Home Menu

Menu


AudioBanter.com » rec.audio » General > BOSE speaker help needed please
 
Page 5 of 6 1234 5 6
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 06:54:15 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


By definition, casual listening isn't used for such purposes, so
there's no ranking to be done.

Revisionism and retrenching, I love it!

For years we've been told by Middius, Sackman, etc. perhaps even Weil;
that DBTs aren't appropriate for ranking equipment because they don't
involve the same kind of listening as listening for enjoyment (i.e.,
casual listening). Now Weil finally agrees with me that casual
listening and listening to rank equipment are simply and inherently
two different things.

Absolutely.

Once you use non-DBT listening to evaluate gear, it ceases to be
"causal listening". However, none of the people that you list or ME
for that matter have said that "casual listening" should be done to
evaluate equipment.

I can see how this would confuse you though, since you have trouble
with English, just like your toady, lionel.
  #162   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default


A tidal wave of feces! Batten down the islands!

For years we've been told by Middius, Sackman, etc. perhaps even Weil;
that DBTs

Correct formation of plural noted. Good for you, Arnii. Pretty soon you may
at least sound like you're not completely retarded.

aren't appropriate for ranking equipment

Oops! The AutoLyingModule is still working, I see.

BTW, Turdborg, when did you or the other 'tards ever advocate for DBTs to
be used for "ranking" audio equipment? The knowledgeable ones among you
assure us that the sterilization rituals are intended only to distinguish
purely sonic differences, not make qualitative judgments. Did you get your
wires crossed?
  #168   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"dave weil" wrote in message
...

I can see how this would confuse you though, since you have trouble
with English, just like your toady, lionel.

A little kindness please, English is Arny's second language.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #169   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default
Joe Sensor wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote:

Well, we at least agree there. Where we do not agree
involves your contention that an outdoor test means anything
in terms of real-world performance in typical (or even
superior) listening rooms.

As much as I have learned from Scott, which is plenty, I agree with you
here. He seems to have a hang up on what could/should be. I think it is
useless to discuss this stuff in terms of absolutes and *potential*
performance under ideal conditions. This is not real life. How it
performs in normal conditions or even marginally optimized conditions is
much more relevant. In which case nobody is going to identify the
position of a sub woofer at 20 hz, in the extremely rare case there is
even anything there. I would venture to say that even at 100 hz
localization of the sub would be unlikely.

It would be tricky, and would depend on the low-pass slope
and the location of the unit in relation to the satellites.
Most people seem unaware of just how "muffled" a sub will
sound when the satellites are disconnected. It is muffling
of any leading-edge transients (thanks to the crossover) and
the fact that the wavelengths are so long that boundary
reflections and the first-arrival signal arrive at the
listener pretty much simultaneously that makes it nearly
impossible to track the sub's location in typical rooms.

To go back to the original point, there have been plenty of
satellite/sub systems designed that compare favorably with the very best
speakers made, i.m.o.

Sure. In the upscale-speaker category, I have reviewed
several outstanding combinations for both The Sensible Sound
and The Audiophile Voice. The Waveform MC satellites and
MC.1 dual subs, NHT Evolution M6 satellites and dual subs,
and the Triad Silver satellites and dual subs are
outstanding examples.

Even the much cheaper Ascend Acoustics CBM-170 satellites,
coupled with a big Hsu subwoofer was a notable performing
combination, as were a set of Axiom satellites. Admittedly,
the Axiom sub was not in the same class as the others
mentioned, but it still did OK as an outboard woofer.

Actually, a pair of Dunlavy SC-II systems I reviewed quite
some time ago would also qualify. They were not particularly
great in the low-bass range (OK, but not attention getting),
but they were terrific above that range. Coupled with a good
sub (even a reasonably priced Hsu or SVS model would do),
those systems would be able to match any number of
super-duper full-range systems.

Howard Ferstler
  #171   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default
EddieM wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote

The best way to test belief systems that mythologize amps
and wires is to get involved in some DBT work, level-matched,
of course.

What if the person trying out is deaf and a habitual lying hypocrite
like... like... you?

Then you should not accept his opinion about what he can or
cannot hear, and instead should do some DBT work yourself -
level matched, of course.

Howard Ferstler
  #172   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default
dave weil wrote:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 06:54:15 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

For years we've been told by Middius, Sackman, etc. perhaps even Weil;
that DBTs aren't appropriate for ranking equipment because they don't
involve the same kind of listening as listening for enjoyment (i.e.,
casual listening). Now Weil finally agrees with me that casual
listening and listening to rank equipment are simply and inherently
two different things.

Absolutely.

Once you use non-DBT listening to evaluate gear, it ceases to be
"causal listening". However, none of the people that you list or ME
for that matter have said that "casual listening" should be done to
evaluate equipment.

Well, Dave, given that we have ruled out casual listening as
a shopping or evaluation tool, just what truly workable and
critically accurate procedure do you recommend?

Howard Ferstler
  #174   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default
dave weil wrote:

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:30:19 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

However, the lack of a need for new gear notwithstanding, I
would think that curious audio buffs would be interested in
DBT work just to better educate themselves about audio and
the principles that are involved. The best way to test
belief systems that mythologize amps and wires is to get
involved in some DBT work, level-matched, of course.

Unless you're commenting on things like Quad speakers. Then all bets
are off.

Dave, Quad speakers may be real winners for all I know. I
have never bad mouthed the things, or said they were
inferior to anything else. I did mention Floyd Toole's past
comments, however. Perhaps you have confused what I said he
said with what I said.

Howard Ferstler
  #176   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Brother Horace the Terribly Simple-Minded muttered:

If this running series of debates (I use the term loosely,

No ****! Moron, imbecile, tweako, etc. All of your demons are on the loose,
Clerkie.
  #177   Report Post  
SSJVCmag
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On 3/30/05 2:50 PM, in article , "Clyde Slick"
wrote:

A little kindness please, English is Arny's second language.


Clyde and all you Kids, let's edit those crosspost headers.
It's Easy,
It's Fun
and it makes you smarter than the dolt who snuck so many unwanted
destinations in there!
Go for it!
Thanks!
  #183   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"SSJVCmag" wrote in message
...
On 3/30/05 2:50 PM, in article , "Clyde Slick"
wrote:

A little kindness please, English is Arny's second language.


Clyde and all you Kids, let's edit those crosspost headers.
It's Easy,
It's Fun
and it makes you smarter than the dolt who snuck so many unwanted
destinations in there!
Go for it!
Thanks!


Yes, I will continue to dutifully
follow your lead.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #184   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:55:50 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 06:54:15 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

For years we've been told by Middius, Sackman, etc. perhaps even Weil;
that DBTs aren't appropriate for ranking equipment because they don't
involve the same kind of listening as listening for enjoyment (i.e.,
casual listening). Now Weil finally agrees with me that casual
listening and listening to rank equipment are simply and inherently
two different things.

Absolutely.

Once you use non-DBT listening to evaluate gear, it ceases to be
"causal listening". However, none of the people that you list or ME
for that matter have said that "casual listening" should be done to
evaluate equipment.

Well, Dave, given that we have ruled out casual listening as
a shopping or evaluation tool, just what truly workable and
critically accurate procedure do you recommend?

I'm not opposed to dbts as one of the possible procedures. I'm also
not opposed to a systematic and extended sighted comparison between
components. But that's not "casual listening". Casual listening is
listening to music for its own sake.

You might try it some time.
  #185   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:00:00 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:30:19 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

However, the lack of a need for new gear notwithstanding, I
would think that curious audio buffs would be interested in
DBT work just to better educate themselves about audio and
the principles that are involved. The best way to test
belief systems that mythologize amps and wires is to get
involved in some DBT work, level-matched, of course.

Unless you're commenting on things like Quad speakers. Then all bets
are off.

Dave, Quad speakers may be real winners for all I know. I
have never bad mouthed the things, or said they were
inferior to anything else. I did mention Floyd Toole's past
comments, however. Perhaps you have confused what I said he
said with what I said.

Since you used it for justification for dismissing the speakers
unheard, I don't think so.
  #186   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default


dave weil said to Clerkenstein:

Casual listening is listening to music for its own sake.
You might try it some time.

Harold didn't retire from full-time library clerking in order to enjoy
life. Your suggestion is obviously™ an attempt to inflame his wounded
manhood.
  #191   Report Post  
SSJVCmag
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On 3/30/05 9:27 PM, in article , "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"SSJVCmag" wrote in message
...
On 3/30/05 2:50 PM, in article , "Clyde Slick"
wrote:

A little kindness please, English is Arny's second language.


Clyde and all you Kids, let's edit those crosspost headers.
It's Easy,
It's Fun
and it makes you smarter than the dolt who snuck so many unwanted
destinations in there!
Go for it!
Thanks!


Yes, I will continue to dutifully
follow your lead.

Thanks!
  #192   Report Post  
SSJVCmag
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On 3/30/05 5:49 PM, in article , "Howard
Ferstler" wrote:

SSJVCmag wrote:

Howard and all you Kids, let's edit those crosspost headers.
It's Easy,
It's Fun
and it makes you smarter than the dolt who snuck so many unwanted
destinations in there!
Go for it!
Thanks!

Are you saying that you "audio pro" and "audio tech" guys
are not interested in reviewing the advantages or
disadvantages of DBT work? Or perhaps you already know
enough for the posts about them to be redundant.

As for the "audio misc" crew, I would say that they are as
in need of information about the DBT protocol as the RAO
participants.

Howard Ferstler

Ahhhh from your aggressive modification of the headers as sent in this msg,
it seems you're one of the culprits who like to repost things in places
they're not being responded to and unwanted in general.
Shame.
We'll all just have to be more carefull around you then.
Thanks again to all the rest who actually 'get' this concept.

More to your current point, 'in need of' and 'currently-desirous-of' or
'interested-in-discussing' are VERY different things, especially when the
vast bulk of the discussions are actually about deriding personal heritage,
presumed educational lackings or simple 4th-grader taunts and inexplicable
fascination with scatology rather than anything resembling real intellectual
discourse on the thread title. This coupled with the notable extremely
top-heavy ratio of posters being from RAO and NOT from the others places
these things securely in the realm of opinion and NOT anywhere else.
You really should let this lie, especially as to reposting dropped
destinations.
  #194   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default
SSJVCmag wrote:

Ahhhh from your aggressive modification of the headers as sent in this msg,
it seems you're one of the culprits who like to repost things in places
they're not being responded to and unwanted in general.

Not really. This was my first try, actually.

We'll all just have to be more carefull around you then.
Thanks again to all the rest who actually 'get' this concept.

I wanted everyone to get the message, buddy. As noted
elsewhere, somebody out there (not me, but somebody who has
as much right to post as you do) wanted more than one group
to read their comments. You prefer that those wishes be
ignored, because you had this compulsion to click on the
threads and read them and discovered that they were
offensive.

Admittedly, RAO is a battleground that sane people best
ignore. However, it is still easy to do that by not clicking
on a thread. It is like ignoring pornography. Rather than
censoring, just do not call it up.

In any case, I will endeavor to censor my future
interjections and stick with RAO when it comes to dealing
with the lunatics who post there and elsewhere.

Howard Ferstler
  #197   Report Post  
Will Brink
 
Posts: n/a
Default
In article ,
Brian wrote:

I have a BOSE Acoustimass 7

Sorry to hear it. How long have you had this problem?

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
 
Page 5 of 6 1234 5 6
Thread Tools
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode

Posting Rules
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Some Recording Techniques kevindoylemusic Pro Audio 19 February 16th 05 07:54 PM
The Art of Bose Bashing and Amar's Supposed Descent into Mediocrity Wylie Williams General 3 September 27th 04 03:16 AM
Help Needed: Speaker Wiring Questions Matt Bhame Car Audio 3 April 8th 04 03:56 PM
My equipment review of the Bose 901 TonyP Audio Opinions 65 February 13th 04 01:06 AM
Bose 901 Review New Account Vacuum Tubes 0 February 6th 04 02:53 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:20 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"

 

Contact Us AudioBanter Home Privacy Statement