Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bose L1
I encountered one of these Sunday. It was actually two of the pole
arrays and two of the bass modules. I was listening from the perspective of a performer ( weekend warrior band situation ) . It's not bad at all. Sounds quite a bit better than most all MI store small club kit. I was expecting sort of an Acoustimass experience - not so at all. Sounds like a modest PA, but much better than the usual weekend warrior kit. The absence of horns and tweeters ( and I'm sure the sophisticated active crossovers in the brain box ) made it darned smooth. With the things behind the band, you get a much more open stage sound and I'm sure it sounds more like it does in the room when heard from the stage. It is sound *reinforcement*, not a kill-a-watt bullhorn. It's quite expensive. But I'm not sure it's not worth it. For one, weight is pretty respectable - each piece is roughly 20 lbs and it doesn't take up that much cartage space. The singer uses a Taylor with a quack-stick and it actually sounded presentable. It almost sounded like a guitar. We're running both electric guitars through it ( to address stage level problems in the politest way I've ever seen but also the most expensive ). Here's the thing that surprised me - it's the best "monitors" I've heard onstage that were not full pro arena kit. And this actually produced an improvement in performance, stage levels and coherence of the band itself. You can *listen* again onstage instead of guessing. I usually detest stage monitors in clubs - I'd rather use the room return. Yes, this includes allegedly nice monitors in clubs. which are invariably obnoxious, even with earplugs. These, I liked - and I don't need plugs as much with this band anymore. I'm not sure it's really road worthy, and the price is kind of out of line with the sort of market you might use them in. But I was impressed. It solved a lot of problems. -- Les Cargill |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bose L1
On 17-07-2014 02:04, Les Cargill wrote:
I encountered one of these Sunday. It was actually two of the pole arrays and two of the bass modules. I was listening from the perspective of a performer ( weekend warrior band situation ) . It's not bad at all. Sounds quite a bit better than most all MI store small club kit. I was expecting sort of an Acoustimass experience - not so at all. Sounds like a modest PA, but much better than the usual weekend warrior kit. The absence of horns and tweeters ( and I'm sure the sophisticated active crossovers in the brain box ) made it darned smooth. Yerp, they do a good job with an acoustic band. LD Systems have a clone, I haven't heard it, but I am willing to make bets on the outcome of a listening test, the concept however plain works very well for augmentation and carry. With the things behind the band, you get a much more open stage sound and I'm sure it sounds more like it does in the room when heard from the stage. It is sound *reinforcement*, not a kill-a-watt bullhorn. It's quite expensive. But I'm not sure it's not worth it. For one, weight is pretty respectable - each piece is roughly 20 lbs and it doesn't take up that much cartage space. Exactly. It is a well designed product and a well thought out concept. The singer uses a Taylor with a quack-stick and it actually sounded presentable. It almost sounded like a guitar. We're running both electric guitars through it ( to address stage level problems in the politest way I've ever seen but also the most expensive ). My 2 cent on this: electric guitars should have open back cabinets with a pair of 10" or 12" units with metal centerdomes. But I'm just a luddite. Angle the cabinet with respect to the rear wall for optimum sound distrubution. Here's the thing that surprised me - it's the best "monitors" I've heard onstage that were not full pro arena kit. And this actually produced an improvement in performance, stage levels and coherence of the band itself. You can *listen* again onstage instead of guessing. You kinda get there already by putting boxes on sticks behind the band and omitting monitors, Peter Nissens New Orleans band did that, also to keep sound level modest. I usually detest stage monitors in clubs - I'd rather use the room return. Yes, this includes allegedly nice monitors in clubs. which are invariably obnoxious, even with earplugs. These, I liked - and I don't need plugs as much with this band anymore. If there are cymbals, then you need plugs, but less may do. I'm not sure it's really road worthy, and the price is kind of out of line with the sort of market you might use them in. But I was impressed. It solved a lot of problems. Thanks, my impression too, it is a tool for a specific context, understand it and it is helpful, request that it does what it can't .. no, don't. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bose L1
Les Cargill wrote:
It's not bad at all. Sounds quite a bit better than most all MI store small club kit. I was expecting sort of an Acoustimass experience - not so at all. Sounds like a modest PA, but much better than the usual weekend warrior kit. The absence of horns and tweeters ( and I'm sure the sophisticated active crossovers in the brain box ) made it darned smooth. It has some weirdness in the top couple octaves and that weirdness changes with position. I'd call it an "overprocessed" kind of sound. However, I agree strongly that this beats horn resonances hands-down for listening pleasure. Especially the nasty "15in plus plastic exponential horn" systems that you see in MI stores. With the things behind the band, you get a much more open stage sound and I'm sure it sounds more like it does in the room when heard from the stage. It is sound *reinforcement*, not a kill-a-watt bullhorn. Yes, and that makes it pretty much unique in the MI store market. Here's the thing that surprised me - it's the best "monitors" I've heard onstage that were not full pro arena kit. And this actually produced an improvement in performance, stage levels and coherence of the band itself. You can *listen* again onstage instead of guessing. Yes, this is the point of the whole thing. The bad part that comes along with this, though, is that the gain before feedback is not anywhere near as high as you would get with a conventional monitor or even a 1970s-style side-fill. I usually detest stage monitors in clubs - I'd rather use the room return. Yes, this includes allegedly nice monitors in clubs. which are invariably obnoxious, even with earplugs. These, I liked - and I don't need plugs as much with this band anymore. I'm not sure it's really road worthy, and the price is kind of out of line with the sort of market you might use them in. But I was impressed. It solved a lot of problems. Bose is very good at that. They look at the market, they see something that people want that isn't being provided, and they sell it. They have a bad reputation in the industry because often what they sell isn't designed to sound good, but that's because the market niche was for something that didn't require good sound to sell. I think it's possible to build a much better system for a small acoustic group than the Bose... but the fact that Bose is doing it and that you can buy it at your corner MI store is important because you aren't going to find Tannoy stuff there. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bose L1
On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 8:04:20 PM UTC-5, Les Cargill wrote:
I encountered one of these Sunday. It was actually two of the pole arrays and two of the bass modules. I was listening from the perspective of a performer ( weekend warrior band situation ) . It's not bad at all. Sounds quite a bit better than most all MI store small club kit. I was expecting sort of an Acoustimass experience - not so at all. Sounds like a modest PA, but much better than the usual weekend warrior kit. The absence of horns and tweeters ( and I'm sure the sophisticated active crossovers in the brain box ) made it darned smooth. With the things behind the band, you get a much more open stage sound and I'm sure it sounds more like it does in the room when heard from the stage. It is sound *reinforcement*, not a kill-a-watt bullhorn. It's quite expensive. But I'm not sure it's not worth it. For one, weight is pretty respectable - each piece is roughly 20 lbs and it doesn't take up that much cartage space. The singer uses a Taylor with a quack-stick and it actually sounded presentable. It almost sounded like a guitar. We're running both electric guitars through it ( to address stage level problems in the politest way I've ever seen but also the most expensive ). Here's the thing that surprised me - it's the best "monitors" I've heard onstage that were not full pro arena kit. And this actually produced an improvement in performance, stage levels and coherence of the band itself. You can *listen* again onstage instead of guessing. I usually detest stage monitors in clubs - I'd rather use the room return. Yes, this includes allegedly nice monitors in clubs. which are invariably obnoxious, even with earplugs. These, I liked - and I don't need plugs as much with this band anymore. I'm not sure it's really road worthy, and the price is kind of out of line with the sort of market you might use them in. But I was impressed. It solved a lot of problems. -- Les Cargill There are some very cool systems that are very similar to Bose. K-array, for example. It's the same principal--skinny little speaker array, plugged into a bass/sub module. You can scale it up, according to your needs. One difference--these other systems are mostly designed to be used at the front of the stage, in the same way as a "traditional" PA system. So, you'd still need some sort of monitors. (or, maybe you could try placing it behind you?) I saw a demo of one such system at NAB a couple years ago. It blew me away!! Plenty of punch in the low end and excellent clarity! The band wasn't even using amps for their guitars & bass. Rather, they all ran through ipads, which appeared to be running amp modeling software. The musicians used in-ear monitors. Very cool!! I'd recommend my band change to that type of system....if only we could afford to do it. It would sure be easier to transport, than our big 18" subs & top cabs, etc. These array systems are NOT inexpensive. That's really the only drawback I can think of.... Mike |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bose L1
I'm certainly in the minority but I hate those Bose systems. I know people who own and use them very regularly who love them, but they're not for me. I've been forced to use one on a couple of occasions- it was always near but behind me and especially with my nylon string guitar the sound was thin and very phasey. Generally my impression of those sticks is they are boomy (with the sub of course) and crispy. I'm sure it's fine when you get out front a few meters, but in close proximity the sound was so bad it was distracting. And it wasn't anything I could really fix with EQ because it changed depending on position.
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bose L1
On Thursday, July 17, 2014 10:51:00 AM UTC-6, Nate Najar wrote:
I'm certainly in the minority but I hate those Bose systems. I know people who own and use them very regularly who love them, but they're not for me. I've been forced to use one on a couple of occasions- it was always near but behind me and especially with my nylon string guitar the sound was thin and very phasey. Generally my impression of those sticks is they are boomy (with the sub of course) and crispy. I'm sure it's fine when you get out front a few meters, but in close proximity the sound was so bad it was distracting. And it wasn't anything I could really fix with EQ because it changed depending on position. ----- The one and only time I plsyrf through one of those systems (outdoors) I got intractable feedback. My guitar has a mini-mic inside, not a pickup, which was no dount partly responsible.But it was a most unpleasant experience. Peace, Paul |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bose L1
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Les Cargill wrote: It's not bad at all. Sounds quite a bit better than most all MI store small club kit. I was expecting sort of an Acoustimass experience - not so at all. Sounds like a modest PA, but much better than the usual weekend warrior kit. The absence of horns and tweeters ( and I'm sure the sophisticated active crossovers in the brain box ) made it darned smooth. It has some weirdness in the top couple octaves and that weirdness changes with position. I'd call it an "overprocessed" kind of sound. But in a bouncy acoustic field, it's not bad. Most bars are terrible rooms; I bet Bose bet on this cutting better. They have a billion of those internet enabled jukeboxes out there so they know the territory. I bet also if you could get their attention, they could change some firmware and that peak would go away. But I always err on the side of intention with Bose. For example, I did not understand the Acoustimass until I heard a 5.1 football game on them. It make football games sound awesome for Dad, and Mom likes the small size. That is a business model. You can't hear dialogue from movies on them - unless there's an EQ profile or something to fix that. The L1 is, above all else, a software-intensive product. The "power base" has to be based on their jukeboxes, which seem to be very processing intensive. I've heard familiar songs on Bose jukeboxes that weren't even recognizable for a while. However, I agree strongly that this beats horn resonances hands-down for listening pleasure. Especially the nasty "15in plus plastic exponential horn" systems that you see in MI stores. Quite nasty. It's kinda shocking how little thought seems to be put into this. With the things behind the band, you get a much more open stage sound and I'm sure it sounds more like it does in the room when heard from the stage. It is sound *reinforcement*, not a kill-a-watt bullhorn. Yes, and that makes it pretty much unique in the MI store market. Very. Here's the thing that surprised me - it's the best "monitors" I've heard onstage that were not full pro arena kit. And this actually produced an improvement in performance, stage levels and coherence of the band itself. You can *listen* again onstage instead of guessing. Yes, this is the point of the whole thing. The bad part that comes along with this, though, is that the gain before feedback is not anywhere near as high as you would get with a conventional monitor or even a 1970s-style side-fill. Oh no, but IMO, that's not a downside for smaller rooms. No point in dumping 10,000 watts of grindey distorted muck in a bar. Less levels is a competitive edge - see also how it affects the guitar player. I felt like I could set my amp levels, something I can't always do with the classic mains/monitors arrangement. I always feel like I'm too loud on stage. You can make bars sound good - the ones in the Stockyard in Fort Worth tend to be that way - but that's professional folks, not hacks buying a bar as a retirement business. There is a bespoke system of medium quality and a guy running it. There's a feedback-killer or something in the L1, I'm guessing. But lower levels ( after spending a lot on the system ) in most bars is a very good thing. These appear to be able to get above crowd roar in a 300-500 people place ( with two of the systems ). I'll know more after the first gig with 'em. I usually detest stage monitors in clubs - I'd rather use the room return. Yes, this includes allegedly nice monitors in clubs. which are invariably obnoxious, even with earplugs. These, I liked - and I don't need plugs as much with this band anymore. I'm not sure it's really road worthy, and the price is kind of out of line with the sort of market you might use them in. But I was impressed. It solved a lot of problems. Bose is very good at that. They look at the market, they see something that people want that isn't being provided, and they sell it. They have a bad reputation in the industry because often what they sell isn't designed to sound good, but that's because the market niche was for something that didn't require good sound to sell. They don't have to outrun the bear, they just have to outrun JBL... I'd say the L1 sound good. Not ermahgerd-great . The system, at the Bronco Bowl sounded ehrmagerd-great. I think it's possible to build a much better system for a small acoustic group than the Bose... FWIW, this is pedal steel & 6-string guitar with a good-sized ( 40W ) combo amp and the lead player with a Twin, relatively loud ( to my ear ). This is not purely acoustic - it's yer basic honky-tonk setup. But no drums nor bass in the PA. but the fact that Bose is doing it and that you can buy it at your corner MI store is important because you aren't going to find Tannoy stuff there. --scott Pretty much. Although it wouldn't be that hard for E/V to build a columnar speaker based on their ZX1. FOr MI kit, the ZX series weren't bad at all. -- Les Cargill |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bose L1
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bose L1
Nate Najar wrote:
I'm certainly in the minority but I hate those Bose systems. I know people who own and use them very regularly who love them, but they're not for me. I've been forced to use one on a couple of occasions- it was always near but behind me and especially with my nylon string guitar the sound was thin and very phasey. Ick. Being that you are Nate, I'm not gonna bet it was your DI Generally my impression of those sticks is they are boomy (with the sub of course) and crispy. A little, yes. But the absence of the usual PA hash alone was very refreshing. I'm sure it's fine when you get out front a few meters, but in close proximity the sound was so bad it was distracting. And it wasn't anything I could really fix with EQ because it changed depending on position. Yeah. I bet that was the "phasey" part too - you were in the critical zone where the line-array aspect hadn't gelled yet. -- Les Cargill |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bose L1
PStamler wrote:
On Thursday, July 17, 2014 10:51:00 AM UTC-6, Nate Najar wrote: I'm certainly in the minority but I hate those Bose systems. I know people who own and use them very regularly who love them, but they're not for me. I've been forced to use one on a couple of occasions- it was always near but behind me and especially with my nylon string guitar the sound was thin and very phasey. Generally my impression of those sticks is they are boomy (with the sub of course) and crispy. I'm sure it's fine when you get out front a few meters, but in close proximity the sound was so bad it was distracting. And it wasn't anything I could really fix with EQ because it changed depending on position. ----- The one and only time I plsyrf through one of those systems (outdoors) I got intractable feedback. My guitar has a mini-mic inside, not a pickup, which was no dount partly responsible.But it was a most unpleasant experience. I am sure. Peace, Paul -- Les Cargill |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bose L1
Les Cargill wrote:
I encountered one of these Sunday. It was actually two of the pole arrays and two of the bass modules. I was listening from the perspective of a performer ( weekend warrior band situation ) . It's not bad at all. Sounds quite a bit better than most all MI store small club kit. I was expecting sort of an Acoustimass experience - not so at all. Sounds like a modest PA, but much better than the usual weekend warrior kit. The absence of horns and tweeters ( and I'm sure the sophisticated active crossovers in the brain box ) made it darned smooth. I think people often find it easier to get mediocre sound from these than from most usual MI SR kit. That said, the more I listen to them the less I like them. It's a stack of ****ty drivers and at some point my ear went, "Wow - listen to that". The horizontal dispersion is admirable. Up close to a performer, seated front and center and below, I heard a lot of smearing, and I realized that from such a listening position each of those up-the-pole ****ty drivers was just a bit further from my ear. I do like the concept, and in fact, for quality of sound around a similar idea I much prefer the Fishman Solo rig. We've played a few shows via each. There is also an upscale offering of the type from Phil Jones. http://www.philjonespuresound.com/products/?c=4 With the things behind the band, you get a much more open stage sound and I'm sure it sounds more like it does in the room when heard from the stage. It is sound *reinforcement*, not a kill-a-watt bullhorn. It's quite expensive. But I'm not sure it's not worth it. For one, weight is pretty respectable - each piece is roughly 20 lbs and it doesn't take up that much cartage space. The singer uses a Taylor with a quack-stick and it actually sounded presentable. It almost sounded like a guitar. We're running both electric guitars through it ( to address stage level problems in the politest way I've ever seen but also the most expensive ). Here's the thing that surprised me - it's the best "monitors" I've heard onstage that were not full pro arena kit. And this actually produced an improvement in performance, stage levels and coherence of the band itself. You can *listen* again onstage instead of guessing. I usually detest stage monitors in clubs - I'd rather use the room return. Yes, this includes allegedly nice monitors in clubs. which are invariably obnoxious, even with earplugs. These, I liked - and I don't need plugs as much with this band anymore. I'm not sure it's really road worthy, and the price is kind of out of line with the sort of market you might use them in. But I was impressed. It solved a lot of problems. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bose L1
Les Cargill wrote:
With the things behind the band, you get a much more open stage sound I am completely unsure how the "place them behind you" thing works at all. All I can figure is that active feedback detection is in play. Yes, there are multiple moving notches. But I have seen more quiet bands playing with the speaker stacks behind them before, using the same speakers for mains and monitors. It makes microphone placement hard although cranking the speakers way up on stands can help a lot. It's sort of like a vocal backline. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bose L1
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bose L1
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Les Cargill wrote: With the things behind the band, you get a much more open stage sound I am completely unsure how the "place them behind you" thing works at all. All I can figure is that active feedback detection is in play. Yes, there are multiple moving notches. But I have seen more quiet bands playing with the speaker stacks behind them before, using the same speakers for mains and monitors. It makes microphone placement hard although cranking the speakers way up on stands can help a lot. It's sort of like a vocal backline. --scott I have played in front of a pair of SRM350's, jazz combo, with a violinist beside me playing into an MD421. Nary a whiff of feedback, and we had the system cranked, as we were in a very large barn. Zero acoustical remediation. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bose L1
hank alrich wrote:
Les Cargill wrote: I encountered one of these Sunday. It was actually two of the pole arrays and two of the bass modules. I was listening from the perspective of a performer ( weekend warrior band situation ) . It's not bad at all. Sounds quite a bit better than most all MI store small club kit. I was expecting sort of an Acoustimass experience - not so at all. Sounds like a modest PA, but much better than the usual weekend warrior kit. The absence of horns and tweeters ( and I'm sure the sophisticated active crossovers in the brain box ) made it darned smooth. I think people often find it easier to get mediocre sound from these than from most usual MI SR kit. That said, the more I listen to them the less I like them. It's a stack of ****ty drivers and at some point my ear went, "Wow - listen to that". So are you hearing comb filtering because you're too close? I had my amp leaning back with a mic in it, and the sound coming off the poles sounded just like the amp. Vocals sounded fine; no complaints. The horizontal dispersion is admirable. Up close to a performer, seated front and center and below, I heard a lot of smearing, and I realized that from such a listening position each of those up-the-pole ****ty drivers was just a bit further from my ear. Mmmmm. Comb filters. Yeah, arrays are like that. I do like the concept, and in fact, for quality of sound around a similar idea I much prefer the Fishman Solo rig. We've played a few shows via each. There is also an upscale offering of the type from Phil Jones. http://www.philjonespuresound.com/products/?c=4 Looks even spendier. snip -- Les Cargill |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bose L1
Les Cargill wrote:
wrote: On Thursday, July 17, 2014 6:14:28 PM UTC-5, Les Cargill wrote: snip Yup--Fender is now making a system like this. But even Fender's system still costs around $1,000 for a single system. Most bands would want two--one for each side. So, even the "knock-offs" are not cheap....yet. Mike That's a lot of drivers, even if they are small. For two sides, 24 drivers @ $50 each is $1200. I'd be amazed if those Bose drivers are anywhere near that expensive. Unless you're buying them from Bose by the unit. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bose L1
hank alrich wrote:
Les Cargill wrote: That's a lot of drivers, even if they are small. For two sides, 24 drivers @ $50 each is $1200. I'd be amazed if those Bose drivers are anywhere near that expensive. Unless you're buying them from Bose by the unit. My suspicion is that the price is closer to $0.50 than $50, but the point is true that when you start making big driver arrays, the cost of even the cheapest and crappiest drivers starts to build up. The good news is that the variations between them becomes less important too. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bose L1
On 18/07/2014 4:51 a.m., Nate Najar wrote:
I'm certainly in the minority but I hate those Bose systems. I know people who own and use them very regularly who love them, It like an Apple i-Religion thing. geoff |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bose L1
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... hank alrich wrote: Les Cargill wrote: That's a lot of drivers, even if they are small. For two sides, 24 drivers @ $50 each is $1200. I'd be amazed if those Bose drivers are anywhere near that expensive. Unless you're buying them from Bose by the unit. My suspicion is that the price is closer to $0.50 than $50, Both figures are probably very close. 50c is their per unit bulk buy price, $50 their sell price for single replacement units. but the point is true that when you start making big driver arrays, the cost of even the cheapest and crappiest drivers starts to build up. The good news is that the variations between them becomes less important too. And the phase interaction becomes greater. Trevor. |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bose L1
On 7/21/2014 1:06 AM, Trevor wrote:
I'd be amazed if those Bose drivers are anywhere near that expensive. Unless you're buying them from Bose by the unit. Both figures are probably very close. 50c is their per unit bulk buy price, $50 their sell price for single replacement units. Did you ever try to build a car from replacement parts? -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bose L1
"Trevor" wrote in message ...
And the phase interaction becomes greater. It depends on the wavelength. One of the "points" of a line source is that you have phase interaction among the drivers. |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bose L1
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Trevor" wrote in message ... And the phase interaction becomes greater. It depends on the wavelength. One of the "points" of a line source is that you have phase interaction among the drivers. And it depends on the size of the drivers and correspondingly the spacing. Arrays with more, cheaper, smaller drivers can drive the point where the comb filtering gets bad up to higher and higher frequencies. Which is why the Bose L1 works better than the Shure Vocalmaster. But really, they have a lot in common (including the intended use). --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bose L1
It's quite expensive. But I'm not sure it's not worth it. For one, weight is pretty respectable - each piece is roughly 20 lbs and it doesn't take up that much cartage space. I have a Fishman S101 (?)...the Fishstick. Same idea. I just played my J-45 at a wedding using that and a Fishman Spectrum Aura and I got tons of praise on the sound. I set it off to the side and used a sound hole cover to keep down feedback. Set up is 5 minutes and it's easy to cart around... I paid $700 new a couple years ago. |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bose L1
Dan - who made that? Anything to do with Mark Fishman of the BAS?
Gary Eickmeier wrote in message ... It's quite expensive. But I'm not sure it's not worth it. For one, weight is pretty respectable - each piece is roughly 20 lbs and it doesn't take up that much cartage space. I have a Fishman S101 (?)...the Fishstick. Same idea. I just played my J-45 at a wedding using that and a Fishman Spectrum Aura and I got tons of praise on the sound. I set it off to the side and used a sound hole cover to keep down feedback. Set up is 5 minutes and it's easy to cart around... I paid $700 new a couple years ago. |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bose L1
Scott Dorsey wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote: "Trevor" wrote in message ... And the phase interaction becomes greater. It depends on the wavelength. One of the "points" of a line source is that you have phase interaction among the drivers. And it depends on the size of the drivers and correspondingly the spacing. Arrays with more, cheaper, smaller drivers can drive the point where the comb filtering gets bad up to higher and higher frequencies. But that will also reduce the footprint of the comb filtering ( in the plane of radial distance around the axis of the column ). Which is why the Bose L1 works better than the Shure Vocalmaster. But really, they have a lot in common (including the intended use). I knew a guy who built cabinets to replace Vocal Master columns with 2X15 and a horn. They sounded pretty good. He sold quite a few of them. So it's not like the cabs were exactly prized. --scott -- Les Cargill |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bose L1
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Dan - who made that? Anything to do with Mark Fishman of the BAS? Gary Eickmeier Gary, Fishman is a well known brand in the MI sector. http://www.fishman.com/ http://www.fishman.com/products/view...ormance-system wrote in message ... It's quite expensive. But I'm not sure it's not worth it. For one, weight is pretty respectable - each piece is roughly 20 lbs and it doesn't take up that much cartage space. I have a Fishman S101 (?)...the Fishstick. Same idea. I just played my J-45 at a wedding using that and a Fishman Spectrum Aura and I got tons of praise on the sound. I set it off to the side and used a sound hole cover to keep down feedback. Set up is 5 minutes and it's easy to cart around... I paid $700 new a couple years ago. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bose L1
On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 10:48:06 AM UTC-4, hank alrich wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote: Dan - who made that? Anything to do with Mark Fishman of the BAS? Gary Eickmeier Yes, it was the SA220. I could not be happier for the price. |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bose L1
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ... On 7/21/2014 1:06 AM, Trevor wrote: I'd be amazed if those Bose drivers are anywhere near that expensive. Unless you're buying them from Bose by the unit. Both figures are probably very close. 50c is their per unit bulk buy price, $50 their sell price for single replacement units. Did you ever try to build a car from replacement parts? Nope, I'm not that silly. Nor a Bose from their replacement drivers! Trevor. |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bose L1
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... William Sommerwerck wrote: "Trevor" wrote in message ... And the phase interaction becomes greater. It depends on the wavelength. One of the "points" of a line source is that you have phase interaction among the drivers. And it depends on the size of the drivers and correspondingly the spacing. Arrays with more, cheaper, smaller drivers can drive the point where the comb filtering gets bad up to higher and higher frequencies. Which is why the Bose L1 works better than the Shure Vocalmaster. I'm not familiar with the Shure Vocalmaster, but even the Bose has it's phase addition and cancellation problems in the audio band. Trevor. |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bose L1
In article , Trevor wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... William Sommerwerck wrote: "Trevor" wrote in message ... And the phase interaction becomes greater. It depends on the wavelength. One of the "points" of a line source is that you have phase interaction among the drivers. And it depends on the size of the drivers and correspondingly the spacing. Arrays with more, cheaper, smaller drivers can drive the point where the comb filtering gets bad up to higher and higher frequencies. Which is why the Bose L1 works better than the Shure Vocalmaster. I'm not familiar with the Shure Vocalmaster, but even the Bose has it's phase addition and cancellation problems in the audio band. The Bose has severe comb filtering if you get up close to it, but once you get a few seats back, it blends together pretty well unless you deliberately raise and lower your head looking for it. The Shure Vocalmaster used one of the first sound column speakers back in the 1960s. It had four 8-inch speakers and two 10-inch speakers, all running full range, all stacked on top of one another as a fake line radiator, with some rear porting that additionally improved directionality. So the radiation pattern top to bottom was narrowed down to something like 60 degrees for the -3dB points at 1KC. And the thing is, in spite of the comb filtering, it didn't sound bad at all on vocals, which is really all it was intended for. Bands would run the vocals through the PA, everything else would come directly from the backline, and the PA spill would be sufficient that they could hear themselves on stage. Similar speakers were very popular for voice applications well into the late 1970s. It used to be very common to see the Bogen sound columns in churches and small auditoria, usually the SCW35 with six 6-inch drivers stacked up. You got comb filtering, but you didn't get horn honk. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bose L1
In article ,
Scott Dorsey wrote: Similar speakers were very popular for voice applications well into the late 1970s. It used to be very common to see the Bogen sound columns in churches and small auditoria, usually the SCW35 with six 6-inch drivers stacked up. You got comb filtering, but you didn't get horn honk. There was a small PA company in the UK called RG Jones, who collared the market for line source columns used in TV studios for audience coverage in the 60s onwards. Always did think the theory of a line source column speaker rather more theoretical than actual - even in a fairy dead purpose built TV studio. They later produced a 'Hi-Fi' version using a Tannoy Dual concentric at the centre of the array. Which sounded quite good until the tweeter burnt out. And this with proper 100v line driving. -- *Taxation WITH representation ain't much fun, either. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bose L1
Scott Dorsey wrote:
The Shure Vocalmaster used one of the first sound column speakers back in the 1960s. It had four 8-inch speakers and two 10-inch speakers, all running full range, all stacked on top of one another as a fake line radiator, with some rear porting that additionally improved directionality. So the radiation pattern top to bottom was narrowed down to something like 60 degrees for the -3dB points at 1KC. And the thing is, in spite of the comb filtering, it didn't sound bad at all on vocals, which is really all it was intended for. Bands would run the vocals through the PA, everything else would come directly from the backline, and the PA spill would be sufficient that they could hear themselves on stage. Willie Nelson made at least many hundreds of thousands of dollars with a Vocalmaster for his PA and Paul English as "the rest of the band". -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bose L1
Scott Dorsey wrote:
The Shure Vocalmaster used one of the first sound column speakers back in the 1960s. It had four 8-inch speakers and two 10-inch speakers, all running full range, all stacked on top of one another as a fake line radiator, with some rear porting that additionally improved directionality. So the radiation pattern top to bottom was narrowed down to something like 60 degrees for the -3dB points at 1KC. And the thing is, in spite of the comb filtering, it didn't sound bad at all on vocals, which is really all it was intended for. Bands would run the vocals through the PA, everything else would come directly from the backline, and the PA spill would be sufficient that they could hear themselves on stage. Several of the bands I was in in the '60s used these, and as a portable sound system it was quite a bit more practical than the alternatives of the time. However, not so fast! Whether players could hear themselves depended on where they stood and how loud the band played. Folk singers and other acoustic instrument players could certainly hear themselves well enough. For rock players, the popular amps of the day -- Fender Twin Reverbs, Showmans, etc. -- could easily drown out the Vocalmaster's stage level. Still sounded OK to the audience, though! -- best regards, Neil |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bose L1
hank alrich wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: And the thing is, in spite of the comb filtering, it didn't sound bad at all on vocals, which is really all it was intended for. Bands would run the vocals through the PA, everything else would come directly from the backline, and the PA spill would be sufficient that they could hear themselves on stage. Willie Nelson made at least many hundreds of thousands of dollars with a Vocalmaster for his PA and Paul English as "the rest of the band". Yeah, but Willie Nelson could sing through a bullhorn and he'd still be Willie Nelson. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bose L1
On 24/07/2014 2:17 a.m., hank alrich wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: The Shure Vocalmaster used one of the first sound column speakers back in the 1960s. It had four 8-inch speakers and two 10-inch speakers, all running full range, all stacked on top of one another as a fake line radiator, with some rear porting that additionally improved directionality. So the radiation pattern top to bottom was narrowed down to something like 60 degrees for the -3dB points at 1KC. And the thing is, in spite of the comb filtering, it didn't sound bad at all on vocals, which is really all it was intended for. Bands would run the vocals through the PA, everything else would come directly from the backline, and the PA spill would be sufficient that they could hear themselves on stage. Willie Nelson made at least many hundreds of thousands of dollars with a Vocalmaster for his PA and Paul English as "the rest of the band". Reminds me of a jo0ke - Willie Nelson saying how it was unfair to give Lance Armstrong a hard time for winning 7 big races while on drug. "Hell, when I was on drugs I couldn't even FIND my bike !". geoff |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bose L1
hank alrich wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: The Shure Vocalmaster used one of the first sound column speakers back in the 1960s. It had four 8-inch speakers and two 10-inch speakers, all running full range, all stacked on top of one another as a fake line radiator, with some rear porting that additionally improved directionality. So the radiation pattern top to bottom was narrowed down to something like 60 degrees for the -3dB points at 1KC. And the thing is, in spite of the comb filtering, it didn't sound bad at all on vocals, which is really all it was intended for. Bands would run the vocals through the PA, everything else would come directly from the backline, and the PA spill would be sufficient that they could hear themselves on stage. Willie Nelson made at least many hundreds of thousands of dollars with a Vocalmaster for his PA and Paul English as "the rest of the band". There is no telling. This also reminds me intensely of why Hank Williams was a no-show at the Opry at a times - he could do school shows ( schools were the only building of any common purpose in rural America at the time ) for stpid amounts of money. Dunno if that's a reinvention or an emulation. It's smart, anyway. I remember seeing them across the front of the stage as monitors in the movie "Nashville." I think that was shot at the place the Opry was after they moved from the Ryman... the Grand Ole Opry House. -- Les Cargill |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bose L1
Les Cargill wrote:
There is no telling. There sorta is, but not right here and now. g -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bose L1
On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 6:43:24 AM UTC-6, Scott Dorsey wrote:
The Shure Vocalmaster used one of the first sound column speakers back in the 1960s. It had four 8-inch speakers and two 10-inch speakers, all running full range, all stacked on top of one another as a fake line radiator, with some rear porting that additionally improved directionality. So the radiation pattern top to bottom was narrowed down to something like 60 degrees for the -3dB points at 1KC. And the thing is, in spite of the comb filtering, it didn't sound bad at all on vocals, which is really all it was intended for. Bands would run the vocals through the PA, everything else would come directly from the backline, and the PA spill would be sufficient that they could hear themselves on stage. On the other hand, the electronic section of the Vocal Master system had mic preamps that would go into painful overload at a moment's notice. I still remember a folksinger at, I think, the Earl of Old Town who loved to excite that metallic ring with a loud vocal note, and did it at least once per song. It may have sounded great for Willie Nelson, but he had/has a mellow voice that didn't drive the Vocal Master into overload. Peace, Paul |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Bose L1
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... In article , Trevor wrote: I'm not familiar with the Shure Vocalmaster, but even the Bose has it's phase addition and cancellation problems in the audio band. The Bose has severe comb filtering if you get up close to it, but once you get a few seats back, it blends together pretty well unless you deliberately raise and lower your head looking for it. Well that's sort of true. You get used to the sound problems *if* you don't move your head too much and suddenly find the sound has changed. No matter where you are positioned however, the response will not be substantially flat across the range. The Shure Vocalmaster used one of the first sound column speakers back in the 1960s. It had four 8-inch speakers and two 10-inch speakers, all running full range, all stacked on top of one another as a fake line radiator, with some rear porting that additionally improved directionality. So the radiation pattern top to bottom was narrowed down to something like 60 degrees for the -3dB points at 1KC. And the thing is, in spite of the comb filtering, it didn't sound bad at all on vocals, which is really all it was intended for. Bands would run the vocals through the PA, everything else would come directly from the backline, and the PA spill would be sufficient that they could hear themselves on stage. Similar speakers were very popular for voice applications well into the late 1970s. It used to be very common to see the Bogen sound columns in churches and small auditoria, usually the SCW35 with six 6-inch drivers stacked up. You got comb filtering, but you didn't get horn honk. Never heard either, but not convinced serious comb filtering is necessarily better than a good horn. I've certainly heard many Bose systems, and I'm not a fan myself. But it's true it's possible to find some horn systems that are worse. Trevor. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
BOSE AM5 and BOSE 502 B Base Unit Mix???? | Pro Audio | |||
BOSE AM5 and BOSE 502 B Base Unit Mix???? | Pro Audio | |||
Bose Comment. Prev was Bose 901 Review | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Bose Comment. Prev was Bose 901 Review | Pro Audio | |||
FA: 2 Replacement Bose 5.5" Bose woofer / subwoofer | General |