Joseph Oberlander wrote:

.....some snips....

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.

As I said 'value' is the operative factor. Neither sounds that god.


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.

But we shouldn't foget that the Bose comes with wires that are already
terminated on one end. They also have a very nice large fold-out system
diagram. Of course this means nothing to you and me; but to many consumers this
is no small matter.


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.

I think you're wrong here; at least with regard to the cars I've driven (STS vs
LS400; and the large SUVs.) I guess I can't speak for reliability but in
driving and styling it's Cadillac by a fair margin. The Lexus SUVs are a big
disappointment to me. But again the cache/image is the thing.


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.

Ths stuff has all been published in S&V. But you're right I haven't dome a KEF
system for some time. Actually I just shipped out a KEF HTIB 2 weeks ago that
had been gathering dust awaiting the signal to measure it because it was
getting in the way. Now I wish I hadn't.

I'm wondering what the company looks like these days and who's really doing
things. It's true that Dick Small and Laurie Fincham are both KEF alumni but
I'm not so sure that they are still the top brand of old. I ship both
Celestion and KEF back to the same address.

But I've never found a 'small' home theater set or HTIB that doesn't have a
dynamically weak upper bass/low midrange area between 150 to 300 Hz. That's
because the common bass module (even tho the crossover dial may be marked 200
Hz) seldom has response above 150 Hz and the satellites are rapidly falling in
output capability at the lower end of their bandwidth.

Subwoofers in this category typically have maximal SPL capability at 60 Hz and
above but fall at 12-24 dB per octave below 62 Hz. Few are capable of producing
reasonable SPL with low distortion even down to 32 Hz.


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.

I think that response graphs taken at moderate output levels fail to tell the
whole story. Dynamic capability in the lower end of response is also important.
For example the Boston Acoustics CR55 is a wondeful speaker (nearly dead-flat
with tightly controlled directivity) down to 100 Hz (80 Hz claimed) but the
lowest frequency where it can deliver clean SPL is 80 Hz @ a paltry 80 dB. The
4 1/2-inch woofer just can't do any better than that.

The matching subwoofer that came with the system would produce 108 dB SPL @ 62
Hz but only 70 dB at 25 Hz (capability falls at 23 dB per octave below 62 Hz;
bandwidth uniformity of 83%.) This means that when an equal-intensity wideband
signal that would drive the subwoofer to maximal ouput with an 80 Hz crossover
would produce 108 dB at 62 Hz but only 70 dB at 25 Hz.
And the satellite with subwoofer overlap would be somewhere in between but
nowhere near 108 dB. This whole scenario is intensified with the typical HTIB
...... the satellite woofers are usually smaller and begin limiting at higher
frequencies; often the subwoofers are smaller and can't do 25 Hz but they can
have significant SPL at 60 Hz.

Even this is pretty good compared to most HTIB systems. But in my experience
the dynamic range "hole" exists with all HTIB and small HT systems I've seen.

It is true that this effect is quite large with Bose as it is in any system
with less than 6.5-inch midrange drivers. Indeed I think the 200-300 Hz hole in
the Bose is one of its big demonstration points. A suck-out on that range gives
the impression of great clarity.

Certainly no chasm like the Bose. The tweeter in the KEFs
will go higher than 13.5Khz - that I can guarantee.

But if it's a Uni-Q it will have the classic 3-bump response error that comes
with the reflections of the tweeter from the cone walls as sound exits the
driver. I, personally, have never found this to be particularly annoying but
it's been measurable in every Uni-Q I've had.

And, of course, please note that the 13.5 kHz upper bandlimit was an "average"
over +/- 30 degrees and not on-axis as were the specifications for the drivers
you referenced.


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.

Isn't that what I said? :-)

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...

How do you know this?


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.

You're guessing on the hole. But again the major consideration in your argument
is 'value.' Nothing wrong with that but again I think that enthusiasts such as
me and yourself tend to underestimate that Bose is willing to sell people
speakers that they want and not those that we think they should want. For most
of those customers it's Bose or nothing.

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.

No I haven't. Have you tested the 2005 Bose Lifestyle system? :-)

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.

Not if they're smaller than 5-25-inches. 6 or 6.5 is a useful minimum size for
a system with true dynamic capability at 80 Hz. Smaller drivers simply don't
have the displacement for that job.

Now, 36hz - that's almost certainly pseudo-science.

Oh no; I can imagine there are a number of ways of getting such a measurment.
But it doesn't have any useful meaning in real life.

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.

But how does that matter in any given way? As I said before I don't care what
power is needed to produce SPL what I want to know is what SPL comes out of the
speaker.


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.

Maybe. That depends on some other things like the moving mass and compliance of
the driver and the BL product and the enclosure design.

But again as an end-user that's all transparent to me. I need to know how much
SPL at low distortion I can get and how uniformly that is distributed over the
subwoofer bandwidth. I don't care how much power that takes; and I sure as hell
shouldn't discriminate against a manufacturer who can do a given job while
sucking less power out of my wall.

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.

But 25 Hz isn't "subsonic" either. And let's not forget that the fundamental
ofthe lowest note of an organ with 32-foot stops is 16 Hz. Sure if you never
play that kind of material who cares?

But in my opinion few "subwoofers" are really subwoofers. They are, for the
most part, simply common woofers. Indeed the reason I have a self-designed
custom "subwoofer" is more than just partially because I couldn't buy a
commerical unit that would play modern recordings as intended with sound of 10
Hz on them.


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.

But those are touted as "sounding better" when, in fact they either sound
exactly the same as one another or perhaps even worse.

I'm so used to hearing the high-end snobbery that it's sometimes refreshing to
hear a new Bose buyer pull rank. It's the same thing but at a far lower cost.


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?

Not that I'm aware of. Hartley used to sell those really bad 24-inch models and
Eclipse had a 32-inch car woofer for a while but I think those are all gone.

It's even getting hard to find 18s anymore. JL Audio had a great 18 but it's
been discontinued. Much of the reason for this is the excursion improvements
being made for 12 and 15-inch models. For example when I was designing my
system the JBL 2245 18 was being used by others making infra-systems'; but I
was able to acquire custom TC Sounds 15-inch unit swith 2/3 more Vd than the
JBLs. This was primarily because the 23.4mm Xmax of the TC Sounds more than
offset the 10mm JBLs 60% more cone area.


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.

I wasn't leaving out Madisound. Larry Hitch is a good friend and will be
hosting the upcoming PSACS April meeting.

I don't thin PartsExpress is crap either. I think they're just great. Like
publishing the fhe CLIO frequency response of that woofer you mentioned.


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.

John Stone of SEAS was a presenter at a PSACS meeting last year. I'm sure he'll
be at Madisound for the PSACS meeting too.

Morel, on the other hand, often seems to have some construction difficulties.
I've often seen drivers glued up poorly and much of their stuff seems, like
Bose, overly priced for what you get.

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.

That one looks much better than the first 2. But it doesn't have 20 kHz even
directly on axis. And it's falling quickly at 100 Hz. I'd certainly use one but
the $45 makes it less competitive. And by the way how do you know that the
price might be in quantity?

These companies like Vifa and Seas are not large outfits and while to do OEM
work I'm wondering if they have the capacity to manufacturer large lots for
other than current customers.

For example a interested party of a well known European speaker manufacturer
told me that his company had (worldwide) 60 employees including him.

And let's talk about DIY speaker manufacturers. How about KEF and Dynaudio. In
the 80s and early 90s I sometimes made custom speakers for friends. This
required me to purchase drivers from places like Madisound and Zalytron (I'm
guessing this was pre-PartsExpress.)

But with KEF (who also sold drivers through audio dealers) and Dynaudio there
seemed to be a trend with cone speakers. Sometimes 2 drivers (other than
tweeters) with identical part numbers would differ radically from the published
specifications. For example a 7-inch midrange with a published Fs of 45 Hz
might actually have an Fs of 75 Hz and the matching unit might be 60 Hz. Or a
woofer with a published Fs of 20 Hz might actually be 2-5 Hz lower or higher.

After awhile I think I figured out what was going on. KEF used to select
drivers for their up-market products so that when you burned out a driver in
either channel you had to return BOTH speakers for repair (they had to install
selected drivers.) This meant that KEF didn't manufacture drivers to a given
tolerance; they mase a car-load and then selected individual units for given
speakers.

So what would be the logical thing to do with the drivers that were
'out-of-tolerance' for any speaker model being produced? Sell them to the DIY
market.

How about Dynaudio, at that time a OEM manufacturer, what would a clever
company do with individual units that didn't qualify under the OEM standards
.......selll them to the DIY market .....all under a given part number. So when
I bought a pair of 7-inch mid/woofers spec'd at 45 Hz Fs I may have actually
gotten a pair of speakers that failed spec on an OEM run with a completely
different surround, motor, or spider assembly.

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.

That's your response to your original post :-)


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.

But I thought you were offering them as a response to Bose. If a company will
sell a product with BS and you'll buy them with the reason that "they'll fit in
a corner" it seems to me that your arguments about Bose are.... well just
pretty similar to mine.