Bose cube replacement question. - Page 2

It can, if properly implemented. The Bose is not.

That is like saying "I don't mind that the TV is missing the color red because it is really bright".

I like that. I'll have to use it sometime!

The "soundstage" you perceive is a mixture of two things:

1) a smearing of the sonic image due to a far greater percentage of reflected sound energy being heard in close proximity, time wise, to the initial (primary) direct signal.

2) the physical separation of the speaker cabinets themselves.

Knowing that the use of the std cone design for high frequency drivers creates an extremely narrow listening window for upper midrange and treble frequencies, coupled with absolute limitations on high frequency response due to cone breakup, this can ONLY be considered a poor design choice.


With no disrespect, have you ever heard a quality stereo pair of speakers with good source equipment/material? Those have the same ability to wrap sound around you when quality designs, concepts, materials are used. Please do NOT think that BOSE has some kind of monopoly on the "large soundstage" game. A set of Energy Micro satellites would easily offer increased volume output, decreased distortion, and increased musical clarity for less money and only a modest amount of additional real estate.

I have inspected at close range the new generation of Bose cone-type high frequency drivers and they are still a cone, using what appears to be untreated paper, with a large center dustcap and a prominent surround.

I have a buddy who blew out his Bose 301's and he replaced his tweeters with some $3 cone driver from parts express. The drivers he bought looked and sounded identical to the originals according to him. I doubt that a whole lot of magic is being implemented in a $3 part.

As far as the bass module, if you ever get the chance to look at the foam-surround, small magnet, untreated paper cones, you'll be wholly unimpressed. An Aperion Audio 12" active subwoofer (w/ dual PR's) would be very size efficient and sound MUCH better.
Edited by BufordTJustice - 2/12/13 at 6:08pm

Aperion 12" Bravus IId:

http://www.aperionaudio.com/speakers/bravus-family/bravus-ii-12d-powered-subwoofer

Energy Take 5 Classic:

http://www.amazon.com/Energy-Classic-Theater-System-Black/dp/B001202C44

To answer your question in simple Layman's terms..Bose cube replacement question. YES replace all of them with something besides another Bose

Call Bose. They can give you answers to your questions about impedence values. FWIW, I would not think there would be any problems going to the double-cube speakers. But I'd advise to check with the manufacturer all the same.

From your comments throughout this thread, you seem to be happy with the sound of the AM6 system. If so, don't let all the Bose trash-talk you'll get in audiophool forums bother you one bit. Trust your ears! All micro-sat systems are compromised. The pretty much all tend to have dips somewhere in the 100-300Hz range. It's the nature of the beast.

As for paper cones, many of the best sounding speakers in the world use paper cones. Paper just happens to be an ideal material for loudspeaker cones; and it is cheap. Paper is to drivers what mdf is to enclosures.

Measurements: You can take what some Bose hater says is the reason for not publishing specs; or you can go to the Bose website and see what they say about it. They are all quite capable of speaking for themselves.

Ah, so now we're all audiophools. That's very clever.

Your statements are misleading. Paper cones make outstanding drivers...they do NOT make tweeters of any reputable quality level. That's 50 year old "technology".

Do you work for Bose?

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

I believe that would be a very optimistic view.

That a bandpass design can have greater efficiency is a matter of fact, but the benefits are bounded. However the efficiency doesn't come from nowhere - it is the result of a trade-off and the trade-off is bandwidth versus efficiency. IOW the wider the bandwidth of the bandpass speaker, the lower its efficiency is. I don't have any reliable numbers for the Bose, but a slightly optimistic estimate just above middle-of-the-road might be 9 dB.

To review, here is my estimate for the dynamic range of the 5" Bose system:

5" "Subwoofer"

Freq,Hz Max SPL, DB

10 65
20 77
30 84
40 89
50 93
60 96
70 98
80 101
90 103
100 105
110 106
120 108
130 109
140 110
150 112
160 113
170 114
180 105
190 106
200 108
210 109
220 110
230 112
240 113
250 114
260 115
270 116
280 117
290 117
300 118
310 119
320 120

Here is my estimate for a SOTA 10" subwoofer:

Freq,Hz Max SPL, DB

10 83
20 95
30 102
40 107
50 111
60 114
70 116
80 119
90 121
100 123
110 124
120 126
130 127
140 129
150 130
160 131
170 132
180 123
190 124
200 126
210 127
220 129
230 130
240 131
250 132
260 133
270 134
280 135
290 136
300 136
310 137
320 138

We see a constant 18 dB difference. The bandpass speaker gives us back an estimated 9 dB, but unfortunately with a 9 dB loss remaining.

I conclude that no way is a 5" driver in a bandpass enclosure superior to a 10" driver in an ordinary ported or sealed enclosure. Sorry,but that is where the laws of physics drop their load! ;-)

The Bose cubes HAVE NO TWEETERS! you cannot even compare them to a decent two way speaker! They only compare with computer speakers that also often come tweeter-less...The Energy take classics have a tweeter! The Martin Logan MLt-2 has tweeters..

And that is the basic flaw in their design. The physics of how sound reproduction works dictates that you have larger high displacement drivers for the lows. But the angle of dispersion is inversely proportional to the size of the driver, so larger high displacement drivers do not have adequate dispersion in the midrange. A smaller driver must be used for the mids, and an even smaller driver for the highs. The minimum number of cone drivers that can adequately cover the entire audio bandwidth is three. Bose tries to do so with two, and it simply cannot be done with cone drivers.

That's not entirely correct; if you look at high-quality custom installs, the majority of them will use a three-way component system with a tweeter, and a dedicated midrange and midbass. The generic "super-tweeter" three-way speakers are junk, but they're essentially incomparable to true three-way component setups with a proper crossover.

You must be reading a different thread from the rest of of us. If he was perfectly happy with the sound, he wouldn't be looking to upgrade those cubes.

To the OP: What are you looking to improve here? In all likelihood, the best route is probably to sell the Acoustimass and get something different to achieve your goals.

Don't sweat the "audiophool" tag. I often apply it to myself, too.

In the Bose cubes, the limited hf dispersion of the 2.5" drivers can be overcome by either corner placement and/or angling the driver towards the sweet spot, or with the dual cubes, by simply aiming them 15-30 degrees apart. Besides, practically every 1" dome tweeter made rolls off 15-30 degrees off-axis above 8-10kHz.

No, I don't work for Bose.


True, the cubes have no tweeter, per se. You could also say they also have no woofer or crossover. They use full-range drivers. Crossovers and disparate drivers are one of the reasons most conventional speakers, even the best, sound artificial. They don't speak with one voice.


It's not a flaw. Every design has trade-offs. I could just as easily call every multi-way speaker flawed because they have to have disparate drivers and a crossover to attempt to cover the audible frequencies. The 901 uses one driver (x9). The cubes use one or one x2, plus the bass module, so to be exact, yes, two.

My take was that he was happy with the sound; he just wanted more of it. That would be the rationalle for moving to the dual-cube speakers. He didn't mention wanting different speakers at all. Or if he did, I missed it.

He quite clearly says he wants to make it sound better. Why else would someone upgrade their speakers, other than perhaps they are looking for more power handling? One generally upgrades to improve the sound quality.

This is what Enerlevel said in post #1: "I am trying to replace these single cubes with the double cube." How much more plain does it need to be?

So he's not trying to improve the sound with that upgrade, even though he talks about improving the sound in post #7??? Oh, you are thinking he just wants the double cubes because they will look better. LMAO

You need to deal with your Bose owner speaker inadequacy issues. You are in the denial stage of the five stages of grief.

Do you understand what comb filtering is?

Would you like to compare the off axis high frequency roll off of an average one inch dome to a 2.5" cone driver?

Do you understand what cone break up is?

Do you realize that the Bose bass module has a crossover inside of it?

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Do you know that every time you reply to him you just give him another reason to come back with another of his uninformed diatribes?
Don't waste your time. Put him on your block list. Post cogent factual information for the benefit of those who want to learn, and don't bother responding to those who don't.

Originally Posted by enerlevel

I have an am-6 which comes with 5 single cubes speakers. I am trying to replace these single cubes with the double cube. However there are no ohms rating at the back of the cubes. And both the bass module of the am6 (single cube) and the am10(double cube) show me ohms rating 4-8. But in theory, if the single cube is 8ohms then how can the double cube be 8 ohms? Keeping in mind that there are actually two drivers in the double cube.
Therefore can I actually get the double cubes to works safely ?

"Call Bose. They can give you answers to your questions about impedence values. FWIW, I would not think there would be any problems going to the double-cube speakers. But I'd advise to check with the manufacturer all the same.

From your comments throughout this thread, you seem to be happy with the sound of the AM6 system. If so, don't let all the Bose trash-talk you'll get in audiophool forums bother you one bit. Trust your ears! All micro-sat systems are compromised. The pretty much all tend to have dips somewhere in the 100-300Hz range. It's the nature of the beast.

As for paper cones, many of the best sounding speakers in the world use paper cones. Paper just happens to be an ideal material for loudspeaker cones; and it is cheap. Paper is to drivers what mdf is to enclosures.

Measurements: You can take what some Bose hater says is the reason for not publishing specs; or you can go to the Bose website and see what they say about it. They are all quite capable of speaking for themselves."




By now you have figured out that the contributors to this forum (for the most part at least) have no love for anything with a Bose logo on it. Until recently, I had a Bose speaker system since 1979 when I bought an AM 3 system. I happily used it from then until 3 years ago with my old Pioneer 50w/ch receiver and then with a Technics 80w/ch amplifier. When I bought my Yamaha 6190, I relegated the AM 3's and the Technics to my unheated shop, and replaced the speakers in my living room with an AM 10-III system which I was more than happy with. In both cases, friends could not believe that so much sound could come out of such a small package, and to this day I agree with that observation. The AM3's have gone through three seasons of freeze/thaw in my shop, and I don't hear anything untoward yet. They must be pretty durable as well.

I have absolutely no affiliation with Bose or any other audio brand!! :-) I am just telling you what I know given my experience.

It has only been recently that I have been able to afford to upgrade to the Yamaha and a higher performing Energy HT system that I really am impressed with, and it sounds like you are going the same route as me. Enjoy your journey!

To your question--first of all, I am not a technical person at all when it comes to audio, but in my experience with the AM3's and the AM10's, I abused them as much as I could with what I had over the years without any special settings or treatment, and I was never able to hurt them. I assume that they were treated by my gear as 8 ohm speakers. I believe that my Yamaha also recognized them as that. In any case if you check the Bose manual, I think that it says to set them as 8 ohm, and to set them as "small" in a Home Theater situation. You really should read the manual before you do anything, and of course calling Bose is a great idea as well.

Anyway, the standard advice seems to be to do what you are happy with within the constraints of your budget. I think that that's good advice. That said, the knowledge and expertice offered by the members of this site are amazing. I have taken advantage of it myself to upgrade to what I currently have, and will continue to do so. With a grain of salt in some cases............

Correction--I bought the AM3's in 1989, not 1979........... Uncoordinated fingers, and poor eyesight......

You're right.

Correct. I thought he just wanted them to look better. Twice the cubes / twice the good looks! Everybody knows that!

FIve stages of grief? I see you also do comedy!

...and what would be an example of one of my "uninformed diatribes"? Quote please.

As for your own "cogent factual" comments, would this be representative? It think you'll find it familiar.

"The 901 will be in production as long as there are fools willing to buy them. The human race has no shortage of fools, nor is the supply likely to dry up anytime soon."

fwiw, to be honest don't know how anyone associated with bose can actually sleep at night knowing that they helped rip off every single uneducated audio person who buys their outrageously priced, cheaply made garbage.imo they are criminals. bose is about falsly marketing money making schemes than sound quality.they prey on the uneducated and brain washed idiots of the world.wolves in sheep clothes. just my 2 cents

Do yourself a favor and google Bill Fitzmaurice. The man knows a thing or two about speakers.