On 29 Sep 2003 15:47:37 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

Stewart said


That would be my personal opinion, certainly. Interestingly, many
'audiophiles' would instantly agree, if I mentioned B&O or Bose in
this context, but for some mysterious reason would *not* agree if I
mentioned SET amps. Same effect, different price point and bragging
rights......................

Perhaps it isn't so mysterious if the SET is euphonic in it's colorations and
the Bose and B&O are not euphonic in their colorations.

You miss the point (deliberately, perhaps, since you snipped the
context that makes the point obvious).

To reiterate, the point was that when *all three* are euphonic in
their colorations, i.e. they all sound 'pleasant', the self-acclaimed
'audiophile' tends to reject B&O and Bose, but accepts SET amps. Why
is that?

Maybe it has nothing to
do with price or status. I don't think the effect is the same. We can always
test your assertion by comparing a Bose based system with any "highend system"
that uses a SET. I'll bet the net effect is quite different.

Thank you for making my point......................

Stewart said


Fine, we have different preferences. I have no problem with that.

Then why make a comparison between the effect of a SET to the effect of a Bose
speaker given the common opinions audiophiles have of Bose ?

Because engineering-led audiophiles have the same opinion of SET amps?
Overpriced underachievers in each case - although one cannot deny the
styling achievements of B&O.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

(S888Wheel)

....snips to content.....


Then why make a comparison between the effect of a SET to the effect of a
Bose
speaker given the common opinions audiophiles have of Bose ?

So what are those 'common opinions' about Bose?

I said



Sound quality and performance quality are mutually exclusive.



Steven said


Well, not *exclusive*. You mean, independent.



Fair enough. I was using a cliche. Independent is what I meant.


I said


Give me a
skillfully remastered (colored, degraded in fidelity, or euphonic) transfer
of
a bad recording of a good performance over an unfettered transfer any day.
Your
prferences may vary.


Steven said



Stewart was taking the original poster at his word. If the original poster
meant 'who wants reproduction to sound unpleasant' that's what should have been
written. Whether the *music* is unpleasant ,and whether that matters , is
another issue;
the composer Milton Babbit famously wrote an essay during the heyday of
serialism,
called 'Who Cares if You Listen?"



I was taking him at his word as well. i figured the issue was whether or not an
original recording sounded unpleasant. Aside from personal feelings about the
pleasantness of certain instruments and voices, poor, low fidelity recordings
tend to sound less pleasant than higher fidelity recordings. However for some
listenrs amoung higher fidelity recordings, all of which are colored to begin
with, some sweetening in some case will both be prefered and create the
illusion of greater fidelity to the original performance.


Stewart said


That would be my personal opinion, certainly. Interestingly, many
'audiophiles' would instantly agree, if I mentioned B&O or Bose in
this context, but for some mysterious reason would *not* agree if I
mentioned SET amps. Same effect, different price point and bragging
rights......................



I said



Perhaps it isn't so mysterious if the SET is euphonic in it's colorations and
the Bose and B&O are not euphonic in their colorations.



Steven said


At least some people like the way Bose's sound;


Sure, mostly people who are not audiophiles. I think they make crap speakers
but i think they market them well to nonaudiophiles. i don't personally know
any audiophiles that likes their produicts as far as I am aware.

Steven said

Therefore Bose speakers are 'euphonic' by the same criteria audiophiles use
for
LP/turntables.


I disagree. Bose speakers IMO are well designed to making a good first
impression on people who are not really intterested in audio as a hobby. The
people who prefer LPs are generally devoted audiophiles who spend much time,
effort and money in persuit of excellence. I don't think you will find any Bose
based systems in the homes of audiophiles who spend the time, effort and money
that the LP enthusiasts do. Just as you pointed out that the average Joe
doesn't know of Vandersteen speakers I think it is fair tp say that the average
audiophile does not have a high opinion of Bose nordo they find their
colorations euphonic. I think it is also fair to point out that like the
Vandersteens, SETs are not well known to the average Joe who buys bose
speakers.

Steven said

(If popularity is any indication, Bose speakers
are far more euphonic than SET amps.)



IMO it is not any indication.

Steven said


Euphonic just means 'sounds pleasant' . It doesn't specify to how many.


No it doesn't. Nor do sales indicate it.


Steven said


Some people don't like the 'euphonic' distortions of turntables, either.



I understand that but it would be unfair and IMOP unreasonable to compare the
colorations of highend LP playback to the colorations of Bose speakers.

So what are those 'common opinions' about Bose?


They are pretty awful sounding. What is your opinion?

S888Wheel wrote:

Steven said


At least some people like the way Bose's sound;


Sure, mostly people who are not audiophiles. I think they make crap speakers
but i think they market them well to nonaudiophiles. i don't personally know
any audiophiles that likes their produicts as far as I am aware.

But some audiophiles do like Bose speakers. Gary Eickmeyer (sp?) used to post
here regularly regarding the virtues of properly set-up 901's.

I disagree. Bose speakers IMO are well designed to making a good first
impression on people who are not really intterested in audio as a hobby. The
people who prefer LPs are generally devoted audiophiles who spend much time,
effort and money in persuit of excellence. I don't think you will find any Bose
based systems in the homes of audiophiles who spend the time, effort and money
that the LP enthusiasts do.

I think I have, actually. See above. Howard Ferstler has heard and reported
on Gary's system, perhaps he could tell me if I'm mischaracterizing his as
an 'audiophile' or not.

Then again, audiophiles generally anoint *themselves*; there is no standard
for accreditation. Obsessing over obsolete technology is not necessarily *my*
idea of audiophilia.

Just as you pointed out that the average Joe
doesn't know of Vandersteen speakers I think it is fair tp say that the average
audiophile does not have a high opinion of Bose nordo they find their
colorations euphonic. I think it is also fair to point out that like the
Vandersteens, SETs are not well known to the average Joe who buys bose
speakers.

But the average audiophile has displayed so many ideas at odds with known
facts, that I've found teh average audiophile to be just as poor a
guidepost as the average Joe.

Fortunately there seem to be more than a few *above average* audiophiles around,
too, if yuou know where to look for them. They're the ones who are skeptical
of dubious claims that the average audiophile accepts uncritically.

IMHO, of course.


Some people don't like the 'euphonic' distortions of turntables, either.



I understand that but it would be unfair and IMOP unreasonable to compare the
colorations of highend LP playback to the colorations of Bose speakers.

By what reasoning?



--
-S.

Steven Sullivan wrote:
But some audiophiles do like Bose speakers. Gary Eickmeyer (sp?) used to
post
here regularly regarding the virtues of properly set-up 901's.


I can't speak for all audiophiles (right, Dick?) but I can tell you what I
think about Bose 901s. No reflection (pun intended) on Gary, but IMHO a High
End audiophile loudspeaker should reproduce what is on the recording without
adding anything of it's own. The 901s were popular among rock music fans in
the early 1970s because they could play very loud and fill a room with sound -
from their 7 (if I recall) midrange drivers. The 901s create an artificial
ambience by reflecting sound in many different directions off room surfaces,
rather than seeking to preserve the ambience captured by the microphones on the
recording. It's just wrong.
Regards,
Mike

(S888Wheel) wrote:

So what are those 'common opinions' about Bose?


They are pretty awful sounding. What is your opinion?

I'd say that opinion may well be confined to newsgroup posters and not the
general enthusiast population. I do know some audiophiles who love Bose
speakers.

In my opinion Bose has done a wonderful job of putting the real needs of a
certain market in a more useful order. And, yes, I agree that that population
isn't deemed to be "audiophiles" for their most popular products.

Bose has brought decent music to seniors and accountants who think that
invisible speakers are more important than deep bass and flat response and/or
could really use a boom-box but wouldn't be caught dead with a regular one.

I have evaluated many Bose products and in general they are not good sounding
compared to that available in the same price class elsewhere but, OTOH, I
sometimes hear positive comments from audiophiles about some truly dreadful
speakers where the competing Bose is better.

Tom said


So what are those 'common opinions' about Bose?

I said
They are pretty awful sounding. What is your opinion?

tom said


I'd say that opinion may well be confined to newsgroup posters and not the
general enthusiast population.

I'd say you are probably wrong.

Tom said

I do know some audiophiles who love Bose
speakers.

I'm sure there are a few.

Tom said


In my opinion Bose has done a wonderful job of putting the real needs of a
certain market in a more useful order. And, yes, I agree that that population
isn't deemed to be "audiophiles" for their most popular products.

So?


Bose has brought decent music to seniors and accountants who think that
invisible speakers are more important than deep bass and flat response and/or
could really use a boom-box but wouldn't be caught dead with a regular one.

That's great but not terribly relevant to my objection to comparing SETs to
Bose speakers.

Tom said

I have evaluated many Bose products and in general they are not good sounding
compared to that available in the same price class elsewhere but, OTOH, I
sometimes hear positive comments from audiophiles about some truly dreadful
speakers where the competing
Bose is better.

Dreadful IYO yes? You are not making any definitve claims right? What speakers
might you be refering to that are so dreadful?

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message news:
To reiterate, the point was that when *all three* are euphonic in
their colorations, i.e. they all sound 'pleasant', the self-acclaimed
'audiophile' tends to reject B&O and Bose, but accepts SET amps. Why
is that?


Careful of your straw men here Stewart. I for one don't find
B&O, Bose or SET's pleasant. B&O seems unpleasant and
uninteresting. Bose is wildly colored and so unnatural sounding
it imposes on my enjoyment. SET's either have no guts, or
sounds so wildly colored they too impinge upon my enjoyment.
The coloration isn't tasteful I would say. It is excessive. But
I think the straw man 'audiophile' you construct isn't very
accurate. Lots of audiophiles don't care for SET's or haven't
heard any. SET's aren't universally acclaimed as you make it
seem.

You are probably thinking all this simply reinforces the idea
of preference being whatever someone wants. I agree what
one finds tasteful enhancement will vary from person to person.
What is high fidelity doesn't. That makes it much harder to
quantify tasteful high end versus measurable high fidelity.
But that some tasteful enhancement away from fidelity is
part of the high end for many isn't really an arguable point.

Dennis

"Nousaine" schrieb

In my opinion Bose has done a wonderful job
of putting the real needs of a
certain market in a more useful order.

I´d call marketing of 15$ worth of parts for 1700$ not quite as euphemistic!
But otoh there is plenty of "high-end" gear on the market with similar
margins. Shame on them, too.

And, yes, I agree that that
population isn't deemed to be "audiophiles"
for their most popular products.

Over here the importer of Bose (or is it the local branch of the company
itself?)takes great care that Bose is presented seperately from other gear.
They do not want it compared to other stuff and they know why.
I personally wouldn´t buy anything from a dealer who sells Bose. I simply
would´t trust his taste in selecting good sounding equipment for the money.
So how could he make suggestions to me I would feel I could trust?

I have evaluated many Bose products and in general
they are not good sounding compared to that
available in the same price class elsewhere

That´s what everybody says and rightly so...
Compare
http://www.intellexual.net/bose.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~busenitz/bs.html

but, OTOH, I sometimes hear positive comments
from audiophiles about some truly dreadful
speakers where the competing Bose is better.

That´s a killer argument about anything or just simple "audiophile bashing",
unprooved and unproovabel.

I'm not trying to defend Bose speakers but like it or not, the room IS
part of what you hear. Pad the room with too much absorption and most
high quality speakers would sound awful. I have DBX Soundfield One
speakers and I feel that the contribution made by room reflections
enhance the overall sound.


-MIKE

Steven said


At least some people like the way Bose's sound;


I said


Sure, mostly people who are not audiophiles. I think they make crap
speakers
but i think they market them well to nonaudiophiles. i don't personally
know
any audiophiles that likes their produicts as far as I am aware.

Steven said


But some audiophiles do like Bose speakers.

I'm sure some do. It's a big world with a lot of people in it.

Steven said

Gary Eickmeyer (sp?) used to post
here regularly regarding the virtues of properly set-up 901's.

Fair enough. You have cited one. I don't know him. Of course you can find many
dedicated audiophiles that are SET enthusiasts on Rec. Audio tubes and on the
Audio Asylum. They have their own subcatagory there. Bose does not.

I said

I disagree. Bose speakers IMO are well designed to making a good first
impression on people who are not really intterested in audio as a hobby.
The
people who prefer LPs are generally devoted audiophiles who spend much
time,
effort and money in persuit of excellence. I don't think you will find any
Bose
based systems in the homes of audiophiles who spend the time, effort and
money
that the LP enthusiasts do.


Steven said


I think I have, actually. See above. Howard Ferstler has heard and reported
on Gary's system, perhaps he could tell me if I'm mischaracterizing his as
an 'audiophile' or not.

One exception does not make a rule. Infact it doesn't even disprove a rule of
thumb. It is easy to find numerous hardcore audiophiles that love SETs. I am
conficent that hardcore audiophiles that love Bose are few and far between. I
think it is clear, given their sales, that Bose entusiasts are by and large not
dedicated audiophiles and usually are unaware of the existance of most high
fidelity highend speakers.

Steven said


Then again, audiophiles generally anoint *themselves*; there is no standard
for accreditation.

As it should be. It is only a hobby after all.

Steven said

Obsessing over obsolete technology is not necessarily *my*
idea of audiophilia.

You are certainly entitled to your take on your hobby. So are others who see
SETs as something more than an obsolete technology.

I said

Just as you pointed out that the average Joe
doesn't know of Vandersteen speakers I think it is fair tp say that the
average
audiophile does not have a high opinion of Bose nordo they find their
colorations euphonic. I think it is also fair to point out that like the
Vandersteens, SETs are not well known to the average Joe who buys bose
speakers.


Steven said


But the average audiophile has displayed so many ideas at odds with known
facts, that I've found teh average audiophile to be just as poor a
guidepost as the average Joe.


Well, that is your take on things. I think some of those facts are disputed by
very knowledgable people. I think many systems based on what is considered
snake oil, obsolete technologies and backwards thinking by many on RAHE are
really great sounding systems.


Steven said


Fortunately there seem to be more than a few *above average* audiophiles
around,
too, if yuou know where to look for them.

What? Now we are ranking audiophiles? That would be rather subjective top say
the least. What you consider to be above average may not be what I consider to
be above average.

Steven said

They're the ones who are skeptical
of dubious claims that the average audiophile accepts uncritically.

In your view. How would you rank Dave Wilson as an audiophile? How about Bill
Johnson? How would you rank Jim West, Richard Vandersteen or Gayle Sanders? I
think they all have pretty great systems as their reference systems.

Steven said


IMHO, of course.


Of course.

Steven said


Some people don't like the 'euphonic' distortions of turntables, either.


I said



I understand that but it would be unfair and IMOP unreasonable to compare
the
colorations of highend LP playback to the colorations of Bose speakers.



By what reasoning?


I think I have explained it in this thread.

Mkuller wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
But some audiophiles do like Bose speakers. Gary Eickmeyer (sp?) used to
post
here regularly regarding the virtues of properly set-up 901's.


I can't speak for all audiophiles (right, Dick?) but I can tell you what I
think about Bose 901s. No reflection (pun intended) on Gary, but IMHO a High
End audiophile loudspeaker should reproduce what is on the recording without
adding anything of it's own.

Great that you agree that high-end audiophile gear should be accurate
and free of colorations or distortions. Now we are having convergence .

The 901s were popular among rock music fans in
the early 1970s because they could play very loud and fill a room with sound -
from their 7 (if I recall) midrange drivers. The 901s create an artificial
ambience by reflecting sound in many different directions off room surfaces,
rather than seeking to preserve the ambience captured by the microphones on the
recording. It's just wrong.

Wow, a subjectivist saying that it is wrong to be euphonic?

Regards,
Mike

On 30 Sep 2003 18:52:31 GMT, (Mkuller) wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
But some audiophiles do like Bose speakers. Gary Eickmeyer (sp?) used to
post
here regularly regarding the virtues of properly set-up 901's.


I can't speak for all audiophiles (right, Dick?) but I can tell you what I
think about Bose 901s. No reflection (pun intended) on Gary, but IMHO a High
End audiophile loudspeaker should reproduce what is on the recording without
adding anything of it's own. The 901s were popular among rock music fans in
the early 1970s because they could play very loud and fill a room with sound -
from their 7 (if I recall) midrange drivers. The 901s create an artificial
ambience by reflecting sound in many different directions off room surfaces,
rather than seeking to preserve the ambience captured by the microphones on the
recording. It's just wrong.

Fine, I entirely accept your argument. By the same token, we do not
want cables that add anything to the uncoloured sound coming out of
the amplifier, and we most certainly don't want an amplifier that has
'no highs, no lows, must be Bose' as a fundamental characteristic,
such as you'll find with SETs, not to mention the total lack of
dynamic contrast caused by the 'soft clipping' effect, and that
artificial 'loudness' caused by the rapid onset of distortion above
1/3 power. SETs (and many other tube amps) have an additional problem,
in that those large tubes suffer microphony and reverberation,
creating an artificial ambiance, rather than seeking to preserve the
ambience captured by the microphones on the recording. It's just
plain wrong.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 1 Oct 2003 05:00:14 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

Tom said

I do know some audiophiles who love Bose
speakers.

I'm sure there are a few.

Bose has brought decent music to seniors and accountants who think that
invisible speakers are more important than deep bass and flat response and/or
could really use a boom-box but wouldn't be caught dead with a regular one.

That's great but not terribly relevant to my objection to comparing SETs to
Bose speakers.

Oh, really? Let's review the position - you agree that there are only
a few 'audiophiles' who like Bose speakers, you agree that flat
response and deep bass are not critical to musical enjoyment, and yet
you *still* don't see the parallel with SET amplifiers, which are
undeniably technically deficient in several areas, and are popular
with only a few 'audiophiles'. What's the difference?

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 05:36:56 GMT, "Dennis Moore"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message news:
To reiterate, the point was that when *all three* are euphonic in
their colorations, i.e. they all sound 'pleasant', the self-acclaimed
'audiophile' tends to reject B&O and Bose, but accepts SET amps. Why
is that?


Careful of your straw men here Stewart. I for one don't find
B&O, Bose or SET's pleasant.

Fine, but we're not talking about your personal opinion (or mine),
we're talking about the general perception. While you and I don't like
SETs, they have a certain reputation among audiophiles in general, of
whom Dorsey/Wheel is an example.

B&O seems unpleasant and
uninteresting. Bose is wildly colored and so unnatural sounding
it imposes on my enjoyment. SET's either have no guts, or
sounds so wildly colored they too impinge upon my enjoyment.

Fine - so what's your problem?

The coloration isn't tasteful I would say. It is excessive. But
I think the straw man 'audiophile' you construct isn't very
accurate. Lots of audiophiles don't care for SET's or haven't
heard any. SET's aren't universally acclaimed as you make it
seem.

I make no claim for universal appeal, since clearly the SET market is
absolutely tiny. My point is that the typically snobbish
self-acclaimed 'audiophile' seems to find the notion of SETs being in
the same class as B&O or Bose to be quite offensive. See Dorsey aka
Wheel's comments in this thread.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Tom said

I do know some audiophiles who love Bose
speakers.

I said


I'm sure there are a few.


Tom said

Bose has brought decent music to seniors and accountants who think that
invisible speakers are more important than deep bass and flat response
and/or
could really use a boom-box but wouldn't be caught dead with a regular one.


I said


That's great but not terribly relevant to my objection to comparing SETs to
Bose speakers.

Stewart said


Oh, really?

really.

Stewart said

Let's review the position

Yes lets reviewit. Maybe you will get it right after a review.

Stewart said

- you agree that there are only
a few 'audiophiles' who like Bose speakers,

Yes.

Stewart said

you agree that flat
response and deep bass are not critical to musical enjoyment,

Hold on here. Where did I say that? What is "flat response?" What is "deep
bass?" Are any playback systems truely flat? I don't know that every system
that sounded good to me was "flat" by your standards of flat, nor do I know
they did or did not have "deep bass" by your definition of deep bass whatever
that may be. So until we can agree on the terms and which systems i like fit
within those terms and which do not, I don't agree.

Stewart said

and yet
you *still* don't see the parallel with SET amplifiers,

I see the parallel as you have presented it. You picked a very unpopular line
of speakers amoung audiophiles and likened the performance of SETs to them
because you don't like them either. The parallel is flawed IMO because many
devoted hardcore audiophiles like SETs. The same simply cannot accurately be
said of Bose. If you had made the comparison to Quad speakers, a speaker that
is arguably lacking in deep bass and, if memory serves me is not the flatest
speaker on the planet, less flat than most SETs I suspect, then I wouldn't have
complained. They are not universally loved by audiophiles due to
incontravertable limmitaions but they have a devoted following amoung some
hardcore audiophiles.

Stewart said

which are
undeniably technically deficient in several areas,

Except some designers of SETs find those technical deficiencies to be
unimportant. So it still comes down to what an individual expects form a piece
of equipment.

Stewart said

and are popular
with only a few 'audiophiles'. What's the difference?


I think you claim that SETs are popular with only a few audiophiles is simply
wrong. One need only look on Rec. Audio tubes and on Audioasylum under SETs to
find more than a few enthusiasts. You will find far more such enthusiats of
SETs on those forums than you will find like minded audiophiles for yourself
here on RAHE. I don't see any such catagories for Bose speakers anywhere. The
following that Bose has is quite different in character than the following SETs
have amoung audiophiles.Again, if you had likened SETs to Quads or planar
speakers or horn speakers or even LP playback i would not have objected. Thise
would be fair comparisons IMO.

Charlie Bonitz wrote:
"Nousaine" schrieb

In my opinion Bose has done a wonderful job
of putting the real needs of a
certain market in a more useful order.

I?d call marketing of 15$ worth of parts for 1700$ not quite as euphemistic!
But otoh there is plenty of "high-end" gear on the market with similar
margins. Shame on them, too.

And, yes, I agree that that
population isn't deemed to be "audiophiles"
for their most popular products.

Over here the importer of Bose (or is it the local branch of the company
itself?)takes great care that Bose is presented seperately from other gear.
They do not want it compared to other stuff and they know why.
I personally wouldn?t buy anything from a dealer who sells Bose.
I simply
would?t trust his taste in selecting good sounding equipment for the money.
So how could he make suggestions to me I would feel I could trust?

Do you apply the same criterion to dealers who sell 'shameful'
high-end gear?

but, OTOH, I sometimes hear positive comments
from audiophiles about some truly dreadful
speakers where the competing Bose is better.

That?s a killer argument about anything or just simple "audiophile bashing",
unprooved and unproovabel.

It's no more 'unproved or unprovable' than the stuff in those
links you provided. Clealry it's possible to find
withering critiques of some 'audiophile' speakers as well.

--
-S.

Stewart said

Fine, but we're not talking about your personal opinion (or mine),
we're talking about the general perception. While you and I don't like
SETs, they have a certain reputation among audiophiles in general, of
whom Dorsey/Wheel is an example.

Please don't speak for me unless you can manage to do so with reasonable
accuracy.

Stewart said

I make no claim for universal appeal, since clearly the SET market is
absolutely tiny. My point is that the typically snobbish
self-acclaimed 'audiophile' seems to find the notion of SETs being in
the same class as B&O or Bose to be quite offensive. See Dorsey aka
Wheel's comments in this thread.

I thought personal attacks were no longer allowed on RAHE. I am clearly being
called a snobbish self-aclaimmed 'audiophile'. I'm guessing that the quotation
marks are there just to show you don't think I am a real audiophile. Talk about
snobbery. Weren't you the one who said you think everyone who disagrees with
you on audio was either an idiot or ignorant?

Stewart said

Oh, really? Let's review the position - you agree that there are only
a few 'audiophiles' who like Bose speakers, you agree that flat
response and deep bass are not critical to musical enjoyment, and yet
you *still* don't see the parallel with SET amplifiers, which are
undeniably technically deficient in several areas, and are popular
with only a few 'audiophiles'. What's the difference?

--

I forgot to mention that even if I did agree with all of the above it still
doesn't change the fact that what Tom said: "Bose has brought decent music to
seniors and accountants who think invisible speakers are more important than
deep bass and flat respons and/or could really use a boom-box but wouldn't be
caught dead with a regular one." Is still totally irrelevant to my objections
to your comparison between Bose speakers and SETs.

(---MIKE---) wrote:




I'm not trying to defend Bose speakers but like it or not, the room IS
part of what you hear. Pad the room with too much absorption and most
high quality speakers would sound awful. I have DBX Soundfield One
speakers and I feel that the contribution made by room reflections
enhance the overall sound.

I, too, would like to see more design consideration given to room interaction.
Nearly all speakers are designed to perform without any surface interface; yet
none will ever be used (even outside) without at least one surface of interest
interacting.

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Do you apply the same criterion to dealers who sell 'shameful'
high-end gear?

"Shameful" - is it pornographic or something? It's interesting that you
ascribe strong moral/religious terms to what is essentially an honorable
capitalistic enterprise. Caveat emptor.

Is conspicuous consumption - say a Mercedes in the driveway - immoral, too?
Regards,
Mike

Mkuller wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Do you apply the same criterion to dealers who sell 'shameful'
high-end gear?

"Shameful" - is it pornographic or something? It's interesting that you
ascribe strong moral/religious terms to what is essentially an honorable
capitalistic enterprise. Caveat emptor.

Is conspicuous consumption - say a Mercedes in the driveway - immoral, too?
Regards,
Mike


Mr. Kuller, you snipped that sentence from its context, where
it makes obvious sense. The quote marks I used around the word
'shameful' clearly followed from Mr. Bonitz' having written
'Shame on them' in reference to high-margin high-end gear.
Your beef should be with him, not me. Yet your
reply was to me only. Shame on you. Your agenda is
showing.





--
-S.

S888Wheel wrote:
Steven said


At least some people like the way Bose's sound;


I said


Sure, mostly people who are not audiophiles. I think they make crap
speakers
but i think they market them well to nonaudiophiles. i don't personally
know
any audiophiles that likes their produicts as far as I am aware.

Steven said


But some audiophiles do like Bose speakers.

I'm sure some do. It's a big world with a lot of people in it.

Steven said

Gary Eickmeyer (sp?) used to post
here regularly regarding the virtues of properly set-up 901's.

Fair enough. You have cited one. I don't know him.

His setup was profiled in The Sensible Sound a year or three back.
YOu can look it up.

Of course you can find many
dedicated audiophiles that are SET enthusiasts on Rec. Audio tubes and on the
Audio Asylum. They have their own subcatagory there. Bose does not.

Is that reasonable, or simply prejudice? Given the stuff I see daily on
Audio Asylum, I must conclude the latter.

Audiophiles can't have it both ways -- if something that they admit
exhibits 'euphonic distortion' -- turntables, tube amps, speakers --
can also be considered fit for discussion on 'audiophile' newsgroups,
then why not Bose? Particularly in the realm of speakers, where
coloration is a given?

Are they saying that Bose *cannot* sound euphonic? Are they saying
that NO TRUE AUDIOPHILE could enjoy their sound? Mr. Eickmeyer,
who IIRC is no slouch in the audio gear department, would disagree.
Moreover, who determines what a 'true' audiophile is?

Is it because Bose are arguably overpriced? Surely *that*
can't be something audiophiles complain *too* loudly of.

I think I have, actually. See above. Howard Ferstler has heard and reported
on Gary's system, perhaps he could tell me if I'm mischaracterizing his as
an 'audiophile' or not.

One exception does not make a rule. Infact it doesn't even disprove a rule of
thumb. It is easy to find numerous hardcore audiophiles that love SETs. I am
conficent that hardcore audiophiles that love Bose are few and far between. I
think it is clear, given their sales, that Bose entusiasts are by and large not
dedicated audiophiles and usually are unaware of the existance of most high
fidelity highend speakers.

You're almost certainly right. But that doesn't mean that audiophiles
avoidance of and carping about Bose is consistent with their other beliefs
and practices, or rational.

The problem, is given the utter rubbish that 'audiophiles' *HAVE* touted
enthusiastically, e.g. green pens, shakti stones, high-end cables etc --
how can we trust 'their' judgement re Bose? ANd therefore, hwo can we use the
'well, audiophiles tend to loathe them' argument against Bose?

Obsessing over obsolete technology is not necessarily *my*
idea of audiophilia.

You are certainly entitled to your take on your hobby. So are others who see
SETs as something more than an obsolete technology.

I was referring to LP/turntable there, actually, though tube amps could
apply.

But the average audiophile has displayed so many ideas at odds with known
facts, that I've found teh average audiophile to be just as poor a
guidepost as the average Joe.


Well, that is your take on things. I think some of those facts are disputed by
very knowledgable people. I think many systems based on what is considered
snake oil, obsolete technologies and backwards thinking by many on RAHE are
really great sounding systems.

See above. The most knowledgable people I've encountered regarding how the
stuff *actually works*, seem to consider much of audiophilia to be a
disgrace.

Steven said


Fortunately there seem to be more than a few *above average* audiophiles
around,
too, if yuou know where to look for them.

What? Now we are ranking audiophiles? That would be rather subjective top say
the least. What you consider to be above average may not be what I consider to
be above average.

No doubt.

They're the ones who are skeptical
of dubious claims that the average audiophile accepts uncritically.

In your view. How would you rank Dave Wilson as an audiophile? How about Bill
Johnson? How would you rank Jim West, Richard Vandersteen or Gayle Sanders? I
think they all have pretty great systems as their reference systems.

Now who's ranking?

--
-S.

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:23:10 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

Stewart said

Fine, but we're not talking about your personal opinion (or mine),
we're talking about the general perception. While you and I don't like
SETs, they have a certain reputation among audiophiles in general, of
whom Dorsey/Wheel is an example.

Please don't speak for me unless you can manage to do so with reasonable
accuracy.

You already spoke for yourself in this matter.

Stewart said

I make no claim for universal appeal, since clearly the SET market is
absolutely tiny. My point is that the typically snobbish
self-acclaimed 'audiophile' seems to find the notion of SETs being in
the same class as B&O or Bose to be quite offensive. See Dorsey aka
Wheel's comments in this thread.

I thought personal attacks were no longer allowed on RAHE. I am clearly being
called a snobbish self-aclaimmed 'audiophile'. I'm guessing that the quotation
marks are there just to show you don't think I am a real audiophile.

The reference was to your comments. If you feel that you fit the
description, that's up to you.

Talk about
snobbery. Weren't you the one who said you think everyone who disagrees with
you on audio was either an idiot or ignorant?

Yes, I did. Of course, I failed to mention those who simply have an
agenda, and *refuse* to maintain an honest debate.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 1 Oct 2003 17:22:39 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

I see the parallel as you have presented it. You picked a very unpopular line
of speakers amoung audiophiles and likened the performance of SETs to them
because you don't like them either. The parallel is flawed IMO because many
devoted hardcore audiophiles like SETs. The same simply cannot accurately be
said of Bose.

That *is* the point, since both have deep technical flaws, both sound
'pleasant', and yet one is revered while the other is derided, by a
certain type of self-acclaimed 'audiophile'. Of course you know this,
you are simply being disingenuous.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

(S888Wheel) wrote:
Talk about
snobbery. Weren't you the one who said you think everyone who disagrees with
you on audio was either an idiot or ignorant?


(Stewart Pinkerton)
Yes, I did. Of course, I failed to mention those who simply have an
agenda, and *refuse* to maintain an honest debate.


Again, amazing. Here is an excellent example of "the pot calling the kettle
black". My psychologist friends tell me that people tend to project their
personal issues on others. So who 'really' is the one with agendas and who
refuses to engage in an honest debate. Readers here can draw their own
conclusions.
Regards,
Mike

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 1 Oct 2003 17:22:39 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:


and yet one is revered while the other is derided, by a
certain type of self-acclaimed 'audiophile'.

Is there any other kind of audiophile? I'm not aware of any organization
that does audiophile certification.

To my way of thinking, an audiophile is anyone who has spent more money on
his stereo than on the music he listens to. Or anyone who is more
interested in the equipment than the music.

Duffy

"Duffy Pratt" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 1 Oct 2003 17:22:39 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:


and yet one is revered while the other is derided, by a
certain type of self-acclaimed 'audiophile'.

Is there any other kind of audiophile? I'm not aware of any organization
that does audiophile certification.

To my way of thinking, an audiophile is anyone who has spent more money on
his stereo than on the music he listens to. Or anyone who is more
interested in the equipment than the music.

Duffy

There's an old quip: "You're not an audiophile until you spend more time
talking about your system than you do listening to it."

There's another one I always liked about audio magazines back in the old days
when a few hundred dollars was a lot of money. "You can spend $300 a year and
hear nothing but the sound of pages turning."

I said


I see the parallel as you have presented it. You picked a very unpopular
line
of speakers amoung audiophiles and likened the performance of SETs to them
because you don't like them either. The parallel is flawed IMO because many
devoted hardcore audiophiles like SETs. The same simply cannot accurately be
said of Bose.

Stewart said


That *is* the point, since both have deep technical flaws,

OSAF

Stewart said

both sound
'pleasant',

Not to me. not to most hardcore audiophiles. Do you think Bose sound pleasant?
Or was this disingenuous?

Stewart said

and yet one is revered while the other is derided,

By some hardcore audiophiles. At least you got this half right.

Stewart said

by a
certain type of self-acclaimed 'audiophile'.

Your attack on such audiophiles for their preference is noted.

Stewart said

Of course you know this,

Claim of mind reading is noted.

Stewart said

you are simply being disingenuous.

Personal attack noted. Such personal attacks are usually the last resort for
someone who cannot support their position with facts and logic. I accept your
concession.I guess the moderators have given up the fight to keep such nonsense
out of RAHE. Of course, I must always remember your opinion about anyone who
disagrees with your views on audio. Your modesty is noted as well.

Steven said


Is it because Bose are arguably overpriced?

No. It's because people listen to them and don't like them.

Steven said

Surely *that*
can't be something audiophiles complain *too* loudly of.

That depends on the individual audiophile does it not?

Steven said

I think I have, actually. See above. Howard Ferstler has heard and
reported
on Gary's system, perhaps he could tell me if I'm mischaracterizing his as

an 'audiophile' or not.

I said

One exception does not make a rule. Infact it doesn't even disprove a rule
of
thumb. It is easy to find numerous hardcore audiophiles that love SETs. I
am
conficent that hardcore audiophiles that love Bose are few and far between.
I
think it is clear, given their sales, that Bose entusiasts are by and large
not
dedicated audiophiles and usually are unaware of the existance of most high
fidelity highend speakers.

Steven said


You're almost certainly right. But that doesn't mean that audiophiles
avoidance of and carping about Bose is consistent with their other beliefs
and practices, or rational.

Why do you have to attack the rationality of people's preferences? Is that
rational? Bottom line is many hardcore audiophiles love SETs, not so many love
Bose. Their colorations are totally different in nature. the comparison was
meant to attack the credability of the preferences of those who love SETs.

Steven said


The problem, is given the utter rubbish that 'audiophiles' *HAVE* touted
enthusiastically, e.g. green pens, shakti stones, high-end cables etc --
how can we trust 'their' judgement re Bose?

relevance?

Steven said

ANd therefore, hwo can we use the
'well, audiophiles tend to loathe them' argument against Bose?

is this really anything other than an illustration of your feelings about
audiophiles that disagree with your views? So you think they are not
trustworthy or rational.

Steven said


Fortunately there seem to be more than a few *above average* audiophiles
around,
too, if yuou know where to look for them.

I said


What? Now we are ranking audiophiles? That would be rather subjective top
say
the least. What you consider to be above average may not be what I consider
to
be above average.

Steven said


No doubt.

Steven said



They're the ones who are skeptical
of dubious claims that the average audiophile accepts uncritically.


I said


In your view. How would you rank Dave Wilson as an audiophile? How about
Bill
Johnson? How would you rank Jim West, Richard Vandersteen or Gayle Sanders?
I
think they all have pretty great systems as their reference systems.

Steven said


Now who's ranking?

Why not just answer the question?

I'm not trying to defend Bose speakers but like it or not, the room IS
part of what you hear. Pad the room with too much absorption and most
high quality speakers would sound awful. I have DBX Soundfield One
speakers and I feel that the contribution made by room reflections
enhance the overall sound.

-MIKE

Steven said


At least some people like the way Bose's sound;


I said


Sure, mostly people who are not audiophiles. I think they make crap
speakers
but i think they market them well to nonaudiophiles. i don't personally
know
any audiophiles that likes their produicts as far as I am aware.

Steven said


But some audiophiles do like Bose speakers.

I'm sure some do. It's a big world with a lot of people in it.

Steven said

Gary Eickmeyer (sp?) used to post
here regularly regarding the virtues of properly set-up 901's.

Fair enough. You have cited one. I don't know him. Of course you can find many
dedicated audiophiles that are SET enthusiasts on Rec. Audio tubes and on the
Audio Asylum. They have their own subcatagory there. Bose does not.

I said

I disagree. Bose speakers IMO are well designed to making a good first
impression on people who are not really intterested in audio as a hobby.
The
people who prefer LPs are generally devoted audiophiles who spend much
time,
effort and money in persuit of excellence. I don't think you will find any
Bose
based systems in the homes of audiophiles who spend the time, effort and
money
that the LP enthusiasts do.


Steven said


I think I have, actually. See above. Howard Ferstler has heard and reported
on Gary's system, perhaps he could tell me if I'm mischaracterizing his as
an 'audiophile' or not.

One exception does not make a rule. Infact it doesn't even disprove a rule of
thumb. It is easy to find numerous hardcore audiophiles that love SETs. I am
conficent that hardcore audiophiles that love Bose are few and far between. I
think it is clear, given their sales, that Bose entusiasts are by and large not
dedicated audiophiles and usually are unaware of the existance of most high
fidelity highend speakers.

Steven said


Then again, audiophiles generally anoint *themselves*; there is no standard
for accreditation.

As it should be. It is only a hobby after all.

Steven said

Obsessing over obsolete technology is not necessarily *my*
idea of audiophilia.

You are certainly entitled to your take on your hobby. So are others who see
SETs as something more than an obsolete technology.

I said

Just as you pointed out that the average Joe
doesn't know of Vandersteen speakers I think it is fair tp say that the
average
audiophile does not have a high opinion of Bose nordo they find their
colorations euphonic. I think it is also fair to point out that like the
Vandersteens, SETs are not well known to the average Joe who buys bose
speakers.


Steven said


But the average audiophile has displayed so many ideas at odds with known
facts, that I've found teh average audiophile to be just as poor a
guidepost as the average Joe.


Well, that is your take on things. I think some of those facts are disputed by
very knowledgable people. I think many systems based on what is considered
snake oil, obsolete technologies and backwards thinking by many on RAHE are
really great sounding systems.

Steven said


Fortunately there seem to be more than a few *above average* audiophiles
around,
too, if yuou know where to look for them.

What? Now we are ranking audiophiles? That would be rather subjective top say
the least. What you consider to be above average may not be what I consider to
be above average.

Steven said

They're the ones who are skeptical
of dubious claims that the average audiophile accepts uncritically.

In your view. How would you rank Dave Wilson as an audiophile? How about Bill
Johnson? How would you rank Jim West, Richard Vandersteen or Gayle Sanders? I
think they all have pretty great systems as their reference systems.

Steven said


IMHO, of course.


Of course.

Steven said


Some people don't like the 'euphonic' distortions of turntables, either.


I said



I understand that but it would be unfair and IMOP unreasonable to compare
the
colorations of highend LP playback to the colorations of Bose speakers.



By what reasoning?


I think I have explained it in this thread.

On 1 Oct 2003 17:23:15 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

Stewart said

Oh, really? Let's review the position - you agree that there are only
a few 'audiophiles' who like Bose speakers, you agree that flat
response and deep bass are not critical to musical enjoyment, and yet
you *still* don't see the parallel with SET amplifiers, which are
undeniably technically deficient in several areas, and are popular
with only a few 'audiophiles'. What's the difference?
--
I forgot to mention that even if I did agree with all of the above it still
doesn't change the fact that what Tom said: "Bose has brought decent music to
seniors and accountants who think invisible speakers are more important than
deep bass and flat respons and/or could really use a boom-box but wouldn't be
caught dead with a regular one." Is still totally irrelevant to my objections
to your comparison between Bose speakers and SETs.

Please show how one horribly flawed but widely revered component is
different in any real way from another horribly flawed but widely
derided component.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

I said


Of course you can find many
dedicated audiophiles that are SET enthusiasts on Rec. Audio tubes and on
the
Audio Asylum. They have their own subcatagory there. Bose does not.


Steven said


Is that reasonable,

Is what reasonable? My argument is supported by this fact IMO. I think my
position is quite reasonable. Are SET enthusiasts reasonable? i cannot speak
for such a large group, most of whom I don't know personally. I am sure many of
them are reasonable people.


Steven said

or simply prejudice?

?

Steven said

Given the stuff I see daily on
Audio Asylum, I must conclude the latter.


Not really relevant to my point.


Steven said


Audiophiles can't have it both ways -- if something that they admit
exhibits 'euphonic distortion' -- turntables, tube amps, speakers --
can also be considered fit for discussion on 'audiophile' newsgroups,
then why not Bose?

What are you talking about? First, not everyone who likes tube amps and
turntables believe it is a distortion that leads to their preference. But even
for the ones who do, what is it you are saying? That they must also like Bose
speakers because they are distorted? Who said that SET enthusiasts believe Bose
should not be discussed? This is a strawman. I have never riased such an issue.


Steven said


Are they saying that Bose *cannot* sound euphonic?

No. The people who don't like Bose are saying in their experience they didn't
sound euphonic.

Steven said

Are they saying
that NO TRUE AUDIOPHILE could enjoy their sound?

People say all kinds of things.


Steven said

Mr. Eickmeyer,
who IIRC is no slouch in the audio gear department, would disagree.

So?

Steven said

Moreover, who determines what a 'true' audiophile is?


IMO everyone decides for themselves.

Stewart said

Fine, but we're not talking about your personal opinion (or mine),
we're talking about the general perception. While you and I don't like
SETs, they have a certain reputation among audiophiles in general, of
whom Dorsey/Wheel is an example.


I said


Please don't speak for me unless you can manage to do so with reasonable
accuracy.

Stewart said


You already spoke for yourself in this matter.

Nope. Get your facts straight please. Feel free to quote any opinion I have
expressed about the sound of SETs. Quote me.

Stewart said

I make no claim for universal appeal, since clearly the SET market is
absolutely tiny. My point is that the typically snobbish
self-acclaimed 'audiophile' seems to find the notion of SETs being in
the same class as B&O or Bose to be quite offensive. See Dorsey aka
Wheel's comments in this thread.

I said


I thought personal attacks were no longer allowed on RAHE. I am clearly
being
called a snobbish self-aclaimmed 'audiophile'. I'm guessing that the
quotation
marks are there just to show you don't think I am a real audiophile.

Stewart said


The reference was to your comments.

Maybe you better review those comments for some understanding of them. It seems
you don't understand them so far.

Stewart said

If you feel that you fit the
description, that's up to you.


I feel you have misrepresented my opinions.

I said


Talk about
snobbery. Weren't you the one who said you think everyone who disagrees with
you on audio was either an idiot or ignorant?

Stewart said


Yes, I did.

Such a belief is the pinacle of snobbery IMO.

Stewart said

Of course, I failed to mention those who simply have an
agenda, and *refuse* to maintain an honest debate.

Well naturally! Anyone who disagrees with you is dishonest as well as stupid.
And you call others snobby? Funny, you impy that I am dishonest, stupid and a
snob and yet you base this on a complete misrepresentation of my opinions.

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 04:47:02 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

I said


I see the parallel as you have presented it. You picked a very unpopular line
of speakers amoung audiophiles and likened the performance of SETs to them
because you don't like them either. The parallel is flawed IMO because many
devoted hardcore audiophiles like SETs. The same simply cannot accurately be
said of Bose.

Stewart said

That *is* the point, since both have deep technical flaws,

OSAF

Don't be ridiculous! SETs have *horrific* technical flaws - that's why
push-pull amps were *invented* back in the '20s! This is absolutely
typical of the blinkered response from 'audiophiles' to which I'm
referring.

Stewart said

both sound
'pleasant',

Not to me. not to most hardcore audiophiles. Do you think Bose sound pleasant?
Or was this disingenuous?

I think that Bose and B&O sound pleasant, indeed, they expend a lot of
effort in making sure that their units sound pleasant - otherwise no
one would buy them. There should be a 'duh' in there somewhere.....

Stewart said

and yet one is revered while the other is derided,

By some hardcore audiophiles. At least you got this half right.

Stewart said

by a
certain type of self-acclaimed 'audiophile'.

Your attack on such audiophiles for their preference is noted.

Typical debating trickery, avoiding the issue.

Stewart said

Of course you know this,

Claim of mind reading is noted.

Stewart said

you are simply being disingenuous.

Personal attack noted. Such personal attacks are usually the last resort for
someone who cannot support their position with facts and logic. I accept your
concession.I guess the moderators have given up the fight to keep such nonsense
out of RAHE. Of course, I must always remember your opinion about anyone who
disagrees with your views on audio. Your modesty is noted as well.

Typical debating trickery, avoiding the issue. I note that you fail to
afddress the point at issue - whether SETs should be classified
alonside B&O and Bose - in favour of personalisation.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 04:52:09 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

Steven said

Is it because Bose are arguably overpriced?

No. It's because people listen to them and don't like them.

Oh, really? I guess that's why Bose is the biggest selling
manufacturer, because people listen and don't like them?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

S888Wheel wrote:
I said


Of course you can find many
dedicated audiophiles that are SET enthusiasts on Rec. Audio tubes and on
the
Audio Asylum. They have their own subcatagory there. Bose does not.


Steven said


Is that reasonable,

Is what reasonable? My argument is supported by this fact IMO. I think my
position is quite reasonable. Are SET enthusiasts reasonable? i cannot speak
for such a large group, most of whom I don't know personally. I am sure many of
them are reasonable people.


Steven said

or simply prejudice?

?


sigh Let's try again. What is *your* explanation for the nonexistence
of a subcategory for Bose on Audio Asylum? WHy have you asserted AA as an
'authority' in your argment here?



--
-S.

mkuller wrote:
The 901s create an artificial
ambience by reflecting sound in many different directions off room surfaces,
rather than seeking to preserve the ambience captured by the microphones on
the
recording. It's just wrong.


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
Fine, I entirely accept your argument.

Wait - Pinkerton agreeing with me? Wow, this must be my lucky day.
I'm going out to buy a lottery ticket...

By the same token, we do not
want cables that add anything to the uncoloured sound coming out of
the amplifier, and we most certainly don't want an amplifier that has
'no highs, no lows,

Unless you listen to music that has no highs or lows - like vocals,
baroque or chamber music - where it doesn't matter. Or perhaps you
use Quad ESL-57s or ESL-63s which are very similar to SETs - they
have no highs or lows, can't play loud and have very limited dynamic
range, but provide a very intimate, detailed and transparent view on
the midrange.


must be Bose' as a fundamental characteristic,
such as you'll find with SETs, not to mention the total lack of
dynamic contrast caused by the 'soft clipping' effect, and that
artificial 'loudness' caused by the rapid onset of distortion above
1/3 power. SETs (and many other tube amps) have an additional problem,
in that those large tubes suffer microphony and reverberation,
creating an artificial ambiance, rather than seeking to preserve the
ambience captured by the microphones on the recording. It's just
plain wrong.


Unfortunately, you've taken my comment a little too far as usual.
Bench measurements don't tell the whole story about 'music
reproduction'. No audio component is 'perfect' at reproducing an
input - every component has some distortion somewhere. And some types
of distortion get more in the way of music enjoyment than others.
Personally, I prefer the distortion of a good tubed amplifier
reproducing music than the distortions of most solid state amps,
which irritate me over the long term. As far as SET amps go, they may
measure poorly, but their proponents claim they provide a more
realistic reproduction of music (based on comparison to live
unamplified instruments) than other amps. They may not be your or my
cup of tea, but they have their following - like Bose 901s. If there
wasn't a market for them (like colored cables) they wouldn't be
manufactured. To each his own, different strokes for ...and other
cliches.
Regards,
Mike