or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Bose cube replacement question.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bose cube replacement question. - Page 3

post #61 of 141
Dat, defend the 901s and you can maintain a narrow shred of legitimacy. Defend the Bose cubes and you lose all cred...
post #62 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyng_fool View Post

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

Good for him. What's your point?

My issue is not with BF's credentials or knowledge; it's that everytime I see a question asked from a Bose owner or concerning Bose, objectivity, respect and fairness all get thrown out the window. It just gets turned into a schoolyard-level Bose-bash, which seems to be what some people here live for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elihawk View Post

Dat, defend the 901s and you can maintain a narrow shred of legitimacy. Defend the Bose cubes and you lose all cred...

Oooh, that's tempting! biggrin.gif I've never owned an Acoustimass system, whereas I've owned two pairs of 901's (so far), so I really have no experience with them other than an occasional demo in a store. I will say though, that there is much virtue in small loudpeaker enclosures, and in having no cross-over in the range covered by the sats. (Notice I didn't say "full-range": I have to be super-careful how I phrase things here, lest I get pounced upon. smile.gif)
Edited by dat56 - 2/16/13 at 8:01pm
post #63 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by dat56 View Post

. . . everytime I see a question asked from a Bose owner or concerning Bose, objectivity, respect and fairness all get thrown out the window. It just gets turned into a schoolyard-level Bose-bash, which seems to be what some people here live for.

Oh, give us a break. This is all about feeling better about your own speakers and being unable to resolve the conflict of liking Bose when reason says you shouldn't and the very large majority of other audio enthusiasts don't. If your own peculiar tastes didn't cause you to like Bose speakers, you wouldn't be posting in this thread at all.

Once you deal with your Bose speaker owner inadequacy issues, by accepting that the very large majority of audio enthusiasts think your Bose speaker suck for legitimate reasons of being poorly designed and over-priced, and by accepting that many audio enthusiasts feel they need to vehemently express their opinions about it because the public is continually being fleeced by Bose corp marketing, then you won't feel the need to champion Bose any more. After all, the little bit of noise being raised here on AVS is nothing in comparison to how the public is being snowed with advertising from Bose.
post #64 of 141
Bill is a pretty objective guy and like me, he is a scientist. I am a biologist, he is an audioscientist and often jumps in when statements have not or cannot be back up with the indisputable- science! He doesn't just do that in Bose threads and have challenged me several times when I have misspoke!
As for the Bose cubes, in this thread the ridiculous claim was made that the enclosure somehow enhances the sq of the system- and you are "calling out" Bill for pointing that out? The 901s measure poorly, the Bose cubes get an f in the measurable science! But, hey, as long as you like them....
post #65 of 141
I would add that there might be a place for acoustimass type cubes, a single driver small speaker, for when space and appearance is a big concern. They couldn't sound worse than built-in TV speakers anyway. The problem is when you charge more than $5 for them, but that is more of a problem for the uninformed, those who throw down lots of money without doing any homework on what their buying. Suckers deserve to be parted from their money, so Bose doesn't bother me at all. What's cool is Amar Bose giving a billion to MIT, effectively taking money from the rubes and giving it to intelligent people, kinda like an intellectual Robin Hood. I can get behind that.
post #66 of 141
Thread Starter 
Sorry for my late reply,
First of all I want the dual cubes because they are louder than the single ones. When I hear music on 2ch mode, I do feel as if I need a little more volume. I heard the AM5 in a store and compared it to the AM3. It is for sure louder. I have heard many saying that the dual cubes are for imaging purpose however I can clearly tell that it is louder for sure.
Calling bose will not help because they clearly tell u not to mix and match the systems.
post #67 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadyJ View Post

...Suckers deserve to be parted from their money, so Bose doesn't bother me at all. What's cool is Amar Bose giving a billion to MIT, effectively taking money from the rubes and giving it to intelligent people, kinda like an intellectual Robin Hood. I can get behind that.

Hahaha, that's a funny way of looking at it. I would agree, except for the fact that there are likely dozens of lawyers and marketing people and management types who are also making a small fortune at Bose by preying on the customer.
post #68 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by cel4145 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by dat56 View Post

. . . everytime I see a question asked from a Bose owner or concerning Bose, objectivity, respect and fairness all get thrown out the window. It just gets turned into a schoolyard-level Bose-bash, which seems to be what some people here live for.

Oh, give us a break. This is all about feeling better about your own speakers and being unable to resolve the conflict of liking Bose when reason says you shouldn't and the very large majority of other audio enthusiasts don't. If your own peculiar tastes didn't cause you to like Bose speakers, you wouldn't be posting in this thread at all.

Once you deal with your Bose speaker owner inadequacy issues, by accepting that the very large majority of audio enthusiasts think your Bose speaker suck for legitimate reasons of being poorly designed and over-priced, and by accepting that many audio enthusiasts feel they need to vehemently express their opinions about it because the public is continually being fleeced by Bose corp marketing, then you won't feel the need to champion Bose any more. After all, the little bit of noise being raised here on AVS is nothing in comparison to how the public is being snowed with advertising from Bose.

Please spare me the psychoanalysis. You can think whatever you want of Bose and their products. I just wish you and others here would stop using Bose-related threads as a jump-off point for your indoctrination programs. Just answer their questions. Is that too much to ask?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elihawk View Post

Bill is a pretty objective guy and like me, he is a scientist. I am a biologist, he is an audioscientist and often jumps in when statements have not or cannot be back up with the indisputable- science! He doesn't just do that in Bose threads and have challenged me several times when I have misspoke!
As for the Bose cubes, in this thread the ridiculous claim was made that the enclosure somehow enhances the sq of the system- and you are "calling out" Bill for pointing that out? The 901s measure poorly, the Bose cubes get an f in the measurable science! But, hey, as long as you like them....

I'm not sure what specifically you are talking about. The smaller the enclosure, the higher the Q of any resonances will be. The smaller the enclosure, the less problems there will be with edge diffraction. The smaller the enclosure, the more flexibility in placement there is. I don't see anything to contest about these statements.

"901's measure poorly" You can throw that out there if you want, totally unsubstantiated, and I will take it for just that. What measurements?...of what? Most of their output is directed towards the wall behind them. Measuring that type of speaker is always difficult and many would argue that it's pointless. The 901 was designed takeng into consideration what was known of psychoacoustics or how humans hear and perceive sound. Most speakers are made to measure well in an anechoic chamber with a directional mic one meter in front of the driver; 901's were made to sound like real music. How do you listen to music? In an anechoic chamber or in a real living space with walls and furniture?

You all want to be vocal about your science...Bose has more MIT trained engineers on staff than probably any audio manufacturer. They also plow much revenue back into basic R&D. They may know more about the science of audio than anyone here ever thought about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shadyJ View Post

I would add that there might be a place for acoustimass type cubes, a single driver small speaker, for when space and appearance is a big concern. They couldn't sound worse than built-in TV speakers anyway. The problem is when you charge more than $5 for them, but that is more of a problem for the uninformed, those who throw down lots of money without doing any homework on what their buying. Suckers deserve to be parted from their money, so Bose doesn't bother me at all. What's cool is Amar Bose giving a billion to MIT, effectively taking money from the rubes and giving it to intelligent people, kinda like an intellectual Robin Hood. I can get behind that.

rubes? More insults. Impressive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by enerlevel View Post

Sorry for my late reply,
First of all I want the dual cubes because they are louder than the single ones. When I hear music on 2ch mode, I do feel as if I need a little more volume. I heard the AM5 in a store and compared it to the AM3. It is for sure louder. I have heard many saying that the dual cubes are for imaging purpose however I can clearly tell that it is louder for sure.
Calling bose will not help because they clearly tell u not to mix and match the systems.

You can play with the imaging more with the dual cubes, but you are correct: they will play louder, probably 3-6dB over most of the audible range.
post #69 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by dat56 View Post

Please spare me the psychoanalysis. You can think whatever you want of Bose and their products. I just wish you and others here would stop using Bose-related threads as a jump-off point for your indoctrination programs. Just answer their questions. Is that too much to ask?

You already know the answer to that. The answer is obviously NO. NO. NO. no. People are not going to stop just to make you happy.

And the better word choice is "consumer deprogramming" not "indoctrination." They already got indoctrinated through the billions invested in marketing by Bose. eek.gif
post #70 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by cel4145 View Post

You already know the answer to that. The answer is obviously NO. NO. NO. no. People are not going to stop just to make you happy.

And the better word choice is "consumer deprogramming" not "indoctrination." They already got indoctrinated through the billions invested in marketing by Bose. eek.gif

It's not about making me happy. It's about helping a poster by answering their questions.

"Billions invested in marketing by Bose" And what bodily orifice did you pull this number out of?
post #71 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by dat56 View Post

"Billions invested in marketing by Bose" And what bodily orifice did you pull this number out of?

Same place you got your claims about Bose quality. Although my guess is probably more accurate than your opinion. LOL
post #72 of 141
You can keep throwing out that "the 901 is a tough speaker to measure" crap and you are just making my point...in the position IN FRONT of the speaker, where most people sit to listen to music, they measure poorly and have dips in both the low or high end. Bell curve like freq responses are not the "perfect norm" in audio technology.

maybe we could find a couple more year(s) old Bose threads to bump. I think the OP got his answer and hasn't been back!
post #73 of 141
I did some interesting reading about Dr Amar Bose and how he came up with many of his designs. He actually is a pioneer in psychoacoustics. So he has designed his speakers around what people think they want to hear over accurate reproduction of sound. He's taken advantage of an interesting phenomenon.
post #74 of 141
meh, people here don't have a clue. They always go down to these stupid "scientific" claims.

These are the folks who are using standard-no name cooper cables which cost less than $5 a feet. If they can't appreciate how good Expensive Cable Ultra CCA Pro Audio clarity Supreme cable is, they clearly won't be able to appreciate the Bose high technology gear. They don't deserve it, either rolleyes.gif

Scientific claims... bah. tongue.gif
post #75 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by cel4145 View Post

Same place you got your claims about Bose quality. Although my guess is probably more accurate than your opinion. LOL
Maybe he thinks newspapers, TV and radio give away advertising for free. I doubt there's a person in the US, if not the entire world, who has access to some type of mass media who has not seen or heard a Bose advertisement. Name one other brand that regularly advertises in newspapers, on radio and on TV, and has to incorporate the cost of that advertising into their price.
post #76 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by dat56 View Post

...
You all want to be vocal about your science...Bose has more MIT trained engineers on staff than probably any audio manufacturer. They also plow much revenue back into basic R&D. They may know more about the science of audio than anyone here ever thought about.
...

Link to supporting information?
Or are you saying simply that Bose has more MIT trained engineers (as opposed to engineers from any other university)?
Are you saying Bose does more research than does Harman??
post #77 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaveav View Post

Link to supporting information?
Or are you saying simply that Bose has more MIT trained engineers (as opposed to engineers from any other university)?
Are you saying Bose does more research than does Harman??
MIT has no program in acoustical engineering, so who cares?
post #78 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post

MIT has no program in acoustical engineering, so who cares?

Well, when I went to college and grad school in the late 80s to early 90s, I don't remember ANY university having a program specifically in acoustical engineering.

The best you could do was to major in Mechanical Engineering or Electrical Engineering and to find a program that offered a course or two in acoustics, audio, speaker design, etc.

Are there colleges now that have accredited programs in acoustical engineering, or is it still just a sub-specialty of electrical or mechanical engineering?
post #79 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaveav View Post

Are there colleges now that have accredited programs in acoustical engineering, or is it still just a sub-specialty of electrical or mechanical engineering?
There are a few. Acoustical Engineering is typically offered as a graduate program leading to a Masters or Doctorate. Penn State has had a program since 1965. Texas and Hartford are two others, Hartford has an undergrad program.
post #80 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by cel4145 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by dat56 View Post

"Billions invested in marketing by Bose" And what bodily orifice did you pull this number out of?

Same place you got your claims about Bose quality. Although my guess is probably more accurate than your opinion. LOL

I haven't made any claims about Bose quality, so you're talking out of that bodily orifice again. My experience with 901's has been perfect, though. No problems whatsoever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elihawk View Post

You can keep throwing out that "the 901 is a tough speaker to measure" crap and you are just making my point...in the position IN FRONT of the speaker, where most people sit to listen to music, they measure poorly and have dips in both the low or high end. Bell curve like freq responses are not the "perfect norm" in audio technology.

maybe we could find a couple more year(s) old Bose threads to bump. I think the OP got his answer and hasn't been back!

I've measured mine in-room with the STEREOPHILE test CD2 and a Radio Shack SPL meter with corrections for known deviations. No "bell curve". Essentially flat (+/-4dB from 25Hz to 16kHz). Not too shabby for my room , which is a tough one to get flat bass response in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyng_fool View Post

I did some interesting reading about Dr Amar Bose and how he came up with many of his designs. He actually is a pioneer in psychoacoustics. So he has designed his speakers around what people think they want to hear over accurate reproduction of sound. He's taken advantage of an interesting phenomenon.

You are correct. Amar Bose is a pioneer in the field of psychoacoustics. But psychoacoustics is not about "what people think they want to hear". It's about human perception of sound, period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by cel4145 View Post

Same place you got your claims about Bose quality. Although my guess is probably more accurate than your opinion. LOL
Maybe he thinks newspapers, TV and radio give away advertising for free. I doubt there's a person in the US, if not the entire world, who has access to some type of mass media who has not seen or heard a Bose advertisement. Name one other brand that regularly advertises in newspapers, on radio and on TV, and has to incorporate the cost of that advertising into their price.

"He" doesn't think ads are free. The claim was "billions spent". If you're gonna throw absolutes out there, you should be prepared to back it up with facts. You all do seem to like your facts, don't you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaveav View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by dat56 View Post

...
You all want to be vocal about your science...Bose has more MIT trained engineers on staff than probably any audio manufacturer. They also plow much revenue back into basic R&D. They may know more about the science of audio than anyone here ever thought about.
...

Link to supporting information?
Or are you saying simply that Bose has more MIT trained engineers (as opposed to engineers from any other university)?
Are you saying Bose does more research than does Harman??

Key word: PROBABLY, denoting an opinion, not a statement of fact.
post #81 of 141
its pretty scary to think that all those mit engineers actually came up with the wave radio and cinamate and bose acoustimas maybe i got the wrong impression on mit engineering if thats the best they can do.
post #82 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by dat56 View Post

I've measured mine in-room with the STEREOPHILE test CD2 and a Radio Shack SPL meter with corrections for known deviations. No "bell curve". Essentially flat (+/-4dB from 25Hz to 16kHz).
That statement is patently false.
The beautiful thing about science is that it's always right, whether you believe in it or not. The science is unequivocal in that the 901 cannot realize that measured response, no matter how much processing is applied.
Emulating the Bose marketing department by making totally fictitious claims isn't going to win you any converts here.
post #83 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by dat56 View Post

I haven't made any claims about Bose quality, so you're talking out of that bodily orifice again. My experience with 901's has been perfect, though. No problems whatsoever.

Oh, really? Well, if you have no disagreement with anyone here about the problems with Bose design and its overpricing, then you have no reason to gripe like you have been doing.

As for your particular experience with your 901s, its not repeatable for most consumers, since they aren't going to be interested in hanging theirs from the ceiling like a couple of plant baskets eek.gif
post #84 of 141
Yep, i need to see those measurement! Bose cannot produce those measurements, or they would publish them!
post #85 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elihawk View Post

Yep, i need to see those measurement! Bose cannot produce those measurements, or they would publish them!
+1 I would love to see those measurements!
post #86 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elihawk View Post

Yep, i need to see those measurement! Bose cannot produce those measurements, or they would publish them!
+1. Bose has always said that they don't post measurements because their customers don't care about measurements. That's true to a great extent, since the average consumer would make no more sense of an SPL chart than they would the Odyssey in the original language. But being the marketing driven company that it is if measurements showed their products in a positive light not only would they publish them, they'd include instructions on how to interpret them.
Not that Bose is the only guilty party in this respect by any means, but there are only two reasons for any company not having measurements. Either they don't have them, or they don't want you to see them.
post #87 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post

There are a few. Acoustical Engineering is typically offered as a graduate program leading to a Masters or Doctorate. Penn State has had a program since 1965. Texas and Hartford are two others, Hartford has an undergrad program.

Thanks for the info Bill. I was completely unaware of Penn State's program, which is a little embarrassing considering one of my friends is a MechEng professor there.
post #88 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by dat56 View Post


Key word: PROBABLY, denoting an opinion, not a statement of fact.

Hilarious dance move there! rolleyes.gif
post #89 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaveav View Post

Thanks for the info Bill. I was completely unaware of Penn State's program, which is a little embarrassing considering one of my friends is a MechEng professor there.
There are a lot of other programs that aren't as easily searched out, you can find them through the AES website.
post #90 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by dat56 View Post

I've measured mine in-room with the STEREOPHILE test CD2 and a Radio Shack SPL meter with corrections for known deviations. No "bell curve". Essentially flat (+/-4dB from 25Hz to 16kHz).
That statement is patently false.
The beautiful thing about science is that it's always right, whether you believe in it or not. The science is unequivocal in that the 901 cannot realize that measured response, no matter how much processing is applied.
Emulating the Bose marketing department by making totally fictitious claims isn't going to win you any converts here.

Now you're calling me a liar? You only believe what you want to believe, apparently. The figures I cited were from memory. I went back and looked at the numbers. I had taken the measurements in '09. So here's some fresh numbers, taken 2/20/2013, in room, from the listening position using STEREOPHILE's Test CD2 and my old Radio Shack analog spl meter, again, correcting readings from 125Hz on down, with known corrections of meter inaccuracies.. Tone controls bypassed, Bose EQ engaged, of course. Bass filter engaged, which introduces a 6dB cut at 30 Hz. Overall response fits a 10.5dB window from 25Hz through 12500Hz. Responses at 20Hz and 16kHz fell out of meter range, which was 80dB +/-6dB. The dip at 50Hz is room related.

25Hz -5dB
31.5 5
40 1
50 -3.5
63 2
80 3.5
100 4
125 1.5
160 1.5
200 -4
250 -5
315 3
400 1
500 5
630 3
800 3
1000 3
1250 4.5
1600 4
2000 3.5
2500 3.5
3150 1
4000 1
5000 2
6300 0
8000 -5
10000 -4.5
12500 -5.5
Quote:
Originally Posted by cel4145 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by dat56 View Post

I haven't made any claims about Bose quality, so you're talking out of that bodily orifice again. My experience with 901's has been perfect, though. No problems whatsoever.

Oh, really? Well, if you have no disagreement with anyone here about the problems with Bose design and its overpricing, then you have no reason to gripe like you have been doing.

As for your particular experience with your 901s, its not repeatable for most consumers, since they aren't going to be interested in hanging theirs from the ceiling like a couple of plant baskets eek.gif

Lot's of people hang them from their ceiling. Besides, the loudspeaker doesn't know if it's 18" from the floor or 18" from the ceiling. Measurements will be about the same, other than the 8000Hz and up, which should be better on the floor as the drivers are probably closer to the seated listener's ear height..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elihawk View Post

Yep, i need to see those measurement! Bose cannot produce those measurements, or they would publish them!

Bose does not publish specs because they feel they don't necessarily relate to how people hear and perceive sound and therefore can be more misleading than helpful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elihawk View Post

Yep, i need to see those measurement! Bose cannot produce those measurements, or they would publish them!
+1. Bose has always said that they don't post measurements because their customers don't care about measurements. That's true to a great extent, since the average consumer would make no more sense of an SPL chart than they would the Odyssey in the original language. But being the marketing driven company that it is if measurements showed their products in a positive light not only would they publish them, they'd include instructions on how to interpret them.
Not that Bose is the only guilty party in this respect by any means, but there are only two reasons for any company not having measurements. Either they don't have them, or they don't want you to see them.

See above. Go to the Bose website. They are very clear and forthright about why they don't publish specs.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Bose cube replacement question.