should have an actual stereo system, even if this means getting rid of his roommate to make space in the dorm room. The prince doesn't agree. The 'kids' are hoked on the iPods or reasonable facimilie. No point fighting it. My son has had one for a couple of years , and asked for a new model this Christmas. Of course his mom ran right out and plopped down $400.00 + taxes for it. It was a lot cheaper back in the days of the old 45s. If we eliminate HD radio from the discussion for the moment, an iPod is probably no worse than listening to FM radio, which munges up the music to an extent. My son's at least using music files pulled directly from CDs for the most part, without any compression that he's applied. So, at least he's not at the mercy of radio stations. But then, he's listening with earbuds, which suck, according to my ears. I offered to get him a set of nice Sennheiser 400-series open air headphones, but he's not interested. He's always right, ya know? MP4 320 kbps Still lossy. I haven't found anyone that could really tell the difference though. The problem comes in when you want to switch formats from one lossy to another lossy. That's why it's always better to go back to the original uncompressed source. Also why I very seldom buy music off itunes, because then you never get a copy of the uncompressed song. At the "better settings", it's difficult to tell the difference. And, whether it matters or not often depends on the purpose of the file you're creating. If I need to send a song to a band member, to settle the "Are we talking about the same song here?" question, and he's one of these people whose email is always close to fill, I'll shrink a 15mb song down to 1mb. It sounds hideous, but at least I get the answer I'm looking for. If I have to listen to that same song on my stereo every day for a week, while learning it, then it has to be the original or very close to it. Otherwise, it grates on my nerves. Ok, so what settings are you considering close to the original? And what equipment do you run it through? I'm using just 256kb mp4 and running it through a dbx223 crossover set at 700hz driving an adcom 555 amp for the woofers and an adcom 535 amp for the midbass and ribbon tweeters. And I can't really tell any difference between the uncompressed and the mp4. I have WMP set to rip tracks to what it calls Windows Media Lossless. I listen through a Hafler preamp (forgot model #), Hafler DH-200 power amp and a pair of Kef IQ-9 speakers. It's inconvenient and time consuming for me to try and compare the CDs I make to the originals (take out one CD, put in another blah blah blah), but I've experimented with the bit rates in a program called EZ CD Extractor (http://www.poikosoft.com/) which, among other things, can take a track on your computer and compress it with a wide range of settings. There *IS* a point where I notice the beginnings of harshness, listening with a very nice set of Sennheiser headphones. I won't mention the bit rate where I notice the loss of quality, because it would result in "someone" adding a lot of clutter to this discussion. |
Anyone got a docking thing for an iPod?
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:58:42 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... That's why I included the words "that he's applied". Although we have different purposes in mind when we rip a CD, we both begin use Windows Media Player as our starting point, with options set to do the least damage to the files. Even if it's doing a little compression in that process, my ears still tell me the results are better than some of what he downloads or shares with friends. I recently set up a music system using a pair of SL3 Martin-Logan's that have been stored away since we moved into this house because I didn't have a good room to set them up properly in. I decided to do the surround thing as well and bought a new Denon receiver/amp, some Mirage surrounds and, believe it or not, a decent sounding Bose center channel speaker. Immediately ran into the problem I discovered the last time I used these speakers. Many of the CDs that sound ok on a couple of other systems we have using conventional speaker drivers sound terrible on the electrostatics. But, the "good" ones sound spectacular, showing off the acoustically transparent nature of this type of speaker. Then, to my surprise, I found a royalty free, MP3 version Sousa's "Stars and Stripes Forever" somewhere on the 'net. It was reported to be a high quality file, recorded at a higher than normal bit rate, (don't remember what it was). Anyway, I burned it to a CD and it sounds excellent. Lots of dynamic range and you can clearly hear every instrument being played. In terms of fidelity, it's better than half the commercially produced CDs I have. Eisboch Try some Telarc CD's. -- John H |
Anyone got a docking thing for an iPod?
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... That's why I included the words "that he's applied". Although we have different purposes in mind when we rip a CD, we both begin use Windows Media Player as our starting point, with options set to do the least damage to the files. Even if it's doing a little compression in that process, my ears still tell me the results are better than some of what he downloads or shares with friends. I recently set up a music system using a pair of SL3 Martin-Logan's that have been stored away since we moved into this house because I didn't have a good room to set them up properly in. I decided to do the surround thing as well and bought a new Denon receiver/amp, some Mirage surrounds and, believe it or not, a decent sounding Bose center channel speaker. Immediately ran into the problem I discovered the last time I used these speakers. Many of the CDs that sound ok on a couple of other systems we have using conventional speaker drivers sound terrible on the electrostatics. But, the "good" ones sound spectacular, showing off the acoustically transparent nature of this type of speaker. Then, to my surprise, I found a royalty free, MP3 version Sousa's "Stars and Stripes Forever" somewhere on the 'net. It was reported to be a high quality file, recorded at a higher than normal bit rate, (don't remember what it was). Anyway, I burned it to a CD and it sounds excellent. Lots of dynamic range and you can clearly hear every instrument being played. In terms of fidelity, it's better than half the commercially produced CDs I have. Eisboch Buy this CD for your electrostatics. They'll like it a lot. http://www.telarc.com/gscripts/title...6F V7FJTSDMFC |
Anyone got a docking thing for an iPod?
"jamesgangnc" wrote in message
... The itunes acc format is actually considered to be better at the same rate than mp3. Mp3 is pretty old now. Perhaps, but any discussion of itunes only applies to my son. He uses it, not me. |
Anyone got a docking thing for an iPod?
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:49:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "Eisboch" wrote in message m... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... That's why I included the words "that he's applied". Although we have different purposes in mind when we rip a CD, we both begin use Windows Media Player as our starting point, with options set to do the least damage to the files. Even if it's doing a little compression in that process, my ears still tell me the results are better than some of what he downloads or shares with friends. I recently set up a music system using a pair of SL3 Martin-Logan's that have been stored away since we moved into this house because I didn't have a good room to set them up properly in. I decided to do the surround thing as well and bought a new Denon receiver/amp, some Mirage surrounds and, believe it or not, a decent sounding Bose center channel speaker. Immediately ran into the problem I discovered the last time I used these speakers. Many of the CDs that sound ok on a couple of other systems we have using conventional speaker drivers sound terrible on the electrostatics. But, the "good" ones sound spectacular, showing off the acoustically transparent nature of this type of speaker. Then, to my surprise, I found a royalty free, MP3 version Sousa's "Stars and Stripes Forever" somewhere on the 'net. It was reported to be a high quality file, recorded at a higher than normal bit rate, (don't remember what it was). Anyway, I burned it to a CD and it sounds excellent. Lots of dynamic range and you can clearly hear every instrument being played. In terms of fidelity, it's better than half the commercially produced CDs I have. Eisboch Buy this CD for your electrostatics. They'll like it a lot. http://www.telarc.com/gscripts/title...6F V7FJTSDMFC It's good, but this one will blow you out of the water, http://tinyurl.com/238bz3 -- John H |
Anyone got a docking thing for an iPod?
"John H." wrote in message
... On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:49:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Eisboch" wrote in message om... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... That's why I included the words "that he's applied". Although we have different purposes in mind when we rip a CD, we both begin use Windows Media Player as our starting point, with options set to do the least damage to the files. Even if it's doing a little compression in that process, my ears still tell me the results are better than some of what he downloads or shares with friends. I recently set up a music system using a pair of SL3 Martin-Logan's that have been stored away since we moved into this house because I didn't have a good room to set them up properly in. I decided to do the surround thing as well and bought a new Denon receiver/amp, some Mirage surrounds and, believe it or not, a decent sounding Bose center channel speaker. Immediately ran into the problem I discovered the last time I used these speakers. Many of the CDs that sound ok on a couple of other systems we have using conventional speaker drivers sound terrible on the electrostatics. But, the "good" ones sound spectacular, showing off the acoustically transparent nature of this type of speaker. Then, to my surprise, I found a royalty free, MP3 version Sousa's "Stars and Stripes Forever" somewhere on the 'net. It was reported to be a high quality file, recorded at a higher than normal bit rate, (don't remember what it was). Anyway, I burned it to a CD and it sounds excellent. Lots of dynamic range and you can clearly hear every instrument being played. In terms of fidelity, it's better than half the commercially produced CDs I have. Eisboch Buy this CD for your electrostatics. They'll like it a lot. http://www.telarc.com/gscripts/title...6F V7FJTSDMFC It's good, but this one will blow you out of the water, http://tinyurl.com/238bz3 -- John H "Please check that the URL entered is correct. " What's Telarc's product code? |
Anyone got a docking thing for an iPod?
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 01:35:14 -0500, gfretwell wrote:
Radiohead released an album on the net for 90 cents(plus whatever your conscience had you add) . They said they were pleased with the result. I don't doubt they made more than the record label pays them and it is virtually all profit. You are not paying for the manufacture, distribution and retailing of a chunk of plastic. http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/...ortune/59.html |
Anyone got a docking thing for an iPod?
On Dec 20, 10:47 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"jamesgangnc" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "jamesgangnc" wrote in message ... "HK" wrote in message ... jamesgangnc wrote: Without any compression? Are you sure about that. Cause the lossless formats only achieve about a 70% reduction in file size so you get around 2 cds or so per gig. Default ripping with itunes uses the apple acc compression which is a lossy algorythm. Mp3 is also lossy. "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Don White" wrote in message t... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... Like this: http://www.alteclansing.com/index.ph...t_detail&iprod... or: http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/iHome...or-iPod-Silver... The heir to my fortune and empire is apparently enamored of these toys. Interested in feedback if you've got something like this. I think it's a mistake and that a guy should have an actual stereo system, even if this means getting rid of his roommate to make space in the dorm room. The prince doesn't agree. The 'kids' are hoked on the iPods or reasonable facimilie. No point fighting it. My son has had one for a couple of years , and asked for a new model this Christmas. Of course his mom ran right out and plopped down $400.00 + taxes for it. It was a lot cheaper back in the days of the old 45s. If we eliminate HD radio from the discussion for the moment, an iPod is probably no worse than listening to FM radio, which munges up the music to an extent. My son's at least using music files pulled directly from CDs for the most part, without any compression that he's applied. So, at least he's not at the mercy of radio stations. But then, he's listening with earbuds, which suck, according to my ears. I offered to get him a set of nice Sennheiser 400-series open air headphones, but he's not interested. He's always right, ya know? MP4 320 kbps Still lossy. I haven't found anyone that could really tell the difference though. The problem comes in when you want to switch formats from one lossy to another lossy. That's why it's always better to go back to the original uncompressed source. Also why I very seldom buy music off itunes, because then you never get a copy of the uncompressed song. At the "better settings", it's difficult to tell the difference. And, whether it matters or not often depends on the purpose of the file you're creating. If I need to send a song to a band member, to settle the "Are we talking about the same song here?" question, and he's one of these people whose email is always close to fill, I'll shrink a 15mb song down to 1mb. It sounds hideous, but at least I get the answer I'm looking for. If I have to listen to that same song on my stereo every day for a week, while learning it, then it has to be the original or very close to it. Otherwise, it grates on my nerves. Ok, so what settings are you considering close to the original? And what equipment do you run it through? I'm using just 256kb mp4 and running it through a dbx223 crossover set at 700hz driving an adcom 555 amp for the woofers and an adcom 535 amp for the midbass and ribbon tweeters. And I can't really tell any difference between the uncompressed and the mp4. I have WMP set to rip tracks to what it calls Windows Media Lossless. I listen through a Hafler preamp (forgot model #), Hafler DH-200 power amp and a pair of Kef IQ-9 speakers. It's inconvenient and time consuming for me to try and compare the CDs I make to the originals (take out one CD, put in another blah blah blah), but I've experimented with the bit rates in a program called EZ CD Extractor (http://www.poikosoft.com/) which, among other things, can take a track on your computer and compress it with a wide range of settings. There *IS* a point where I notice the beginnings of harshness, listening with a very nice set of Sennheiser headphones. I won't mention the bit rate where I notice the loss of quality, because it would result in "someone" adding a lot of clutter to this discussion.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I can't store my collection in lossless. I'd need about 400gig and I only have a 250 gig second drive. |
Anyone got a docking thing for an iPod?
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:06:12 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:49:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Eisboch" wrote in message news:o6SdnRGrl725HvfanZ2dnUVZ_hynnZ2d@giganews. com... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... That's why I included the words "that he's applied". Although we have different purposes in mind when we rip a CD, we both begin use Windows Media Player as our starting point, with options set to do the least damage to the files. Even if it's doing a little compression in that process, my ears still tell me the results are better than some of what he downloads or shares with friends. I recently set up a music system using a pair of SL3 Martin-Logan's that have been stored away since we moved into this house because I didn't have a good room to set them up properly in. I decided to do the surround thing as well and bought a new Denon receiver/amp, some Mirage surrounds and, believe it or not, a decent sounding Bose center channel speaker. Immediately ran into the problem I discovered the last time I used these speakers. Many of the CDs that sound ok on a couple of other systems we have using conventional speaker drivers sound terrible on the electrostatics. But, the "good" ones sound spectacular, showing off the acoustically transparent nature of this type of speaker. Then, to my surprise, I found a royalty free, MP3 version Sousa's "Stars and Stripes Forever" somewhere on the 'net. It was reported to be a high quality file, recorded at a higher than normal bit rate, (don't remember what it was). Anyway, I burned it to a CD and it sounds excellent. Lots of dynamic range and you can clearly hear every instrument being played. In terms of fidelity, it's better than half the commercially produced CDs I have. Eisboch Buy this CD for your electrostatics. They'll like it a lot. http://www.telarc.com/gscripts/title...6F V7FJTSDMFC It's good, but this one will blow you out of the water, http://tinyurl.com/238bz3 -- John H "Please check that the URL entered is correct. " What's Telarc's product code? Worked for me, but here's the info: Artist: Michael Murray Recording: Saint Saens: Symphony No. 3 and Encores a la francaise Release# CD-80634 Compact Disc Price: $9.99 -- John H |
Anyone got a docking thing for an iPod?
"John H." wrote in message
... Artist: Michael Murray Recording: Saint Saens: Symphony No. 3 and Encores a la francaise Release# CD-80634 Compact Disc Price: $9.99 -- John H Oh yeah. That helped me sell an awful lot of audio equipment when I was in that biz. Customers would come in say "This CD just flomped my speakers". Usually, they were trying to play it with 30 watts a channel into some lame Japanese speakers. $3000 later, they left happy. |
Anyone got a docking thing for an iPod?
"John H." wrote in message ... On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:58:42 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: Try some Telarc CD's. -- John H I have several that I've acquired over the years. They're good quality but the music selection is very limited. Eisboch |
Anyone got a docking thing for an iPod?
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... Buy this CD for your electrostatics. They'll like it a lot. http://www.telarc.com/gscripts/title...6F V7FJTSDMFC Thanks. It's time to go shopping for some new CD's anyway. Eisboch |
Anyone got a docking thing for an iPod?
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:45:26 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . Artist: Michael Murray Recording: Saint Saens: Symphony No. 3 and Encores a la francaise Release# CD-80634 Compact Disc Price: $9.99 -- John H Oh yeah. That helped me sell an awful lot of audio equipment when I was in that biz. Customers would come in say "This CD just flomped my speakers". Usually, they were trying to play it with 30 watts a channel into some lame Japanese speakers. $3000 later, they left happy. When Telarc produced the 1812 on LP, it did the same for the turntable business also! It's still one of my favorites. When I played the first track of the 'Star Tracks' album, I thought I'd blow my speakers, even though I had Bose 901's at the time. -- John H |
Anyone got a docking thing for an iPod?
"John H." wrote in message
... On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:45:26 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. Artist: Michael Murray Recording: Saint Saens: Symphony No. 3 and Encores a la francaise Release# CD-80634 Compact Disc Price: $9.99 -- John H Oh yeah. That helped me sell an awful lot of audio equipment when I was in that biz. Customers would come in say "This CD just flomped my speakers". Usually, they were trying to play it with 30 watts a channel into some lame Japanese speakers. $3000 later, they left happy. When Telarc produced the 1812 on LP, it did the same for the turntable business also! It's still one of my favorites. When I played the first track of the 'Star Tracks' album, I thought I'd blow my speakers, even though I had Bose 901's at the time. -- John H Bose 901s??? Do you wear a backwards Caterpillar cap and have confederate flag decals on your car windows? Nobody bought 901s from us except toothless retards from the boondocks. |
Anyone got a docking thing for an iPod?
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... Bose 901s??? Do you wear a backwards Caterpillar cap and have confederate flag decals on your car windows? Nobody bought 901s from us except toothless retards from the boondocks. Hey, at one time 901s were considered top shelf speakers by many. I knew a guy that had a set for which he had built his own active compensation network to replace the one that came with the speakers. He then modified his living room floor to the delight of his wife (didn't tell her about his plans), cutting out joists and building a baffled enclosure right into the floor for an 18-inch woofer ... the original sub. Guy had a great sound system, but his marriage didn't last. Eisboch |
Anyone got a docking thing for an iPod?
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... Bose 901s??? Do you wear a backwards Caterpillar cap and have confederate flag decals on your car windows? Nobody bought 901s from us except toothless retards from the boondocks. Hey, at one time 901s were considered top shelf speakers by many. I knew a guy that had a set for which he had built his own active compensation network to replace the one that came with the speakers. He then modified his living room floor to the delight of his wife (didn't tell her about his plans), cutting out joists and building a baffled enclosure right into the floor for an 18-inch woofer ... the original sub. Guy had a great sound system, but his marriage didn't last. Eisboch No wonder she left. Those speakers were hideous. For the majority of people who loved them, there was just one reason they wanted them: "Duh drool they're hard to blow up". There was ALWAYS a better speaker they could've bought, for the same money or less, but it was like arguing with a rabid evangelist. We finally learned to ask just one question when someone asked for 901s: "Cash or credit card?" Their products were and still are phenominally overpriced. That pays for the endless sales contests they run for retail staff. I got some nice Nikon photo equipment that way, and I never recommended the product to anyone. "Got a pair of 901s in stock?" "Yes. Cash or credit card?" |
Anyone got a docking thing for an iPod?
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... Bose 901s??? Do you wear a backwards Caterpillar cap and have confederate flag decals on your car windows? Nobody bought 901s from us except toothless retards from the boondocks. Hey, at one time 901s were considered top shelf speakers by many. I knew a guy that had a set for which he had built his own active compensation network to replace the one that came with the speakers. He then modified his living room floor to the delight of his wife (didn't tell her about his plans), cutting out joists and building a baffled enclosure right into the floor for an 18-inch woofer ... the original sub. Guy had a great sound system, but his marriage didn't last. Eisboch No wonder she left. Those speakers were hideous. For the majority of people who loved them, there was just one reason they wanted them: "Duh drool they're hard to blow up". There was ALWAYS a better speaker they could've bought, for the same money or less, but it was like arguing with a rabid evangelist. We finally learned to ask just one question when someone asked for 901s: "Cash or credit card?" Their products were and still are phenominally overpriced. That pays for the endless sales contests they run for retail staff. I got some nice Nikon photo equipment that way, and I never recommended the product to anyone. "Got a pair of 901s in stock?" "Yes. Cash or credit card?" And once more (I pointed this out years ago here in a previous discussion of some Bose product): as with everything else in the physical world, Bose speakers cannot violate the laws of physics. Woof. |
Anyone got a docking thing for an iPod?
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... Bose 901s??? Do you wear a backwards Caterpillar cap and have confederate flag decals on your car windows? Nobody bought 901s from us except toothless retards from the boondocks. Hey, at one time 901s were considered top shelf speakers by many. I knew a guy that had a set for which he had built his own active compensation network to replace the one that came with the speakers. He then modified his living room floor to the delight of his wife (didn't tell her about his plans), cutting out joists and building a baffled enclosure right into the floor for an 18-inch woofer ... the original sub. Guy had a great sound system, but his marriage didn't last. Eisboch No wonder she left. Those speakers were hideous. For the majority of people who loved them, there was just one reason they wanted them: "Duh drool they're hard to blow up". There was ALWAYS a better speaker they could've bought, for the same money or less, but it was like arguing with a rabid evangelist. We finally learned to ask just one question when someone asked for 901s: "Cash or credit card?" Their products were and still are phenominally overpriced. That pays for the endless sales contests they run for retail staff. I got some nice Nikon photo equipment that way, and I never recommended the product to anyone. "Got a pair of 901s in stock?" "Yes. Cash or credit card?" I am talking over 30 years ago. I think it was 1969 or 1970. The 901s were fairly new then and were considered "revolutionary". This was before Bose became a marketing driven company and old Dr. Bose still had his hands on the reins. Certainly there were better speakers and there definitely are much better ones now. But for the average Joe who wanted "high end" at the time, the original Bose 901 system was decent and reasonably affordable. You just needed a humongous amplifier to drive them properly. Eisboch |
Anyone got a docking thing for an iPod?
Eisboch wrote:
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... Bose 901s??? Do you wear a backwards Caterpillar cap and have confederate flag decals on your car windows? Nobody bought 901s from us except toothless retards from the boondocks. Hey, at one time 901s were considered top shelf speakers by many. I knew a guy that had a set for which he had built his own active compensation network to replace the one that came with the speakers. He then modified his living room floor to the delight of his wife (didn't tell her about his plans), cutting out joists and building a baffled enclosure right into the floor for an 18-inch woofer ... the original sub. Guy had a great sound system, but his marriage didn't last. Eisboch No wonder she left. Those speakers were hideous. For the majority of people who loved them, there was just one reason they wanted them: "Duh drool they're hard to blow up". There was ALWAYS a better speaker they could've bought, for the same money or less, but it was like arguing with a rabid evangelist. We finally learned to ask just one question when someone asked for 901s: "Cash or credit card?" Their products were and still are phenominally overpriced. That pays for the endless sales contests they run for retail staff. I got some nice Nikon photo equipment that way, and I never recommended the product to anyone. "Got a pair of 901s in stock?" "Yes. Cash or credit card?" I am talking over 30 years ago. I think it was 1969 or 1970. The 901s were fairly new then and were considered "revolutionary". This was before Bose became a marketing driven company and old Dr. Bose still had his hands on the reins. Certainly there were better speakers and there definitely are much better ones now. But for the average Joe who wanted "high end" at the time, the original Bose 901 system was decent and reasonably affordable. You just needed a humongous amplifier to drive them properly. Eisboch At the time of those "Bose," I had a nice set of Wharfedales. |
Anyone got a docking thing for an iPod?
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... Bose 901s??? Do you wear a backwards Caterpillar cap and have confederate flag decals on your car windows? Nobody bought 901s from us except toothless retards from the boondocks. Hey, at one time 901s were considered top shelf speakers by many. I knew a guy that had a set for which he had built his own active compensation network to replace the one that came with the speakers. He then modified his living room floor to the delight of his wife (didn't tell her about his plans), cutting out joists and building a baffled enclosure right into the floor for an 18-inch woofer ... the original sub. Guy had a great sound system, but his marriage didn't last. Eisboch No wonder she left. Those speakers were hideous. For the majority of people who loved them, there was just one reason they wanted them: "Duh drool they're hard to blow up". There was ALWAYS a better speaker they could've bought, for the same money or less, but it was like arguing with a rabid evangelist. We finally learned to ask just one question when someone asked for 901s: "Cash or credit card?" Their products were and still are phenominally overpriced. That pays for the endless sales contests they run for retail staff. I got some nice Nikon photo equipment that way, and I never recommended the product to anyone. "Got a pair of 901s in stock?" "Yes. Cash or credit card?" I am talking over 30 years ago. I think it was 1969 or 1970. The 901s were fairly new then and were considered "revolutionary". This was before Bose became a marketing driven company and old Dr. Bose still had his hands on the reins. Certainly there were better speakers and there definitely are much better ones now. But for the average Joe who wanted "high end" at the time, the original Bose 901 system was decent and reasonably affordable. You just needed a humongous amplifier to drive them properly. Eisboch Oh come on. AR's top of the line stuff blew the doors off Bose at the time, and the used the simplest designs imaginable. Same with large Advents. That's why reputable speaker companies keep coming back to these basic designs over and over again. |
Anyone got a docking thing for an iPod?
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:55:27 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:45:26 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... Artist: Michael Murray Recording: Saint Saens: Symphony No. 3 and Encores a la francaise Release# CD-80634 Compact Disc Price: $9.99 -- John H Oh yeah. That helped me sell an awful lot of audio equipment when I was in that biz. Customers would come in say "This CD just flomped my speakers". Usually, they were trying to play it with 30 watts a channel into some lame Japanese speakers. $3000 later, they left happy. When Telarc produced the 1812 on LP, it did the same for the turntable business also! It's still one of my favorites. When I played the first track of the 'Star Tracks' album, I thought I'd blow my speakers, even though I had Bose 901's at the time. -- John H Bose 901s??? Do you wear a backwards Caterpillar cap and have confederate flag decals on your car windows? Nobody bought 901s from us except toothless retards from the boondocks. I'm talking late 70's, and I was in to loud noise! -- John H |
Anyone got a docking thing for an iPod?
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:17:55 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... Bose 901s??? Do you wear a backwards Caterpillar cap and have confederate flag decals on your car windows? Nobody bought 901s from us except toothless retards from the boondocks. Hey, at one time 901s were considered top shelf speakers by many. I knew a guy that had a set for which he had built his own active compensation network to replace the one that came with the speakers. He then modified his living room floor to the delight of his wife (didn't tell her about his plans), cutting out joists and building a baffled enclosure right into the floor for an 18-inch woofer ... the original sub. Guy had a great sound system, but his marriage didn't last. Eisboch I also had the Bose Receiver, forget the number, but they only made one. It had the equalizer built in. Sounded great to me, and I was single at the time. That's probably what really got the high frequency loss that I blame on artillery and tanks! -- John H |
Anyone got a docking thing for an iPod?
"HK" wrote in message . .. At the time of those "Bose," I had a nice set of Wharfedales. As I recall, Wharfedales, Klipsch, some of the JBL models and a few others were the desirable speakers of audiophiles back in the 50's and 60's, but they all shared a common design; boxes with a woofer, mid range or two, maybe a horn and/or a tweeter with the drivers all aiming at the listener. What was revolutionary about the 901s was the direct/reflecting concept using 9, 4-inch speakers. IIRC, only one of the speakers faced the listener, the rest reflected from the angled sides and rear. Eisboch |
Anyone got a docking thing for an iPod?
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message . .. At the time of those "Bose," I had a nice set of Wharfedales. As I recall, Wharfedales, Klipsch, some of the JBL models and a few others were the desirable speakers of audiophiles back in the 50's and 60's, but they all shared a common design; boxes with a woofer, mid range or two, maybe a horn and/or a tweeter with the drivers all aiming at the listener. What was revolutionary about the 901s was the direct/reflecting concept using 9, 4-inch speakers. IIRC, only one of the speakers faced the listener, the rest reflected from the angled sides and rear. Eisboch Indeedy, the Wharedales were not an unusual design; they just sounded terrific and their promoters did not claim they could violate the laws of physics, as Bose did and still does. |
Anyone got a docking thing for an iPod?
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:35:21 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
"HK" wrote in message ... At the time of those "Bose," I had a nice set of Wharfedales. As I recall, Wharfedales, Klipsch, some of the JBL models and a few others were the desirable speakers of audiophiles back in the 50's and 60's, but they all shared a common design; boxes with a woofer, mid range or two, maybe a horn and/or a tweeter with the drivers all aiming at the listener. What was revolutionary about the 901s was the direct/reflecting concept using 9, 4-inch speakers. IIRC, only one of the speakers faced the listener, the rest reflected from the angled sides and rear. Eisboch To me, the Wharfedales sounded like sound coming from a sewer pipe - muffled, bassy, fuzzy, and a few other things I didn't like. The 901's gave a much cleaner sound than the Wharfedales, IMHO. -- John H |
Anyone got a docking thing for an iPod?
wrote in message ... On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:12:33 -0800, "Calif Bill" wrote: And the price fixing on albums. Seems as if they are all about 19.99 minimum to $30+ these days. Costs about 25 cents to produce a CD with liner notes and jewell case. Maybe the artists should do some realistic pricing on their work. But then they could not live in the $20,000,000 house and pay for all the attorneys they need for the jams they get into. Radiohead released an album on the net for 90 cents(plus whatever your conscience had you add) . They said they were pleased with the result. I don't doubt they made more than the record label pays them and it is virtually all profit. You are not paying for the manufacture, distribution and retailing of a chunk of plastic. When you pay 99 cents a track from Itunes and $13 / album. Tells you still an immense lot of profit in the record business. |
Anyone got a docking thing for an iPod?
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "HK" wrote in message . .. At the time of those "Bose," I had a nice set of Wharfedales. As I recall, Wharfedales, Klipsch, some of the JBL models and a few others were the desirable speakers of audiophiles back in the 50's and 60's, but they all shared a common design; boxes with a woofer, mid range or two, maybe a horn and/or a tweeter with the drivers all aiming at the listener. What was revolutionary about the 901s was the direct/reflecting concept using 9, 4-inch speakers. IIRC, only one of the speakers faced the listener, the rest reflected from the angled sides and rear. Eisboch The "plain box" you described came in a wide variety of quality levels. Some of the variations in sound imaging involved the exact type of components used, how they were placed relative to the box edge, etc. There were and still are "box" speakers that will create a remarkably interesting audio image. The problem with 901s was that they tended to create an image which in no way represented what you'd hear at a live performance, unless the musicians were arranged in a circle around you. Messy, in other words. |
Anyone got a docking thing for an iPod?
|
Anyone got a docking thing for an iPod?
wrote in message ... You do realize that when a salesperson was trying to sell someone a pair of Bose 901's, he would A/B demonstrate them against other well known brands in the same price range or higher that had their tweeters disconnected? This was VERY common practice. I've been out of the biz for many years, but I would guess that is still done. Really? How were Bose speakers marketed and sold in the early days of Bose? Hint: You didn't run down to your local Circuit City or even a high end audio place to audition and compare them. Eisboch |
Anyone got a docking thing for an iPod?
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... The "plain box" you described came in a wide variety of quality levels. Some of the variations in sound imaging involved the exact type of components used, how they were placed relative to the box edge, etc. There were and still are "box" speakers that will create a remarkably interesting audio image. The problem with 901s was that they tended to create an image which in no way represented what you'd hear at a live performance, unless the musicians were arranged in a circle around you. Messy, in other words. First, a disclaimer. I am not claiming that Bose 901s are audiophile level speakers or even close. My point was that the direct/reflecting concept and the use of multiple, small drivers was a very different approach to sound duplication in an age dominated by big, heavy (often sand filled) cabinets, drivers with rigid cones and surrounds and relatively small or weak voice coil magnets. Remember ... this was 1968. Second point ... a box speaker cannot, by itself, accurately reproduce the sound stage image of a live performance. All the sound (per channel) is emitted from a single point source. They depend on proper mixing and manipulation of the recording to create a sound stage image, but still lack backside reflections that would normally occur in a live performance. Bob Carver even developed a "holographic" processor in some of his amps to address this and give the speakers a sound stage with a 3 dimensional image, when properly set up. At least in concept, the direct/reflecting design was an attempt to utilize back and side reflections of sound that would occur in a live performance. It's interesting that now-a-days with various 5.1, 7.1 and even 9.1 surround sound encoding, it is *desirable* to have distinct, single point imaging of each channel, particularly in home theater applications, to fully utilize and appreciate the sophisticating mixing of the multichannel programs. Eisboch |
Anyone got a docking thing for an iPod?
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... The "plain box" you described came in a wide variety of quality levels. Some of the variations in sound imaging involved the exact type of components used, how they were placed relative to the box edge, etc. There were and still are "box" speakers that will create a remarkably interesting audio image. The problem with 901s was that they tended to create an image which in no way represented what you'd hear at a live performance, unless the musicians were arranged in a circle around you. Messy, in other words. First, a disclaimer. I am not claiming that Bose 901s are audiophile level speakers or even close. My point was that the direct/reflecting concept and the use of multiple, small drivers was a very different approach to sound duplication in an age dominated by big, heavy (often sand filled) cabinets, drivers with rigid cones and surrounds and relatively small or weak voice coil magnets. Remember ... this was 1968. Second point ... a box speaker cannot, by itself, accurately reproduce the sound stage image of a live performance. All the sound (per channel) is emitted from a single point source. They depend on proper mixing and manipulation of the recording to create a sound stage image, but still lack backside reflections that would normally occur in a live performance. Bob Carver even developed a "holographic" processor in some of his amps to address this and give the speakers a sound stage with a 3 dimensional image, when properly set up. Carver's idea was meant to sell his electronics to people with less-than-decent speakers. It worked. As far as the sound image, though, I suspect you've never sat very long in front of top of the line Kefs or B&O speakers. Matter of fact, even in1968, the simplest AR acoustic suspension speakers could create a pretty remarkable image, if fed a decent signal. Remember the first & second Blood, Sweat & Tears albums, where somebody actually cared about the production? |
Anyone got a docking thing for an iPod?
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:08:03 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... The "plain box" you described came in a wide variety of quality levels. Some of the variations in sound imaging involved the exact type of components used, how they were placed relative to the box edge, etc. There were and still are "box" speakers that will create a remarkably interesting audio image. The problem with 901s was that they tended to create an image which in no way represented what you'd hear at a live performance, unless the musicians were arranged in a circle around you. Messy, in other words. First, a disclaimer. I am not claiming that Bose 901s are audiophile level speakers or even close. My point was that the direct/reflecting concept and the use of multiple, small drivers was a very different approach to sound duplication in an age dominated by big, heavy (often sand filled) cabinets, drivers with rigid cones and surrounds and relatively small or weak voice coil magnets. Remember ... this was 1968. Second point ... a box speaker cannot, by itself, accurately reproduce the sound stage image of a live performance. All the sound (per channel) is emitted from a single point source. They depend on proper mixing and manipulation of the recording to create a sound stage image, but still lack backside reflections that would normally occur in a live performance. Bob Carver even developed a "holographic" processor in some of his amps to address this and give the speakers a sound stage with a 3 dimensional image, when properly set up. Carver's idea was meant to sell his electronics to people with less-than-decent speakers. It worked. As far as the sound image, though, I suspect you've never sat very long in front of top of the line Kefs or B&O speakers. Matter of fact, even in1968, the simplest AR acoustic suspension speakers could create a pretty remarkable image, if fed a decent signal. Remember the first & second Blood, Sweat & Tears albums, where somebody actually cared about the production? Piffle. The only speakers worthy of the name are Bozak Concert Grands. Any other speaker is merely a speaker. PS: Yes Bassy, I own four of these little beasties. :) PPS: Analog rules - digital drools!! PPPS: Yes Bassy, my personal office stereo system is analog. :) PPPPS: With tubes. PPPPPS: Which glow in the dark. PPPPPPS: And transformers - real transformers that weigh a ton. PPPPPPPS: Ok, maybe not a ton, but a lot. PPPPPPPPS: In my opinion, the only true way to test a stereo system is Derek and the Dominos "Layla" played at 11. |
Anyone got a docking thing for an iPod?
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
... On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:08:03 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... The "plain box" you described came in a wide variety of quality levels. Some of the variations in sound imaging involved the exact type of components used, how they were placed relative to the box edge, etc. There were and still are "box" speakers that will create a remarkably interesting audio image. The problem with 901s was that they tended to create an image which in no way represented what you'd hear at a live performance, unless the musicians were arranged in a circle around you. Messy, in other words. First, a disclaimer. I am not claiming that Bose 901s are audiophile level speakers or even close. My point was that the direct/reflecting concept and the use of multiple, small drivers was a very different approach to sound duplication in an age dominated by big, heavy (often sand filled) cabinets, drivers with rigid cones and surrounds and relatively small or weak voice coil magnets. Remember ... this was 1968. Second point ... a box speaker cannot, by itself, accurately reproduce the sound stage image of a live performance. All the sound (per channel) is emitted from a single point source. They depend on proper mixing and manipulation of the recording to create a sound stage image, but still lack backside reflections that would normally occur in a live performance. Bob Carver even developed a "holographic" processor in some of his amps to address this and give the speakers a sound stage with a 3 dimensional image, when properly set up. Carver's idea was meant to sell his electronics to people with less-than-decent speakers. It worked. As far as the sound image, though, I suspect you've never sat very long in front of top of the line Kefs or B&O speakers. Matter of fact, even in1968, the simplest AR acoustic suspension speakers could create a pretty remarkable image, if fed a decent signal. Remember the first & second Blood, Sweat & Tears albums, where somebody actually cared about the production? Piffle. The only speakers worthy of the name are Bozak Concert Grands. Any other speaker is merely a speaker. Fat, loose, sloppy bass. Nobody really listened to those. PS: Yes Bassy, I own four of these little beasties. :) PPS: Analog rules - digital drools!! PPPS: Yes Bassy, my personal office stereo system is analog. :) PPPPS: With tubes. PPPPPS: Which glow in the dark. PPPPPPS: And transformers - real transformers that weigh a ton. PPPPPPPS: Ok, maybe not a ton, but a lot. PPPPPPPPS: In my opinion, the only true way to test a stereo system is Derek and the Dominos "Layla" played at 11. Great album, but the production was thin and hideous. |
Anyone got a docking thing for an iPod?
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... The "plain box" you described came in a wide variety of quality levels. Some of the variations in sound imaging involved the exact type of components used, how they were placed relative to the box edge, etc. There were and still are "box" speakers that will create a remarkably interesting audio image. The problem with 901s was that they tended to create an image which in no way represented what you'd hear at a live performance, unless the musicians were arranged in a circle around you. Messy, in other words. First, a disclaimer. I am not claiming that Bose 901s are audiophile level speakers or even close. My point was that the direct/reflecting concept and the use of multiple, small drivers was a very different approach to sound duplication in an age dominated by big, heavy (often sand filled) cabinets, drivers with rigid cones and surrounds and relatively small or weak voice coil magnets. Remember ... this was 1968. Second point ... a box speaker cannot, by itself, accurately reproduce the sound stage image of a live performance. All the sound (per channel) is emitted from a single point source. They depend on proper mixing and manipulation of the recording to create a sound stage image, but still lack backside reflections that would normally occur in a live performance. Bob Carver even developed a "holographic" processor in some of his amps to address this and give the speakers a sound stage with a 3 dimensional image, when properly set up. Carver's idea was meant to sell his electronics to people with less-than-decent speakers. It worked. As far as the sound image, though, I suspect you've never sat very long in front of top of the line Kefs or B&O speakers. Matter of fact, even in1968, the simplest AR acoustic suspension speakers could create a pretty remarkable image, if fed a decent signal. Remember the first & second Blood, Sweat & Tears albums, where somebody actually cared about the production? I have listened to B&O (but sadly not Kefs) as well as several other (older) top of the line speakers. (My long departed Uncle was obsessed with audio gear and I got to hear some good stuff). However, I still maintain that even the best of box speakers have to rely on the recording engineer's mixing talent to create a proper sound stage image because they are a point source. Otherwise, it's predominately left and right channels with little or no back or side reflections. Modern mixing techniques using phase shifting and canceling does a great job of reproducing the sound stage, but it's in the electronics, not the speakers. In the 60's that technology either didn't exist or was not routinely applied. A bunch of microphones spread across the orchestra or band gathered the sound and the recording engineer adjusted the volume of each track to create a sound stage. BTW, I still have a Carver receiver/amp with the holographic circuitry. It works quite well, although finding the "sweet spot" location can be elusive. Eisboch |
Anyone got a docking thing for an iPod?
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:16:35 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: PPPPPPPPS: In my opinion, the only true way to test a stereo system is Derek and the Dominos "Layla" played at 11. One of my all time favorites. 11PM or 11 on the volume control? |
Anyone got a docking thing for an iPod?
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... The "plain box" you described came in a wide variety of quality levels. Some of the variations in sound imaging involved the exact type of components used, how they were placed relative to the box edge, etc. There were and still are "box" speakers that will create a remarkably interesting audio image. The problem with 901s was that they tended to create an image which in no way represented what you'd hear at a live performance, unless the musicians were arranged in a circle around you. Messy, in other words. First, a disclaimer. I am not claiming that Bose 901s are audiophile level speakers or even close. My point was that the direct/reflecting concept and the use of multiple, small drivers was a very different approach to sound duplication in an age dominated by big, heavy (often sand filled) cabinets, drivers with rigid cones and surrounds and relatively small or weak voice coil magnets. Remember ... this was 1968. Second point ... a box speaker cannot, by itself, accurately reproduce the sound stage image of a live performance. All the sound (per channel) is emitted from a single point source. They depend on proper mixing and manipulation of the recording to create a sound stage image, but still lack backside reflections that would normally occur in a live performance. Bob Carver even developed a "holographic" processor in some of his amps to address this and give the speakers a sound stage with a 3 dimensional image, when properly set up. Carver's idea was meant to sell his electronics to people with less-than-decent speakers. It worked. As far as the sound image, though, I suspect you've never sat very long in front of top of the line Kefs or B&O speakers. Matter of fact, even in1968, the simplest AR acoustic suspension speakers could create a pretty remarkable image, if fed a decent signal. Remember the first & second Blood, Sweat & Tears albums, where somebody actually cared about the production? I have listened to B&O (but sadly not Kefs) as well as several other (older) top of the line speakers. (My long departed Uncle was obsessed with audio gear and I got to hear some good stuff). However, I still maintain that even the best of box speakers have to rely on the recording engineer's mixing talent to create a proper sound stage image because they are a point source. Otherwise, it's predominately left and right channels with little or no back or side reflections. Modern mixing techniques using phase shifting and canceling does a great job of reproducing the sound stage, but it's in the electronics, not the speakers. In the 60's that technology either didn't exist or was not routinely applied. A bunch of microphones spread across the orchestra or band gathered the sound and the recording engineer adjusted the volume of each track to create a sound stage. BTW, I still have a Carver receiver/amp with the holographic circuitry. It works quite well, although finding the "sweet spot" location can be elusive. Eisboch Carver's amp sections were pretty nice, as well as his FM tuners. |
Anyone got a docking thing for an iPod?
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:08:03 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... The "plain box" you described came in a wide variety of quality levels. Some of the variations in sound imaging involved the exact type of components used, how they were placed relative to the box edge, etc. There were and still are "box" speakers that will create a remarkably interesting audio image. The problem with 901s was that they tended to create an image which in no way represented what you'd hear at a live performance, unless the musicians were arranged in a circle around you. Messy, in other words. First, a disclaimer. I am not claiming that Bose 901s are audiophile level speakers or even close. My point was that the direct/reflecting concept and the use of multiple, small drivers was a very different approach to sound duplication in an age dominated by big, heavy (often sand filled) cabinets, drivers with rigid cones and surrounds and relatively small or weak voice coil magnets. Remember ... this was 1968. Second point ... a box speaker cannot, by itself, accurately reproduce the sound stage image of a live performance. All the sound (per channel) is emitted from a single point source. They depend on proper mixing and manipulation of the recording to create a sound stage image, but still lack backside reflections that would normally occur in a live performance. Bob Carver even developed a "holographic" processor in some of his amps to address this and give the speakers a sound stage with a 3 dimensional image, when properly set up. Carver's idea was meant to sell his electronics to people with less-than-decent speakers. It worked. As far as the sound image, though, I suspect you've never sat very long in front of top of the line Kefs or B&O speakers. Matter of fact, even in1968, the simplest AR acoustic suspension speakers could create a pretty remarkable image, if fed a decent signal. Remember the first & second Blood, Sweat & Tears albums, where somebody actually cared about the production? Piffle. The only speakers worthy of the name are Bozak Concert Grands. Any other speaker is merely a speaker. PS: Yes Bassy, I own four of these little beasties. :) PPS: Analog rules - digital drools!! PPPS: Yes Bassy, my personal office stereo system is analog. :) PPPPS: With tubes. PPPPPS: Which glow in the dark. PPPPPPS: And transformers - real transformers that weigh a ton. PPPPPPPS: Ok, maybe not a ton, but a lot. PPPPPPPPS: In my opinion, the only true way to test a stereo system is Derek and the Dominos "Layla" played at 11. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANgBX5Ft12c |
Anyone got a docking thing for an iPod?
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 22:36:32 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote: On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:16:35 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: PPPPPPPPS: In my opinion, the only true way to test a stereo system is Derek and the Dominos "Layla" played at 11. One of my all time favorites. 11PM or 11 on the volume control? Yes. |
Anyone got a docking thing for an iPod?
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:19:38 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: The only speakers worthy of the name are Bozak Concert Grands. Any other speaker is merely a speaker. Fat, loose, sloppy bass. Nobody really listened to those. You have just lost any credibility on this subject after a statement like that. |
Anyone got a docking thing for an iPod?
wrote in message ... On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 20:59:17 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message . .. You do realize that when a salesperson was trying to sell someone a pair of Bose 901's, he would A/B demonstrate them against other well known brands in the same price range or higher that had their tweeters disconnected? This was VERY common practice. I've been out of the biz for many years, but I would guess that is still done. Really? How were Bose speakers marketed and sold in the early days of Bose? Hint: You didn't run down to your local Circuit City or even a high end audio place to audition and compare them. Eisboch Yes, I know they were direct marketed, but that didn't last for long, and many stores kept a pair on hand even before they became dealers just so they could demonstrate the difference. It was very easy to make 901's look bad compared to almost anything. Of course if someone REALLY wanted them, the dealer would sell them. Not to be argumentative, but I guess I am confused. You are correct in the fact that Bose, for several years, were direct marketed. So why would it be a "common practice" for a salesperson disconnect the tweeter in other brand speakers to make the 901s sound better if they weren't authorized to sell them anyway? Doesn't make sense. Even in the current, dedicated Bose dealership outlets, I've never seen a competitors speaker setup (and possibly modified) in order to compare the Bose product to it. Some Bose products are still available only by direct marketing. Again, I am not promoting Bose. I was a fan many years ago when the 901s first came out because they were an interesting concept and, if you had enough oomph in your amp, they could sound halfway decent. I also had a set of the original 501 series .... the 4 ohm versions. They were ok. I sold them at a yard sale when we were trying to raise money for the deposit on our first house. Later, Mrs.E. bought me a pair of the later series (I think series IV) versions which had different drivers and were 8 ohm. My youngest son still has them, but frankly they sound like trash .... completely different than the originals. I suspect that as years have gone by and Bose has become more of a bean counter driven company, they outsource "adequate" components like the actual speaker drivers, probably to the lowest bidder that meets some basic standard. Eisboch |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:41 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com