or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Bose Attack. Ouch that Hurts
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bose Attack. Ouch that Hurts - Page 32  

post #931 of 941
Quote:
Originally Posted by wgerman
(snip) Some of the Bose systems such as the RL I heard, nice warm midrange,recessed highs not so prominent. Isn't that the way the aftermarket is moving too? First MB Quarts were the rage with their bright sound,now everyone wants Morels with their warm sound or Scan Speak drivers.
The HF response in the new RL is, in terms of frequency response magnitude, accurate. No, it's not plus or minus 0.01dB, but it compares well against what you can acheive in a typical home with very high performance audio equipment.

It's interesting that you call it, "recessed." Could it be that you are aclimated to boosted treble?

Oh, and when are the no-car-audio police going to show up?
post #932 of 941
Linda Ronstadt's "Whats New" DVD-A.

There's plenty of vocal energy in the L/R/Surrounds, but it's also mixed with a lot more center content than a ES disc. I'm not a fan of the performance, but it's a example of the kind of mix you seem to favor (exclusively).
post #933 of 941
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Feng
Oh, and when are the no-car-audio police going to show up?
No car audio, please.
post #934 of 941
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Feng
The HF response in the new RL is, in terms of frequency response magnitude, accurate. No, it's not plus or minus 0.01dB, but it compares well against what you can acheive in a typical home with very high performance audio equipment.

It's interesting that you call it, "recessed." Could it be that you are aclimated to boosted treble?

Oh, and when are the no-car-audio police going to show up?
When I state "recessed", I am not stating the highs were not there,just not as noticeable. Its a subjective thing. It doesn't mean I prefer 'bright" sound. There are many "audiophile" home speakers that have recessed highs ie. Sonus faber, and Vienna Acoustics to name a few.

The RL system on the whole sounds very good. Much better than the Cadillac STS system (sorry,I can hear "compression" coming from the dash 2 and 3 inch speakers).

And when you state accurate,what is your reference? For example, take a jazz group of about three players playing in an intimate club. Again what is your reference? The actual performance itself or the group's recording on a CD?

The one thing that drives audiophiles crazy is the arbitrary 16khz cutoff of most home Bose speakers (go to the professional side of Bose. com website and see the stated specs for 2 1/2 and 4 inchers). True there is not much information above 14khz, but the "air",harmonics and spatial cues are. Notice I stated "home" speakers, some of your projects Feng do deserve kudos and the RL is one of them.
post #935 of 941
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Feng
Using "live" as the standard (particularly if you make the recording too) means you are trying to be more accurate. That can't be a bad thing from an objective point of view. But, when you listen at home you're missing some of the other stimuli you had at the live event (like visual info), so there's an argument that hyper-realistic imaging has a positive subjective benefit because it's making up for that missing visual info.

So, do you want live/accurate or preferred/euphonic but maybe not accurate?
To be clear, I'd like to understand how you are characterizing things here.

As you saying that the "live" (as in heavily reverberant) is an objectively "accurate" standard? I am interpreting this post to be claiming this, but I am unsure. If so, then you are claiming that a more controlled playback environment with more precise imaging is "euphonic," and MAY be subjectively preferred, but is not accurate?

I would like to understand your perspective on this issue so I don't have it confused.

Thanks.
-chris
post #936 of 941
[quote=wgerman]
The RL system on the whole sounds very good. Much better than the Cadillac STS system (sorry,I can hear "compression" coming from the dash 2 and 3 inch speakers).

And when you state accurate,what is your reference? For example, take a jazz group of about three players playing in an intimate club. Again what is your reference? The actual performance itself or the group's recording on a CD? [quote]

It has a frequency response that's free of peakiness and matches what I consider to be the ideal in-cabin response. The response of the RL is flat thru the entire treble range (within a couple of dB). And it's good in more than just the driver's seat. The tonal balance matches what I expect from a live performance ... with some consideration for a little more low frequency energy because (1) it sounds nice (2) auto-noise environments need it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wgerman
The one thing that drives audiophiles crazy is the arbitrary 16khz cutoff of most home Bose speakers (go to the professional side of Bose. com website and see the stated specs for 2 1/2 and 4 inchers). True there is not much information above 14khz, but the "air",harmonics and spatial cues are. Notice I stated "home" speakers, some of your projects Feng do deserve kudos and the RL is one of them.
There is no all-pervasive 16kHz cutoff that applies to all Bose products. HF extension depends on the room and the way the speakers are setup (Bose and almost any other brand). A set of B&W 800N's in a spectacular room that I heard were a good 6dB down at 16kHz and that FR was only headed one way (down fast). The sound was still spectacular, and the tiny bit of "air" that was missing didn't make that system any less than a world class system (in my opinion). I would have still paid $10 large for the speakers and 50 times that for that listening room. Now, I'm an old geezer, so maybe I can legitimately say so what about >16kHz. You should rip some DVD's and CDs, cut them off at 20kHz, 18kHz, 17kHz, 16khz, and do some blind listening. See where you hear the difference and how much$ you'd pay to get that difference back. I'd be interested to hear about your results. For me? I wouldn't pay more than $20 for the stuff over 18kHz, but the lower stuff is worth a lot to me. That's why we put a good tweeter in the RL.
post #937 of 941
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles
To be clear, I'd like to understand how you are characterizing things here.

As you saying that the "live" (as in heavily reverberant) is an objectively "accurate" standard? I am interpreting this post to be claiming this, but I am unsure. If so, then you are claiming that a more controlled playback environment with more precise imaging is "euphonic," and MAY be subjectively preferred, but is not accurate?

I would like to understand your perspective on this issue so I don't have it confused.

Thanks.
-chris
If I hear a jazz quartet play in the studio, then I want my system to sound as close to that as possible. But it's not so simple, what if they play live in the studio but the piano was a little muffled because of it's position in the room. The engineer will fix it in mixing/mastering, and then maybe I want my system to sound like what he hears on his master monitoring system (because the engineer is actually making the DVD sound BETTER than the live event in the studio).

I am not claiming, but merely suggesting that imaging that is more precise than what you can get live maybe euphonic to some people. I am also claiming that it IS perceptually less accurate. Go to a classical concert in any hall of your choice. Listen with your eyes closed. Note how well you can pinpoint individual players. Then go home and listen to a recording made in that same hall. If the imaging is more precise, that's not accurate.
post #938 of 941
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Feng
If I hear a jazz quartet play in the studio, then I want my system to sound as close to that as possible. But it's not so simple, what if they play live in the studio but the piano was a little muffled because of it's position in the room. The engineer will fix it in mixing/mastering, and then maybe I want my system to sound like what he hears on his master monitoring system (because the engineer is actually making the DVD sound BETTER than the live event in the studio).

I am not claiming, but merely suggesting that imaging that is more precise than what you can get live maybe euphonic to some people. I am also claiming that it IS perceptually less accurate. Go to a classical concert in any hall of your choice. Listen with your eyes closed. Note how well you can pinpoint individual players. Then go home and listen to a recording made in that same hall. If the imaging is more precise, that's not accurate.
And if the imaging is less precise, would you likewise agree that that is also inaccurate?

I would have to say, my ability to locate individual musicians in larger halls such as symphony halls is still fairly strong.

I think you will have a very difficult time finding anyone who will agree with you that precise imaging capabilities could be in any way characterized as "euphonic." In fact I think most would say the opposite: weak imaging ability, broad or undefined acoustic images, or overly reverberant spaces are for many more "euphonic" than a more controlled and precisely imaged environment. This is why some prefer bipole/dipole or omnipolar speakers and more reverberant playback environments. I don't think though, that even among those why may prefer that kind of playback experience, that you will find anyone claiming that such a playback system is more accurate or faithful to the recording or the live event.
post #939 of 941
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles
And if the imaging is less precise, would you likewise agree that that is also inaccurate?

I would have to say, my ability to locate individual musicians in larger halls such as symphony halls is still fairly strong.

I think you will have a very difficult time finding anyone who will agree with you that precise imaging capabilities could be in any way characterized as "euphonic." In fact I think most would say the opposite: weak imaging ability, broad or undefined acoustic images, or overly reverberant spaces are for many more "euphonic" than a more controlled and precisely imaged environment. This is why some prefer bipole/dipole or omnipolar speakers and more reverberant playback environments. I don't think though, that even among those why may prefer that kind of playback experience, that you will find anyone claiming that such a playback system is more accurate or faithful to the recording or the live event.
I haven't read the entire conversation here since this thread was 600+ when I first noticed it, but as someone who worked in live sound reenforcment, I can tell you for a fact that live music without some heavy mixing on a console and other eq. sounds pretty bad unless it is in a theater specifically designed for a specific setup (like a fine concert hall such as Carneghi (sorry, I suck at spelling). As a mater of fact, live music sounds so far from what you can reproduce in a studio, most tracks on live recordings are actually redone in a studio and mixed so they sound like a live recording. A perfect example of this is a very old album by Kiss called Kiss Live. The only original track from the concerts are the drum tracks. All the vocal, guitar, and bass were redone in a studio even though they were recorded with the intent of making a live album. As far as imaging, for the most part it is up to the sound engineer as far as what you hear and where it is coming from. I can't imagine any engineer who would mix a show not to sound uniform through out the venue. Why should people who sit dead center of the stage be the only ones to hear an even mix where people on the side of the the Guitar only hear it the most and on the side of the bass here it the most? Even some artists such as Santana don't even use the amplification that is on the stage. He plays through a small distortion amp behind the stuff you see. SO this whole argument on imaging as a live performance is really imaging as a live performance the way an engineer wanted it to sound.
post #940 of 941
I was referring more to unamplified live performance, not amplified live performances.

Amplified live performances are usually terrible in terms of an audio reference.
post #941 of 941
Quote:
Originally Posted by lexa695
SO this whole argument on imaging as a live performance is really imaging as a live performance the way an engineer wanted it to sound.
True for that kind of performance. However, if I were able to set up my dream live sound system, I'd have three hanging stacks across the front and use some time/intensity trading to get a massively cool and precise soundstage that allowed everyone to hear everything. That would be awesome. I think Yes did something like this once. I don't know if you could pull it off in a huge venue though.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Bose Attack. Ouch that Hurts