Nousaine wrote:
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.
But the price difference is a whopper. $1300 versus $250.
For $250, it's a decent budget system. For $1300 with the Bose
name and a $100 receiver unit included, it's just not a good deal.
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.
Both the Bose and the Energy are equal in setup difficulty as they
both require little mounts/stands and as for wires - gosh - any
speaker wire will do.
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.
It's more like Cadillac. Millions on image and yet a common Lexus
beats them for reliability and driving experience.
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."
The Energy 8 inch sub is the same one they sell with the Mirage
FR:X line, just with a different label on it. It's small, but it
IS a real subwoofer. In fact, the sub costs $300 by itself.
So you say. I've measured and inspected those and dozens of other systems. They
most certainly do.
Then show me the data, because the KEF system doesn't do this.
I doubt if you've actually measured the KEF system yet. It
will surprize you.
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.
Based upon that, Bose shouldn't even make ANY sound at all
because they refuse to print specs. I can pull up graphs
though for the Qef Uni-Q driver they use for the low end
and the tweeter they use. They seem like they would have
a moderate but acceptable dip where they crossover, but nothing
worse than many other speakers like Tannoy and B&W.
Certainly no chasm like the Bose. The tweeter in the KEFs
will go higher than 13.5Khz - that I can guarantee.
Again your argument has only one thread ....value.
Not really - I'm terying to point out that better than Bose can
be had for less money. Bose is overpriced and a smart consumer
realizes this and buys a better system for the money.
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.
Wel, since the Bose box has upwards of 30-40% distortion when raised
to decent sound levels...
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.
Have you tested the 2005 system? It's certainly better than the
Bose in every way.
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.
80hz is doable with good drivers. With decent SPL and low distortion.
Now, 36hz - that's almost certainly pseudo-science.
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.
Come on. Bose is flat out anemic compared to even the Energy sytems.
Others have pulled apart their amplifier unit and it's dreadful
compared to say, a lowly Denon 1600 series receiver.
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.
True - My guess is that the 250W version really puts out about
100w continuous, and maybe 50W with near zero distortion. Still,
50W is a decent amount of bass.
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.
Probably not. Otoh, I think 20hz is silly. Most people consider the
same at 25hz to be acceptable as a small subwoofer.
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.
I dislike all three when they are touted as better "values"
to the beginning audio enthusiast.
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.
But they are better than Bose. Me? I personally stand by my
JBL 4400 series. I have real graphs for them and they aren't
stunning on paper, but they really DO what the graphs suggest.
There's a reason I still recommend the little 4408As for $299
each. They sound damn good for what they are. No marketing
or ubsurd claims, either.
I do agree with you on that. Take Klipsch - they rate their
speakers at ubsurdly high sensitivity and yet they test at
a normal 88-90db(most 87-89db test closer to 80-85db). At
least the JBL actually *do* the 89db they are rated at.
Btw - I still remember having the loudest system in college.
2 4408s and a big Yamaha CA-1000 amp. Holy crap they were
loud
(heh) My neighbor had a big stack - made by DAK
or something - 5 speakers and a claimed ungodly loud rating
as well as about 4 ft high and 2.5 ft wide.
He blew out his midrange while I was only halfway as loud
as I could go
Oh - I also respect what you say about subs. JBL PRO makes
some big subs for motion picture use. I'd probably build
my own, but IMO, a "woofer" is 6-10 inches and a "sub"
is 12-18 inches. Q: is there anything larger than an
18 inch made currently?
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?
Well, that is if I was looking for a Bose-like speaker. Frankly,
partsexpress has crap. I usually shop places like Madisound.
You left out:
And this is just crap from an E-tailer. A place like Madisound
sells real high-quality drivers. They carry many brands. The
Aurasound seem to be superb for small full range use.
The Aurasound are slick little drivers. I'd still use a 2-way
setup anyway or even a 3 way(sure the crossover is more technical,
but unless you can do this sort of thing, you're not a real
"designer". I personally like Morel and Seas. They seem to
blend well together in some circumstances. One 3-way I had
on paper that I'm interested in testing had a +/- 1db response.
by carefully choosing rather pricey components from the two
makers.
This was back when the whole "Jupiter Audio" nonsense was
happening. I posted a counter system using 3 speakers, and
it should stomp on Ellis Audio by the look of it. Of course,
$600 per speaker in drivers is a bit rough - lol.
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.
No comment on this I note.
This was the one I had in mind.
A good driver from a respected name. I'd suspect that this
would crush most full-range drivers quite easily.
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? :-)
Heh. I don't fit well in retail or marketing because:
1: I will only represent or sell a product that I feel is best
for the situation - or at least adequate. What my boss wants
me to push be damned.
2: I will gladly tell people where they can obtain a solution to
their problem - even if it isn't our business.
3: I care not for the bottom line. IMO, if your company NEEDS
500% margins over cost to stay in business, it's broken. My
sugestions have usually been met with "too expensive" - as
if $10 more really requires $50 more in markup.
(meanwhile the management droids get millions in salary)
Oh - sorry - lol - got off on a bit of a rant.
Well, it is possible. Something like a Fostex FX200 comes close.
The F200A is 30hz-20Khz, which is respectable, if really expensive.
Btw - GHEEZ that's an expensive speaker. Ouch.
You left out the fanciful idea about how non-rectangular enclosures work.
That's NoRH's blather. I chose them because they are angled to fit
in a corner, nothing more.