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