"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
news


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