[jason]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/13/bu...stic-engineer-
and-inventor-dies-at-83.html?hp

[jason]

On Sat, 13 Jul 2013 02:31:09 -0700 "Garvin Yee"
wrote in article

On 7/12/2013 8:09 PM, Jason wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/13/bu...stic-engineer-
and-inventor-dies-at-83.html?hp


That page was missing, but here's some info:


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/13/bu...t-83.html?_r=0

That's the same url... mine wound up with a in it I guess.
I've seen many negative comments about Bose products in this group over
the years but I have to wonder if Amar was laughing all the way to the
bank...

[Scott Dorsey]

Jason wrote:
That's the same url... mine wound up with a in it I guess.
I've seen many negative comments about Bose products in this group over
the years but I have to wonder if Amar was laughing all the way to the
bank...

Dr. Bose was one of the smartest audio guys I have ever met. He was also
a very smart businessman, and he realized that the product that sold better
was not necessarily the product that was more accurate. He was in business
to sell a product.

But aside from having made generations of bad-sounding speakers, he also
performed and financed a lot of fundamental audio research which is a good
thing in a world where few for-profit organizations are willing to do that.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

I don't think Dr Bose consciously set out to defraud customers -- but there's
no question he deluded himself. His life and work are excellent examples of
how /everyone/ should be thoroughly critical of their theories and beliefs.
(Stupid wise cracks on this subject will not be responded to.) Dr Bose
apparently did not understand the principle of asking the right questions.

Dr Bose claimed to have demonstrated that an eighth-sphere equalized speaker
array pushed into the corner of a room into could reproduce sound with
fidelity indistinguishable from a "perfect" point-source speaker at the same
point. * Though the QUADs and KLH Nines had drastically different radiation
patterns, a few seconds' listening to either should have quickly disabused Dr
Bose of notions of any sort of "perfection" in such an array.

Like most (but not all) listeners, I was suckered by the 901s. A year ago I
figured out a likely reason why so many reviewers were fooled. If anyone is
interested...

It's also important to point out that Bose marketed a line of wretchedly bad
speakers (with highly inflated "list" prices) that gave Bose dealers an
opportunity to sell Bose products at a "discount".

The most-damning thing one can say about Dr Bose and his company is that they
did absolutely nothing whatsoever to advance the art of sound reproduction.
Merchandising is another matter -- Bose mastered The Big Lie long before
Apple.

* The result of this research was the 2201. Given the immense improvements in
full-range drivers over the last 50 years, this design might be worth
reviving.

[Gary Eickmeier]

This is a pretty poor commentary Bill. Not worthy of you.

Gary Eickmeier

William Sommerwerck wrote:
I don't think Dr Bose consciously set out to defraud customers -- but
there's no question he deluded himself. His life and work are
excellent examples of how /everyone/ should be thoroughly critical of
their theories and beliefs. (Stupid wise cracks on this subject will
not be responded to.) Dr Bose apparently did not understand the
principle of asking the right questions.
Dr Bose claimed to have demonstrated that an eighth-sphere equalized
speaker array pushed into the corner of a room into could reproduce
sound with fidelity indistinguishable from a "perfect" point-source
speaker at the same point. * Though the QUADs and KLH Nines had
drastically different radiation patterns, a few seconds' listening to
either should have quickly disabused Dr Bose of notions of any sort
of "perfection" in such an array.
Like most (but not all) listeners, I was suckered by the 901s. A year
ago I figured out a likely reason why so many reviewers were fooled.
If anyone is interested...

It's also important to point out that Bose marketed a line of
wretchedly bad speakers (with highly inflated "list" prices) that
gave Bose dealers an opportunity to sell Bose products at a
"discount".
The most-damning thing one can say about Dr Bose and his company is
that they did absolutely nothing whatsoever to advance the art of
sound reproduction. Merchandising is another matter -- Bose mastered
The Big Lie long before Apple.

* The result of this research was the 2201. Given the immense
improvements in full-range drivers over the last 50 years, this
design might be worth reviving.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...

This is a pretty poor commentary Bill. Not worthy of you.

When you consider the people who /have/ made real advancements in sound
recording and playback, I feel this is a pretty accurate assessment of Dr
Bose.

I sincerely ask -- what significant contributions did I miss?

[Trevor]

"Jason" wrote in message
...
I've seen many negative comments about Bose products in this group over
the years but I have to wonder if Amar was laughing all the way to the
bank...

Of course he was! Often lousy products make more profit than good ones. It's
called marketing.

Trevor.

[Gary Eickmeier]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...
This is a pretty poor commentary Bill. Not worthy of you.

When you consider the people who /have/ made real advancements in
sound recording and playback, I feel this is a pretty accurate
assessment of Dr Bose.

I sincerely ask -- what significant contributions did I miss?

A 12 year research project begun at MIT and ending at the Bose corporation
into why loudspeakers don't sound like live music.

Gary Eickmeier

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...
This is a pretty poor commentary Bill. Not worthy of you.

When you consider the people who /have/ made real advancements in
sound recording and playback, I feel this is a pretty accurate
assessment of Dr Bose.

I sincerely ask -- what significant contributions did I miss?

A 12 year research project begun at MIT and ending at the Bose corporation
into why

_BOSE_

loudspeakers don't sound like live music.

Gary Eickmeier

Fixed it for you...

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://hankandshaidrimusic.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 11:10:40 +0200, (Ralf R.
Radermacher) wrote:

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

A 12 year research project begun at MIT and ending at the Bose corporation
into why loudspeakers don't sound like live music.

During those same twelve years, others have come a long way in making
their speakers sound a lot more like live music.

Those who are willing find ways, all others find reasons.

Ralf

But do bear in mind that with the recorded source material available,
the chances of even a perfect speaker sounding remotely like live
music are essentially zero. An anechoic recording would be the first
requirement, and musicians generally play very badly in such a
setting.

d

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 11:51:21 +0200, (Ralf R.
Radermacher) wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

But do bear in mind that with the recorded source material available,
the chances of even a perfect speaker sounding remotely like live
music are essentially zero. An anechoic recording would be the first
requirement, and musicians generally play very badly in such a
setting.

I for one have been taught that my job was to make recordings that sound
like the listener was sitting in the concert hall and no like the
orchestra was crammed into his living room.

Now, if the folks at Bose were working on speakers to do the latter,
that might explain a lot.


There's the problem, precisely. When you have a recorded ambience
overlaying a local ambience, the result can never sound anything but
recorded. Of course the recording - particularly orchestral - must try
and capture the ambience of the concert hall, but that means it can
never sound like live music.

d

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 13:50:56 +0200, (Ralf R.
Radermacher) wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

Of course the recording - particularly orchestral - must try
and capture the ambience of the concert hall, but that means it can
never sound like live music.

If you prefer to join those who are finding reasons instead of ways,
you're welcome to it. You'll be in the best of companies, it seems.

Ralf

Not sure what you mean. Until you know the reasons, you can't hope to
find the ways.

d

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...

I sincerely ask -- what significant contributions did I miss?

A 12 year research project begun at MIT and ending at the Bose
corporation into why loudspeakers don't sound like live music.

And this research result in what commercial product that truly sounded like
live music?

There are two principal reasons why reproduced sound doesn't sound like live
sound. One is that the mics and speakers simply aren't accurate enough. The
other is that hall ambience is not properly recorded and reproduced.

In my brief recording career, I made at least one live recording that sounded
pretty much as if I was standing at the mic position. Current multi-ch SACD
recordings can give a strong of sense of actually being in the hall and
hearing a live performance.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

But do bear in mind that with the recorded source material available,
the chances of even a perfect speaker sounding remotely like live
music are essentially zero.

Red herring. Garbage in, garbage out. You can't expect a mediocre recording to
sound "real".

Thirty years ago, I heard the Plasmatronics speakers playing a master tape of
a live performance and (as I like to say) my jaw detached.


An anechoic recording would be the first requirement, and musicians
generally play very badly in such a setting.

An anechoic recording /might/ be appropriate for a string quartet recording,
where the intent is to let an acoustically ideal listening room intentionally
color the playback. But it is not true for an orchestral recording. You need
to reproduce the sound of the hall.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 05:03:48 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

But do bear in mind that with the recorded source material available,
the chances of even a perfect speaker sounding remotely like live
music are essentially zero.

Red herring. Garbage in, garbage out. You can't expect a mediocre recording to
sound "real".

I'm not talking about recorded quality. I'm talking about the
intentions of the producer. Most recorded music is not supposed to
sound like it is being performed live.

Thirty years ago, I heard the Plasmatronics speakers playing a master tape of
a live performance and (as I like to say) my jaw detached.


An anechoic recording would be the first requirement, and musicians
generally play very badly in such a setting.

An anechoic recording /might/ be appropriate for a string quartet recording,
where the intent is to let an acoustically ideal listening room intentionally
color the playback. But it is not true for an orchestral recording. You need
to reproduce the sound of the hall.

Here's the thing. For a true live impression either the recording
venue or the listening space has to be anechoic. If you have an
acoustic contribution from both simultaneously you have no chance of
it sounding live.

Have you ever experienced approaching a large public space - a railway
station maybe - and hearing music being played from quite far off. You
know instantly whether that is live or a recording. Quality doesn't
come into it - it just sounds different.

d

[William Sommerwerck]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

When you have a recorded ambience overlaying a local ambience,
the result can never sound anything but recorded. Of course the
recording -- particularly orchestral -- must try and capture the ambience
of the concert hall, but that means it can never sound like live music.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What you have said is exactly backwards.

The early reflections of a decent listening room are short, as is the RT60.
The ambience of a recording will swamp the sound of the listening room.

What do you mean that "captur[ing] the ambience of the concert hall ... means
it can never sound like live music." That capture of the hall sound is a major
component of "realism".

If you lived nearby, I would invite you over to hear good multi-ch recordings.
You would change your mind in about five seconds.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 05:11:01 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

When you have a recorded ambience overlaying a local ambience,
the result can never sound anything but recorded. Of course the
recording -- particularly orchestral -- must try and capture the ambience
of the concert hall, but that means it can never sound like live music.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What you have said is exactly backwards.

The early reflections of a decent listening room are short, as is the RT60.
The ambience of a recording will swamp the sound of the listening room.

What do you mean that "captur[ing] the ambience of the concert hall ... means
it can never sound like live music." That capture of the hall sound is a major
component of "realism".

If you lived nearby, I would invite you over to hear good multi-ch recordings.
You would change your mind in about five seconds.

You aren't paying attention. It is the combined acoustic spaces of
recording and listening rooms that prevent the music sounding live.
I've listened to plenty of multi-channel music in my own listening
room, which is a particularly good one, and I've never yet been fooled
into thinking I'm sat in the concert hall listening to live players.
Sorry, it just doesn't happen.

d

[William Sommerwerck]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 05:11:01 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

When you have a recorded ambience overlaying a local ambience,
the result can never sound anything but recorded. Of course the
recording -- particularly orchestral -- must try and capture the ambience
of the concert hall, but that means it can never sound like live music.

The early reflections of a decent listening room are short, as is the RT60.
The ambience of a recording will swamp the sound of the listening room.

What do you mean that "captur[ing] the ambience of the concert hall ...
means
it can never sound like live music." That capture of the hall sound is a
major
component of "realism".

If you lived nearby, I would invite you over to hear good multi-ch
recordings.
You would change your mind in about five seconds.

You aren't paying attention. It is the combined acoustic spaces of
recording and listening rooms that prevent the music sounding live.

I /was/ paying attention, and was responding to the claim you just made.

The ear and brain simply don't hear that way. If the room has sufficiently
long early reflections and RT60 to color the ambience of a recording -- the
room is absolutely unsuitable for listening.


I've listened to plenty of multi-channel music in my own listening
room, which is a particularly good one, and I've never yet been fooled
into thinking I'm sat in the concert hall listening to live players.
Sorry, it just doesn't happen.

My system comes close. Other than discussing theory, we would have to audition
each other's systems to get a better understanding of what we disagree on.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 05:03:48 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

Garbage in, garbage out. You can't expect a mediocre recording to
sound "real".

I'm not talking about recorded quality. I'm talking about the
intentions of the producer. Most recorded music is not supposed to
sound like it is being performed live.

But the rest of us /are/ talking about the sound quality of recordings. Jazz
and classical recordings are (in theory) supposed to sound live. "Concert-hall
realism", anyone?

I will repeat it again. If a recording is fundamentally inaccurate, it cannot
sound "realistic" on even the best of speakers. To claim that it should, but
doesn't, only confuses the issue.


Here's the thing. For a true live impression either the recording
venue or the listening space has to be anechoic. If you have an
acoustic contribution from both simultaneously you have no chance
of it sounding live.

I respectfully disagree.

Have you ever experienced approaching a large public space -- a railway
station maybe - and hearing music being played from quite far off. You
know instantly whether that is live or a recording. Quality doesn't
come into it -- it just sounds different.

Again, I think you have it backwards.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 14:58:28 +0200, (Ralf R.
Radermacher) wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

Not sure what you mean. Until you know the reasons, you can't hope to
find the ways.

Ok, let me spell it out for you, again. There are people like Georges
Cabasse who have spent their lives searching - and finding - ways to
improve loudspeaker designs. And there have been others like Dr. Bose
who have dedicated lots of time and effort to find reasons why it can't
be done.

Put a Bose speaker next to one from Cabasse (KEF, Rogers...), switch
forth and back, and you'll find that both have proven their respective
theories quite convincingly... ;-)

That clear now? Fine.


Ralf, have I upset you somehow? Why are you being so unpleasant. It is
Sunday afternoon, relax a little.

d

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 16:38:46 +0200, (Ralf R.
Radermacher) wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

Ralf, have I upset you somehow? Why are you being so unpleasant. It is
Sunday afternoon, relax a little.

I'm quite relaxed and not unpleasant at all. Maybe the truth is
unpleasant to you and I'm sorry for you if it is, but there's not much I
can do about that.

Ralf

I still have no idea what this truth is that you believe you have
revealed to me.

d

[Gary Eickmeier]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
... William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...

I sincerely ask -- what significant contributions did I miss?

A 12 year research project begun at MIT and ending at the Bose
corporation into why loudspeakers don't sound like live music.

And this research result in what commercial product that truly
sounded like live music?

The Bose 901. It caused a sensation in the industry that built a factory on
a mountaintop. It was sold by demonstrating it, both in the high end stores
and in travelling road shows where it was explained and demonstrated. I
still use them, Series VI, and have heard nothing in my 30 some years of
intense listening to replace them. They are the only correctly designed
loudspeakers in the world, to this day. They are, however, not for morons
with limericks and you don't just slap them on stands and listen to them. I
have a dedicated listening room with surround sound and subwoofers and a few
thousand watts of power.

There are two principal reasons why reproduced sound doesn't sound
like live sound. One is that the mics and speakers simply aren't
accurate enough. The other is that hall ambience is not properly
recorded and reproduced.
In my brief recording career, I made at least one live recording that
sounded pretty much as if I was standing at the mic position. Current
multi-ch SACD recordings can give a strong of sense of actually being
in the hall and hearing a live performance.

The recording and reproduction process is not intended to make it sound like
you are sitting at the mike position. Microphones are placed much closer to
the performers because of the classic recording problem, that we must run
the sound through two rooms before we finally hear it. The final result is a
matter of the recording art, and is a new work of art that sometimes is
intended to be a realistic replica of auditory perspective (the "you are
there" attempt) and sometimes is created from whole cloth by the producer.

For the realism type recordings of live music, we need to record some of the
ambience of the concert hall in order to get the spatial properties in
stereo and to get the total sound power radiated by the instruments. On
playback we need to realize that this is a field type system in which your
ears are free to hear ALL of the spatial qualities of your speakers and
room. As such, the object of realistic playback is to get the spatial
characteristic as close to the live one as feasible. To this end we do NOT
want to cast all of the recorded sound from those two points in space
represented by the two speakers, or else we will be compressing the immense
multiplicity of incident angles of the live field into just the included
angle of the speakers at home, causing it to come from the same set of
directions as the direct sound, which leads to the harshness that "hi fi"
used to have before the 901.

The Bose research project found that this was precisely the difference
between live and reproduced; the spatial characteristics were very
different. The answer was the 901 design which, if used properly, results in
a spatial characteristic that is more like the live situation. I have been
studying this effect for some 30 years now, using my home theater as proof
of how it should work. The answer is my Image Model Theory which says that
what we are doing is modeling the playback image model after the live one.
This gets the SPATIAL characteristic a lot better. The temporal
characteristic is contained in the recording and lends the feeling of the
recording space. In addition to the radiation pattern up front, we can get
even closer to the spatial by using surround speakers properly spaced and
time delayed to supplement the full reverberant field.

So the best we can do is try for a combination of the recorded space and the
playback space to attempt to equal a good likeness of the total acoustic
that you might hear if you were sitting in an ideal listening position in
the performance - NOT where the mikes were but where the producer would like
the final impression to be.

That is why the microphones are placed closer to the performers and the
speakers are placed at a distance from us in a good sounding acoustic space,
not a dead one, so that the spatial impression will be a combination of what
was recorded and your room.

And THAT is what the Bose research project taught me, that I am still
learning from.

Gary Eickmeier

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 11:27:12 -0400, "Gary Eickmeier"
wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
... William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...

I sincerely ask -- what significant contributions did I miss?

A 12 year research project begun at MIT and ending at the Bose
corporation into why loudspeakers don't sound like live music.

And this research result in what commercial product that truly
sounded like live music?

The Bose 901. It caused a sensation in the industry that built a factory on
a mountaintop. It was sold by demonstrating it, both in the high end stores
and in travelling road shows where it was explained and demonstrated. I
still use them, Series VI, and have heard nothing in my 30 some years of
intense listening to replace them. They are the only correctly designed
loudspeakers in the world, to this day. They are, however, not for morons
with limericks and you don't just slap them on stands and listen to them. I
have a dedicated listening room with surround sound and subwoofers and a few
thousand watts of power.

There are two principal reasons why reproduced sound doesn't sound
like live sound. One is that the mics and speakers simply aren't
accurate enough. The other is that hall ambience is not properly
recorded and reproduced.
In my brief recording career, I made at least one live recording that
sounded pretty much as if I was standing at the mic position. Current
multi-ch SACD recordings can give a strong of sense of actually being
in the hall and hearing a live performance.

The recording and reproduction process is not intended to make it sound like
you are sitting at the mike position. Microphones are placed much closer to
the performers because of the classic recording problem, that we must run
the sound through two rooms before we finally hear it. The final result is a
matter of the recording art, and is a new work of art that sometimes is
intended to be a realistic replica of auditory perspective (the "you are
there" attempt) and sometimes is created from whole cloth by the producer.

For the realism type recordings of live music, we need to record some of the
ambience of the concert hall in order to get the spatial properties in
stereo and to get the total sound power radiated by the instruments. On
playback we need to realize that this is a field type system in which your
ears are free to hear ALL of the spatial qualities of your speakers and
room. As such, the object of realistic playback is to get the spatial
characteristic as close to the live one as feasible. To this end we do NOT
want to cast all of the recorded sound from those two points in space
represented by the two speakers, or else we will be compressing the immense
multiplicity of incident angles of the live field into just the included
angle of the speakers at home, causing it to come from the same set of
directions as the direct sound, which leads to the harshness that "hi fi"
used to have before the 901.

The Bose research project found that this was precisely the difference
between live and reproduced; the spatial characteristics were very
different. The answer was the 901 design which, if used properly, results in
a spatial characteristic that is more like the live situation. I have been
studying this effect for some 30 years now, using my home theater as proof
of how it should work. The answer is my Image Model Theory which says that
what we are doing is modeling the playback image model after the live one.
This gets the SPATIAL characteristic a lot better. The temporal
characteristic is contained in the recording and lends the feeling of the
recording space. In addition to the radiation pattern up front, we can get
even closer to the spatial by using surround speakers properly spaced and
time delayed to supplement the full reverberant field.

So the best we can do is try for a combination of the recorded space and the
playback space to attempt to equal a good likeness of the total acoustic
that you might hear if you were sitting in an ideal listening position in
the performance - NOT where the mikes were but where the producer would like
the final impression to be.

That is why the microphones are placed closer to the performers and the
speakers are placed at a distance from us in a good sounding acoustic space,
not a dead one, so that the spatial impression will be a combination of what
was recorded and your room.

And THAT is what the Bose research project taught me, that I am still
learning from.

Gary Eickmeier


Very illuminating, but it doesn't help explain why Bose speakers just
sound so bloody awful.

d

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

I sincerely ask -- what significant contributions did I miss?

A 12 year research project begun at MIT and ending at the Bose
corporation into why loudspeakers don't sound like live music.

And this research resulted in what commercial product that truly
sounded like live music?

The Bose 901. It caused a sensation in the industry that built
a factory on a mountaintop.

Mr Eickmeier, your remarks will require a detailed rebuttal I don't have time
for at the moment. Suffice it to say, in the interim, that virtually
everything about the 901's design is objectively and/or aesthetically
incorrect. What comes out of them sounds little like "live music".

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 17:49:54 +0200, (Ralf R.
Radermacher) wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

I still have no idea what this truth is that you believe you have
revealed to me.

Never mind.

No, come on. All you managed to say to me in this series of posts is
that people have been trying to make speakers better. Was that it,
seriously?

Do you actually believe that it is the quality of speakers that makes
the difference between something that sounds live and something that
sounds recorded? If you are a professional sound person, that makes me
a little sad.

d

[William Sommerwerck]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Do you actually believe that it is the quality of speakers that makes
the difference between something that sounds live and something that
sounds recorded? If you are a professional sound person, that makes me
a little sad.

I did not say that, or even imply it, and I don't believe anyone else did.

However, speaker "quality" is a major factor in recreating the live event. It
is not "the" difference, but one of a number of factors.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 09:13:20 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Do you actually believe that it is the quality of speakers that makes
the difference between something that sounds live and something that
sounds recorded? If you are a professional sound person, that makes me
a little sad.

I did not say that, or even imply it, and I don't believe anyone else did.

However, speaker "quality" is a major factor in recreating the live event. It
is not "the" difference, but one of a number of factors.

I wasn't replying to you, so no, I wasn't implying that. I was
replying to Ralf, whose great revelation (for which I presume I should
be grateful) was

"During those same twelve years, others have come a long way in making
their speakers sound a lot more like live music."

When it comes to unsubstantiated assertions purporting to be revealed
truth, this is right up there with religion. Even taking it in
isolation it is pure gibberish - as you say there is a great deal more
to the illusion of live music than good speakers. They may be 5% of
it, but the way the recording is made, mixed and mastered is the huge
bulk of the issue. Live music with acoustic instruments contains
dynamics that I have never, ever heard on any recording.

d

[William Sommerwerck]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Live music with acoustic instruments contains
dynamics that I have never, ever heard on any recording.

Ever heard a dbx LP?

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 09:36:36 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Live music with acoustic instruments contains
dynamics that I have never, ever heard on any recording.

Ever heard a dbx LP?

Yes, it helps a little. But even dBx doesn't come close to the dynamic
range possible with digital. But that word is the problem - possible.
Find me a recording that uses it, and has the right acoustic to sound
live through a set of speakers.

d

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 7/14/2013 11:53 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

I sincerely ask -- what significant contributions did I miss?

A 12 year research project begun at MIT and ending at the Bose
corporation into why loudspeakers don't sound like live music.

And this research resulted in what commercial product that truly
sounded like live music?

The Bose 901. It caused a sensation in the industry that built
a factory on a mountaintop.

Mr Eickmeier, your remarks will require a detailed rebuttal I don't have
time for at the moment. Suffice it to say, in the interim, that
virtually everything about the 901's design is objectively and/or
aesthetically incorrect. What comes out of them sounds little like "live
music".

[IMHO] even "live music" doesn't sound like (our memory of)
the "live music" in that our memories are colored by the live
experience. Everything from lighting to room temperature, head
movements to others shifting in their seats, and so on... colors
our experience. The reality of a "live music" experience is thus
an even more complicated problem.

At some point we get to the practical question f how good is good
enough? The great unwashed masses that can live with MP3 quality
could hardly care less about ultra accuracy.
[Then too, they've likely never experienced a live acoustic concert,
let alone one in a great room.]

On the other hand, it's good that the critical and ultra-critical are out
there to keep all the wheels of the train from coming off.

Enough of my babbling.

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[William Sommerwerck]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 09:36:36 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:


Ever heard a dbx LP?

Yes, it helps a little. But even dBx doesn't come close to the dynamic
range possible with digital. But that word is the problem - possible.
Find me a recording that uses it, and has the right acoustic to sound
live through a set of speakers.

My remark was slightly tongue in cheek. One of the EMI recordings transferred
with dbx opens with an orchestral blast that might blow out your speakers.

I would recommend any of the multi-ch SACD recordings of the SFS. I would also
recommend just about any Linn multi-ch SACD. Both are extremely "realistic".

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 10:40:26 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 09:36:36 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:


Ever heard a dbx LP?

Yes, it helps a little. But even dBx doesn't come close to the dynamic
range possible with digital. But that word is the problem - possible.
Find me a recording that uses it, and has the right acoustic to sound
live through a set of speakers.

My remark was slightly tongue in cheek. One of the EMI recordings transferred
with dbx opens with an orchestral blast that might blow out your speakers.

I would recommend any of the multi-ch SACD recordings of the SFS. I would also
recommend just about any Linn multi-ch SACD. Both are extremely "realistic".

I've heard these recordings. Yes I would class them as realistic (as
far as that goes), but none of them could ever fool me into thinking I
was listening to the orchestra live. Sorry, but that just isn't going
to happen. Too many factors are still wrong.

d

[Frank Stearns]

"William Sommerwerck" writes:

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...

I sincerely ask -- what significant contributions did I miss?

A 12 year research project begun at MIT and ending at the Bose
corporation into why loudspeakers don't sound like live music.

And this research result in what commercial product that truly sounded like
live music?

There are two principal reasons why reproduced sound doesn't sound like live
sound. One is that the mics and speakers simply aren't accurate enough. The
other is that hall ambience is not properly recorded and reproduced.

You're almost there. By far the biggest problem is the reproduction environment.

In a more perfect world two really good microphones would work well for acoustic
music recording and reproduction. But they rarely do. **PROPER** use of spot mics
underneath that stereo pair and even artificial reverb can go a long way in helping
the brain ignore bad things in the local reproduction room, and reconstitute a
pleasing illusion of the original room/performance in that same bad repro room.

Many don't like that multi-microphone approach, and I would agree when such
recordings are done badly.

But done properly, the "fake" approach won't hurt you in a good reproduction
environment, but will substantially help in a poor one.

Sorry, got a little OT there.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Frank Stearns]

"William Sommerwerck" writes:

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

I sincerely ask -- what significant contributions did I miss?

A 12 year research project begun at MIT and ending at the Bose
corporation into why loudspeakers don't sound like live music.

And this research resulted in what commercial product that truly
sounded like live music?

The Bose 901. It caused a sensation in the industry that built
a factory on a mountaintop.

Mr Eickmeier, your remarks will require a detailed rebuttal I don't have time
for at the moment. Suffice it to say, in the interim, that virtually
everything about the 901's design is objectively and/or aesthetically
incorrect. What comes out of them sounds little like "live music".


Here's the weird thing -- the 901s do work, sort of, but in a very limited sense,
and they're something of a one-trick pony.

The "success" comes in swamping the crappy repro room with still MORE time
distortions than what's already there. It's such a smeared mess with 85% of the
sound bounced off the back and side walls that, er, well, you obliquely get the
illusion of live (er, that concert hall is a smeared mess of reflections, right? So
this kinda sorta should work, kinda sorta...)

But it's like a heavily-salted Big Mac that tastes "good" -- for the moment. But
you'd tire of that quickly, and it'll never taste like salmon or waffles, no matter
what you do.

An interesting way to listen to 901s is to sit on the floor between them, ears level
with the boxes, your back against the wall, facing outward, so that all you really
hear are the four drivers on either side with some reflection but way more direct
sound. The imaging in that setting is remarkably good. But what you've done is
create a special sort of near-field environment removing -- surprise! -- much of the
crap from your crummy repro room, including the crap ADDED by the speakers
bouncing a bunch of sound around.

YMMV.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Gary Eickmeier]

Frank Stearns wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" writes:

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
... William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...

I sincerely ask -- what significant contributions did I miss?

A 12 year research project begun at MIT and ending at the Bose
corporation into why loudspeakers don't sound like live music.

And this research result in what commercial product that truly
sounded like live music?

There are two principal reasons why reproduced sound doesn't sound
like live sound. One is that the mics and speakers simply aren't
accurate enough. The other is that hall ambience is not properly
recorded and reproduced.

You're almost there. By far the biggest problem is the reproduction
environment.

In a more perfect world two really good microphones would work well
for acoustic music recording and reproduction. But they rarely do.
**PROPER** use of spot mics underneath that stereo pair and even
artificial reverb can go a long way in helping the brain ignore bad
things in the local reproduction room, and reconstitute a pleasing
illusion of the original room/performance in that same bad repro
room.

OK let's cut through the mountain of ignorance and state simply what we can
hear.

My four EEFs, or Essential Elements of Fidelity are as follows:

1. Physical size. We can hear physical size of a room. This happens by means
of the time between reflections and the reverberation time. There is no way
to make a small room sound like a larger one by playing a recording of a
larger one in it. Therefore, one of the principles is that the larger the
playback room, the more it sounds like the original, the better the acoustic
blends with the recorded acoustic for the intended result. You can hear
this.

2. Power. We can hear the loudness and tremendous power of live music. In
the repro problem, we can hear the power that the speakers can put into a
room. Stated simply, a large speaker with a powerful amp sounds more like
the real thing than a boombox. The speakers should be able to take a lot of
power and just keep getting louder without distortion, not compressing
dynamics. Subs help with the bass frequencies. We can hear this.

3. Signal accuracy. Here what I mean is flat frequency response and low
distortion and noise. We finally have no more problems with this element of
fidelity. Microphones are just fine, amplifiers and sources are fine,
speakers can be made with flat response or any that we please. We can hear
this.

4. Spatial characteristics. This is the biggie that the Bose research
introduced. If you make a plan view drawing of your speakers and room, you
can draw the reflected sound as virtual images on the other side of the
walls. You can also make an image model drawing of a live band in the hall.
We get the spatial more correct by trying to make the repro model as much
like the live model as possible. This involves the radiation pattern of the
speakers and the placement in the room. We already know from Bose and Davis
(Dr. Mark Davis of Soundfield One fame) that what is audible about a speaker
are its frequency response and radiation pattern. But it is not radiation
pattern alone, but the resultant model that creates with the reflecting
surfaces. In sum, the radiation pattern of a speaker is as important as the
freq response, and maybe even moreso. The function of a loudspeaker is not
to radiate sound directly toward the listener, but rather to be an Image
Model Projector. We can hear this.

That is the totality of what we can hear about live music and reproduced
music. We can study any aspect of the repro problem by referring to these
EEFs. The Bose and my contribution is number 4. It is audible and extremely
important. Why it had never been studied before Bose is a matter of the
newness of stereo I suppose. Most engineers just assume that now that we are
in stereo all we need is another speaker and we will have it. But no, if we
are trying to reproduce a three dimensional sound field we must pay
attention to MUCH more than the traditional measured "accuracy" of the sound
coming out of the front of a speaker. A combination of direct and reflected
sound according to the model is required, and in a normal sized home
listening room does not and cannot lead to "smearing" of anything.

If you know little about all of this, then you may not know how to deploy or
listen to a pair of 901s. You can abuse any kind of speakers and report how
bad they sound. Go ahead, put a Magnepan in the corner. Tell me how it
"sounds."

As for the recording side of the equation, that is not the difficulty it is
made out to be, and there are more good recordings than bad ones. You just
need to remember that you are capturing not just the instruments but also
their reflected sound from front and side walls of the hall and a little of
the reverberant field of the hall can't help but get in as well.

OK, any challenges to any part of all that?

Gary Eickmeier

[William Sommerwerck]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

I've heard these recordings. Yes I would class them as realistic (as
far as that goes), but none of them could ever fool me into thinking I
was listening to the orchestra live. Sorry, but that just isn't going
to happen. Too many factors are still wrong.

Name some. (By the way, I am not claiming they would "fool" anyone.)

[William Sommerwerck]

"Frank Stearns" wrote in message
acquisition...

In a more perfect world two really good microphones would work well for
acoustic
music recording and reproduction. But they rarely do. **PROPER** use of spot
mics
underneath that stereo pair and even artificial reverb can go a long way in
helping
the brain ignore bad things in the local reproduction room, and reconstitute
a
pleasing illusion of the original room/performance in that same bad repro
room.

The use of spot mics and artificial reverb (in the recording) are great ways
to /ruin/ the illusion of reality.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Frank Stearns" wrote in message
ion...

Here's the weird thing -- the 901s do work, sort of, but in a very limited
sense,
and they're something of a one-trick pony.

The "success" comes in swamping the crappy repro room with still MORE time
distortions than what's already there. It's such a smeared mess with 85% of
the
sound bounced off the back and side walls that, er, well, you obliquely get
the
illusion of live (er, that concert hall is a smeared mess of reflections,
right? So
this kinda sorta should work, kinda sorta...)

But it's like a heavily-salted Big Mac that tastes "good" -- for the moment.
But
you'd tire of that quickly, and it'll never taste like salmon or waffles, no
matter
what you do.

An interesting way to listen to 901s is to sit on the floor between them, ears
level
with the boxes, your back against the wall, facing outward, so that all you
really
hear are the four drivers on either side with some reflection but way more
direct
sound. The imaging in that setting is remarkably good. But what you've done is
create a special sort of near-field environment removing -- surprise! -- much
of the
crap from your crummy repro room, including the crap ADDED by the speakers
bouncing a bunch of sound around.


That's a pretty good critique. I refer those interested to J Gordon Holts
carefully reasoned "trashing" of the 901s in "Stereophile". He was one of only
two reviewers who criticize them.

It's probably significant that Gordon had to wait at least a year (and
possibly two) to get a review pair. It's easy (and likely correct) to
interpret this Bose's knowledge that Gordon would not like the speakers,
because his criteria for accurate, lifelike reproduction was always pretty
much dead-opposite to Bose's approach.

[geoff]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 16:38:46 +0200, (Ralf R.
Radermacher) wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

Ralf, have I upset you somehow? Why are you being so unpleasant. It is
Sunday afternoon, relax a little.

I'm quite relaxed and not unpleasant at all. Maybe the truth is
unpleasant to you and I'm sorry for you if it is, but there's not much I
can do about that.

Ralf

I still have no idea what this truth is that you believe you have
revealed to me.


d. I thinkl you missed Ralf's smiley.

Do you not agree that puttinig a Bose next to any respected speaker from the
likes of KEF, Rogers, etc, etc, etc even from the same era, very quickly
indicates where Bose was coming from. And it really wasn't hi-fi.

geoff

[geoff]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
multi-ch SACD. Both are extremely "realistic".

I've heard these recordings. Yes I would class them as realistic (as
far as that goes), but none of them could ever fool me into thinking I
was listening to the orchestra live. Sorry, but that just isn't going
to happen. Too many factors are still wrong.

d

To compare 'realisticly' you'd need to hear the said orchestra actually in
your living room.

We generally need to settle for the next best thing.

geoff