Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Nousaine wrote:

....snips......



I've not only taken them apart I've measured several sets of CSW speakers
over
the years. They are certainly no better than Bose construction and
arguably
worse. And the measured performance of the majority of their speakers in a
given class are definitely 'competitive' meaning not-much-better.

They do make several lines of small speakers. The typical ones you find
in computer and electronics stores are not their upper-end models
are better.

I'm including comparative products. BUt, by and large, the CSW speakers in any
performance catagory are well below average for the segment. I've even had CSW
stereo speaker products where both original pair failed and then one of the two
replacements failed. But this not unusual in many "value" product segments.

http://www.cambridgesoundworks.com/s...ory=ht_package
&item=k1pkm28zz
This is virtually the same on paper as the Bose, but more accurate
and a lot less costly. I've heard both and the CSW edges out the
Bose by a small margin.

And what's your point? My opinion is that competing CSW products in this
performance class do not offer significantly better performance. The real issue
is price and style.


The $499(easy to find at ~350-400 street price) movieworks 108
system is actually not so bad. Bose doesn't make anything
as good as this(which is really telling as an Energy Take 5.2
sytem stomps on both)

The Energy is a better system. Never said otherwise. But it's not as easy to
install and it's materially larger. So; I'm not really arguing with anything
you say but am just trying to put some perspective on the real issues with the
perspective of having evaluiated and measured hundreds of loudspeaker systems
of all price/performance categories.


I'm guessing that if CSW could command a premium liek that they'd be
foolish
not to. But they can't .... whose fault is that?

They don't spend millions on marketing like Bose to artificially
generate the image. Note the incident with Bose and the noise
cancelling headphones they were supposed to make for the military.

What incident? Can you be more specific? On the other hand, if I follow your
line of reasoning then the millions Toyota spends on the Lexus image
automatically means their cars have poorer performance.

Again the money Bose spends on that image doesn't affect you and me in any way.
But, it has helped certain market segments get performance thay would not have
with competing products either because they don't like the styling or they
couldn't install it. And I don't 'hate' them because they service market
segments that nobody else wants.





Those systems have many characteristics in common. None have a true
subwoofer -
they're all common bass modules.

Sorry - look at the KEF. Also look at the Energy Take 5.2 That's
a real sub they mate with it in both cases.

That's what you say. By my standards none of those have real "subwoofers."


All satellites have sharply falling dynamic
capability at the lower end of their bandwidth and all have a crossover
hole
between approximately 150 and 300 Hz.

Nope. Energy and KEF do not. And there are many others that are
made as well as they are.

So you say. I've measured and inspected those and dozens of other systems. They
most certainly do.



All the satellites have significant
midrange and upper frequency response tonal irregularites and divergent
directivity.

Again, no they do not.

http://www.energy-speakers.com/take5...ers_specs.html
80-20Khz +/-3db for the satellites. MDF, binding posts, seperate
tweeter, poly cone woofer, and rubber surrounds.

So you accept manufacturing specifications as true performance measurements? I
see.


The bass they recommend is a standard E:XL-S8 subwoofer with
400watts peak and a response from 29-100hz +/- 3db

As before. Energy and every other 8-inch "subwoofer" sold today are not real
subwoofers. Very few 10-inch models qualify.


That's what you get for $600-$700 from other manufacturers
if you want a microsystem. 6*4*5.5 inches is pretty darn small
for speakers. Among microsystems, the Energy is a very solid
option that completely stomps on most other ones, including
Tannoy and several other brands because it does a simmilar
or better job for a lot less money.

Again your argument has only one thread ....value.



KEF:
http://www.kef.com/KHT/
Well - lookie here - they added some new lines this year. There
used to be only one. Let's look at the original, the 2005.2:
80-27Khz +/-3db - Sats.
30-140Hz for the subwoofer. 250 Watts.

Reading Tech Sheets isn't generally a good method for evaluating performance as
we'll see soon.


But let's look at the tiny new 1005 system:
First off they are tiny, sleek, and look like wall sconces more
than speakers. Definate high WAF.
120hz-22Khz +/-3db - Sats
Smaller internal cabinet volume than the Bose satelites and
much smaller visual impact due to rounded and curved edges.

38-150hz - subwoofer. 100 Watts.

I'll bet that it doesn't actually reach 150 Hz at the upper end and won't do 25
Hz with 10% distortion.

So you are flat out wrong. KEF's smallest and cheapest system
they make has flat response and no "hole" - for less money
than Bose.

So they claim. I've tested more than one and, while they do have more extended
high frequency extension they also have performance errors similar to Bose.

In a strange way that almost makes me think that the Bose system of not
publishing system specifications is intellectually more honest than publishing
a sheet of them that basically does not realistically express real performance.


The 80 Hz bandlimit for example. Most manufacturers claim 60 - 80 Hz for
satellites when, in use, they often cannot produce realistic low distortion SPL
anywhere near the bandlimit. As an ilustration I recently measured a more
expensive satellite system with a spec'd lower bandlimit of 36 Hz.

When driven with 2.8 volts and measured at 2-meters the system is -3 dB at 83
Hz and when driven to full output (10% distortion) it will only produce 70 dB
SPL @ 62 Hz. This system has 2 6.5-inch woofers in it. And it's one damn fine
speaker but it's 'specifications' do not describe real performance. It
basically is an "80-Hz" system.

And a real 8" woofer.(if a bit weak - still, the
Bose doesn't put out anywhere near 100W)

This is another area where I'll throw in another gripe I have about "power
ratings" of active speakers or any powered system. Power ratings aren't
standardized and for the most part are meaningless. Every manufacturer wants to
put a big "power amp" number on the spec sheet but, IMO, I don't want to know
how much power is needed to drive this speaker to full output. What I want to
know is how much SPL will come out of the speaker. It shouldn't matter to me
one way or another if one company needs 1000 watts to get 100 dB and another
can do it with 20 watts. But many people will mistakenly assume that the "1000
watt" system will be 50 times better than the "20 watt" system.

Just one of my current and long-standing gripes and why I publish SPL @ 10% @
2-meters figures (Bass Limits) for all speakers tested.

While I agree that Bose probably doesn't put 100 watts into the woofer; I'll
also arhue that the 100 watts printed on the spec sheet of an 8-inch powered
subwoofer is also meaningless.


I've heard the midrange 2005.2 system and it's superb - just
amazing sound from something so small. Best small system
short of something esoteric like mounting NoRHs on the walls
that I have heard. A 10 inch high excursion double voicecoil
speaker in a box with a 250W amplifier - that qualifies as
a "sub" in my book.

The power rating is essentially meaningless, as is the number of voice coils
and as are the words "high excursion" in this context. What would qualify it as
a "subwoofer" is 85 dB SPL @ 20 Hz (the threshold of audibility at that
frequency) with less than 10% distortion.
I'll bet that model won't do that.

debate IMO simply comes down to a simply buyer decision ....is size more
important than price? Or how much am I willing to pay for the small size?
Nobody gets hi-fi speakers in this deal with these product lines.

The KEF are better, smaller, and cost less. Win win win.

I'd say that value would be their advantage. So ....? Why hate Bose for
comanding a premium. Do you hate Monster Cable for selling zip cord at inflated
prices? If there's a villain in the house I'd be looking at accessory and
vacumn tube electronics.


While Bose has been sitting on its butt for decades making minor
changes to aging technology, other firms have been innovating.

Such as making an auralization system for architectural acoustics?


Go hear the KEF system in person. I think you'll be amazed.

Actually if I were looking for a $1300 system I'd start with Hsu research,
Paradigm and/or PSB. But it's not me.

I prefer Tannoy's MX line myself. Good low-cost capable speakers
that aren't "bright" like many small speakers.

Now I KNOW you are smoking something. The KEF system is true
dome tweeter/woofer setup in each surround and it's measured
at +/-3db with no gaps in response.

Measured by who? The marketing department? I'm not trying to be overly
argumentative here but the KEF systems I've evaluated in recent years in
this
price range are in this league.

Actual tests. 4 inch woofer and a 1/2 inch dome tweeter. It's
not rocket science to build a decent little speaker these days.
Their spec pages state +/-3db and so far, all KEF speakers test
very close to their claims. Bose - doesn't even PRINT their
specs.

So you take "spec sheets" as a reliable performance indicator. I don't. And
I've measured KEF speakers and since Raymnd Cooke died and Laurie Fincham left
for Harman/THX they've not been the same.



Even you could see that it's well - nasty. 13.5K high end?
I can buy a $20 4 inch speaker that goes up to 15hkz cleanly.


Wow; let me at those.

Sure.
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showd...number=264-820
There's your 15Khz full-range 4 inch driver for $20.
It's not great, but it does show the Bose has no excuse. 13.5Khz
means they need a seperate tweeter.

Thank you for the link. I went there and that driver has an octave wide 12 dB
peak at 7 kHz (their own graphs show that), which if compesated would give the
speaker a useful bandwidth of 10 kHz. Is that what you want them to use?


http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showd...number=297-356
Here's what I had in mind. It's $45.25 here, but if Bose
were buying direct, their price would likely be near $20.

http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showd...number=269-685
If you've seen this speaker, you're not dreaming - it is
a standard unit used in several HTIAB type setups. Slap in
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showd...number=275-065
or simmilar and make a decent-range satellite.

So you really like that 10 dB peak at 4 kHz. How are you going to deal with
that notch lower in frequency?



Small decent range speakers do exist that aren't that expensive,
espeically if you are a big company that buys millions of them
at steep discounts.

Why not apply for Chief Engineer or Director of Purchasing at the Mountain? :-)

This is what Bose should be able to do - as these are $199 a
pair, shipped(no tax). 4 plus a center($275) is $673.
Add a decent subwoofer and you're at $1000-$1300.

I'd be a little skeptical of a single driver full range system (isn't that
what
the 901 is?) that is based on fanciful ideas such as:

Well, it is possible. Something like a Fostex FX200 comes close.
The F200A is 30hz-20Khz, which is respectable, if really expensive.

You left out the fanciful idea about how non-rectangular enclosures work.