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