"Peter Sammon" wrote in message


The small drivers themselves boast heavy magnets and high quality
voice coils as they must move an enormous amount of air.

Myth number one: A reasonable number of small drivers can move as much air
as a single large one, all other things being equal.

The hidden agenda is linear stroke.

Let's compare a 4" driver and an 8" driver. How many 4" drivers does it take
to move as much air as an 8" driver?

The naive answer is 4, presuming that cone area is proportional to diameter,
squared. True for theoretical geometry, not true for speakers.

Speakers have flexible surrounds and a fraction of the area of the surround
must be deducted from the area of the cone. However, the width of the
surround is not proportional to the diameter of the speaker, but rather is
dependent on the designer's goals for maximum linear stroke. IOW an 8"
speaker with a certain linear stroke will have a surround that is a certain
width. If the 4" speaker has the same linear stroke, then its surround will
have to be the same width. However, since the diameter of the smaller
speaker is quite a bit smaller, the surround takes up a greater proportion
of the diameter of the speaker. IOW, the area of the actual moving part of
the smaller cone is even less than proportionately smaller.

For small speakers, it may take 5 4" speakers to have the same moving cone
area as an 8" speaker due to the loss of effective moving diaphragm area
because of the width of the surround.

Secondly, smaller speakers, all other things being equal, don't have the
same linear stroke as larger speakers. Speakers tend to scale in all
dimensions. Not only is a 4" speaker half the diameter of an 8" speaker, but
it will have half the linear stroke, all other things being equal.

In short, it might take as many as 10 4" speakers to have the air-moving
capacity of a single 8" speaker, all other things being equal.

The multi
chambered ACOUSTIC MATRIX enclosure vents the speaker in a most
unusual way with air
speeds exceeding 60 mph! Three ports or jets protrude through the
rear of the 901 enclosure.

Knowledgeable speaker designers know that high air velocity in ports is
anathema. High air velocities lead to higher turbulence, and turbulent flow
tends to be noisy flow. One sign of a quality ported speaker is a large,
low-velocity port.

Because of the use of small full range drivers, an active equalizer
which is absolutely essential to the system is used in place of the
normal CROSSOVERS that introduce distortion no matter how well
engineered. The 901 EQ simply smooths out any bumps or irregularities in
the system's
power response.

Plan B: build a system that is essentially acoustically flat. Not mission
impossible in this day and age.

Now for the seriously damning facts about the Bose 901. When the 901 was
built, not that much was generally known about optimizing the performance of
arrays of small drivers. It turns out that arrays of small drivers can be a
real can of worms, if smooth, well-balanced frequency response is desired.
I'm quite sure that if Bose were to design the 901 today with a clean piece
of paper, they'd do it quite a bit differently.

Probably the most serious problem with designs based on ad-hoc collections
of identical small drivers is that they can have very rough frequency
response (lobing and comb-filter effects) when you move slightly off-axis,
and they can also have frequency response that is a strong function of
distance from the speaker to the listener. There are ways to manage these
problems with generally involve putting the drivers on curved baffles,
and/or adjusting the level and/or frequency response of the drive to the
various drivers. However, the classic Bose 901 design really does neither of
these things well.

Here's an AES paper that points out these problems and potential solutions
in some detail:

Author(s): Keele, Jr., D. B.
Publication: JAES Volume 38 Number 10 pp. 723·748; October 1990
Abstract: The Bessel array is a configuration of five, seven, or nine
identical loudspeakers in an equal-spaced line array that provides the same
overall polar pattern as a single loudspeaker of the array

One important point is that the no way is the Bose 901 a Bessel array.
A second important point is that of all the Bessel arrays analyzed, 5
drivers in a row was found to be the only one that was recommended.

"Arny Krueger"

Now for the seriously damning facts about the Bose 901. When the 901 was
built, not that much was generally known about optimizing the performance
of
arrays of small drivers. It turns out that arrays of small drivers can be
a
real can of worms, if smooth, well-balanced frequency response is desired.
I'm quite sure that if Bose were to design the 901 today with a clean
piece
of paper, they'd do it quite a bit differently.


** What - you mean there is an even " cheaper " way than the one used
now ;-)


Probably the most serious problem with designs based on ad-hoc collections
of identical small drivers is that they can have very rough frequency
response (lobing and comb-filter effects) when you move slightly off-axis,
and they can also have frequency response that is a strong function of
distance from the speaker to the listener. There are ways to manage these
problems with generally involve putting the drivers on curved baffles,
and/or adjusting the level and/or frequency response of the drive to the
various drivers. However, the classic Bose 901 design really does neither
of
these things well.

Here's an AES paper that points out these problems and potential solutions
in some detail:

Author(s): Keele, Jr., D. B.
Publication: JAES Volume 38 Number 10 pp. 723·748; October 1990
Abstract: The Bessel array is a configuration of five, seven, or
nine
identical loudspeakers in an equal-spaced line array that provides the
same
overall polar pattern as a single loudspeaker of the array

One important point is that the no way is the Bose 901 a Bessel
array.
A second important point is that of all the Bessel arrays analyzed, 5
drivers in a row was found to be the only one that was recommended.


** Hang on Arny, what multi driver array has the 901 really got ?????

The answer is none. There is only ONE driver facing the listener.

You are mixing the 901 up with the 802 PA speaker.




.......... Phil

"Phil Allison" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger"

Now for the seriously damning facts about the Bose 901. When the 901
was built, not that much was generally known about optimizing the
performance of arrays of small drivers. It turns out that arrays of
small drivers can be
a
real can of worms, if smooth, well-balanced frequency response is
desired. I'm quite sure that if Bose were to design the 901 today
with a clean
piece
of paper, they'd do it quite a bit differently.


** What - you mean there is an even " cheaper " way than the
one used now ;-)


Probably the most serious problem with designs based on ad-hoc
collections of identical small drivers is that they can have very
rough frequency response (lobing and comb-filter effects) when you
move slightly off-axis, and they can also have frequency response
that is a strong function of distance from the speaker to the
listener. There are ways to manage these problems with generally
involve putting the drivers on curved baffles, and/or adjusting the
level and/or frequency response of the drive to the various drivers.
However, the classic Bose 901 design really does neither of these
things well.

Here's an AES paper that points out these problems and potential
solutions in some detail:

Author(s): Keele, Jr., D. B.
Publication: JAES Volume 38 Number 10 pp. 723·748; October 1990
Abstract: The Bessel array is a configuration of five, seven,
or
nine
identical loudspeakers in an equal-spaced line array that provides
the
same
overall polar pattern as a single loudspeaker of the array

One important point is that the no way is the Bose 901 a
Bessel array. A second important point is that of all the Bessel
arrays analyzed, 5 drivers in a row was found to be the only one
that was recommended.


** Hang on Arny, what multi driver array has the 901 really got
?????

The answer is none. There is only ONE driver facing the listener.

You are mixing the 901 up with the 802 PA speaker.

Phil, what are those two arrays of 4 speakers on the back of the 901? Or, am
I imagining that I saw them there?

"Arny Krueger"
"Phil Allison"


** Hang on Arny, what multi driver array has the 901 really got
?????

The answer is none. There is only ONE driver facing the listener.

You are mixing the 901 up with the 802 PA speaker.

Phil, what are those two arrays of 4 speakers on the back of the 901? Or,
am
I imagining that I saw them there?



** Oh come on Arny !!!!!

There is no significant "lobing and comb-filter effects" with a driver
array that is **NOT** facing the listener - compared with one that is.


............ Phil

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
u
"Arny Krueger"
"Phil Allison"


** Hang on Arny, what multi driver array has the 901 really got
?????

The answer is none. There is only ONE driver facing the
listener.

You are mixing the 901 up with the 802 PA speaker.

Phil, what are those two arrays of 4 speakers on the back of the
901? Or, am I imagining that I saw them there?

** Oh come on Arny !!!!!

OK, so we agree that there are in fact two arrays of 4 drivers each back
there, right?

There is no significant "lobing and comb-filter effects" with a
driver array that is **NOT** facing the listener - compared with
one that is.

In most cases the back drivers on a 901 are facing a smooth wall. Lobes
bounced off a wall are still lobes. Furthermore, there are those oddities
where the array has a critical distance, and significantly different
frequency response when the listener is closer or further than the critical
distance. This affects 89% of the sound coming out of a 901, if Bose is to
be believed.

"Arny Krueger" ..
"Phil Allison"

** Hang on Arny, what multi driver array has the 901 really got
?????

The answer is none. There is only ONE driver facing the
listener.

You are mixing the 901 up with the 802 PA speaker.

Phil, what are those two arrays of 4 speakers on the back of the
901? Or, am I imagining that I saw them there?

** Oh come on Arny !!!!!

OK, so we agree that there are in fact two arrays of 4 drivers each back
there, right?


** That is a red herring - Arny.



There is no significant "lobing and comb-filter effects" with a
driver array that is **NOT** facing the listener - compared with
one that is.


In most cases the back drivers on a 901 are facing a smooth wall. Lobes
bounced off a wall are still lobes.


** The lobes are spread way out by the off angle reflection and lost to
the listener.

A listener seated in the usual central position could not detect them.



Furthermore, there are those oddities where the array has a critical
distance,


** Define your terms, please.


This affects 89% of the sound coming out of a 901, if Bose is to be
believed.


** The "Hass" effect plus the extra proximity and brighter sound of the
forward facing driver normally makes it the apparent source for a centrally
positioned listener.

The other rear facing ones will produce a delayed and duller sound -
depending on the nature of the walls, distance away and their coefficient of
absorption at various frequencies. If the walls are far away and
acoustically dead then the forward facing driver dominates strongly.

The "lobing ... effects" are only going to be audible if the listener
moves their head in the direct field where the lobes exist - ie behind the
901.

The "...comb-filter effects" are audible where rear wall proximity and
reflection of sound creates them - it is not due to the way the drivers are
arrayed.

IME both the 901 and 802 suffer from *gross* IM and Doppler distortion at
high SPL levels - nauseatingly so to my ears.




............. Phil

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
u
"Arny Krueger" ..
"Phil Allison"

** Hang on Arny, what multi driver array has the 901 really got
?????

The answer is none. There is only ONE driver facing the
listener.

You are mixing the 901 up with the 802 PA speaker.

Phil, what are those two arrays of 4 speakers on the back of the
901? Or, am I imagining that I saw them there?

** Oh come on Arny !!!!!

OK, so we agree that there are in fact two arrays of 4 drivers each
back there, right?


** That is a red herring - Arny.



There is no significant "lobing and comb-filter effects" with a
driver array that is **NOT** facing the listener - compared with
one that is.


In most cases the back drivers on a 901 are facing a smooth wall.
Lobes bounced off a wall are still lobes.


** The lobes are spread way out by the off angle reflection and
lost to the listener.

A listener seated in the usual central position could not detect
them.



Furthermore, there are those oddities where the array has a critical
distance,

** Define your terms, please.

I've cited this paper once already, and it's clear that there aren't a lot
of people on this thread who have actually even glanced at it:

Author(s): Keele, Jr., D. B. Publication: JAES Volume 38 Number 10 pp.
723·748; October 1990.

Well, not everybody has the kind of library I have at my disposal. Sadly, I
can't find any online references with enough detail. The "critical distance"
w/r/t to an array of speakers is the point where the sound from the array
drivers starts to fuse into a single pattern. This is independent of the
reverberant nature of the room - it is actually most noticeable in an
anechoic room. The parameters of the fusion are frequency and array-design
dependent. This has the result that even aside from the lobing, the
frequency response of the array changes quite a bit as you move away from
it. At some point it stabilizes, but this is usually some distance from the
array.

So much for arrays in general. One strength of a good Bessel array is that
this effect is minimized. The dispersion gets smoother as you move away, but
the average response is more consistent at most practical distances. Just to
clarify, I'm not recommending using any kind of multi-speaker array for near
field critical listening.


This affects 89% of the sound coming out of a 901, if Bose is to be
believed.

** The "Hass" effect plus the extra proximity and brighter sound of
the forward facing driver normally makes it the apparent source for a
centrally positioned listener.

Already considered. Since I've been doing SR quite a bit I've learned to
love the Haas effect and figuratively take it to the bank every opportunity.
However, Haas Effect fusion is not perfect - there is some perception of
added fullness or fuzziness, depending on the individual perceptions.

The other rear facing ones will produce a delayed and duller sound
- depending on the nature of the walls, distance away and their
coefficient of absorption at various frequencies. If the walls are
far away and acoustically dead then the forward facing driver
dominates strongly.

Agreed that if the back wall is dead than much of what the back speakers do
is moot. However, most architectural features are not good absorbers below 1
KHz, less below 500 Hz, and very few below 200 Hz. Since all drivers in the
901 are supposedly full-range...

The "lobing ... effects" are only going to be audible if the
listener moves their head in the direct field where the lobes exist
- ie behind the 901.

Or as I've said once and feel somewhat put-upon to have to repeat - the
lobes will exist in front of the 901s if the walls are good reflectors. Bose
seems to recommend using a reflective back wall, see page 6 of
http://www.bose.com/pdf/customer_ser...ers/og_901.pdf .

The "...comb-filter effects" are audible where rear wall proximity
and reflection of sound creates them - it is not due to the way the
drivers are arrayed.

I've cited this paper once already, and it's clear that there aren't a lot
of people on this thread who have actually even glanced at it:

Author(s): Keele, Jr., D. B.
Publication: JAES Volume 38 Number 10 pp. 723·748; October 1990
Abstract: The Bessel array is a configuration of five, seven,

The title of the paper is misleading in that some of the "Bessel Arrays"
that are analyzed are really common configurations that we know and maybe
*love*.


IME both the 901 and 802 suffer from *gross* IM and Doppler
distortion at high SPL levels - nauseatingly so to my ears.

Well, that too. I think we're now agreeing about one of my earlier points
about how many small drivers it takes to equal a larger one. On a good day a
Bose 901 should be equaled or bettered in the bass range by a single long
stroke (i.e., JL Audio W7 series or equivalent) 8 or 10 inch driver.

On detailed inspection, the Bose 901 suffers from what now looks like a
really bad basic design. It was controversial when it was new, but that was
then and this is now. It's been around for about 30 years, right? I suspect
that even Bose would like to send it out to pasture.

For serious listening, if that's possible at all with a speaker with so many
inherent flaws, 901s should be used with a competent subwoofer.

There is no significant "lobing and comb-filter effects" with a driver
array that is **NOT** facing the listener -- compared with one that is.

I'm inclined to agree about the lobing -- IF you're far enough back. But I
disagree about comb filtering.

JGH was the first to point this out. The rear drivers "spray" the sound at an
angle against the rear wall. This results in multiple arrival times at the
listener's ears. There is additional interference with the output of the front
driver, as well.

I don't know why these points are still being argued 36 years after the 901 was
introduced. The 901 is a poor speaker, NOT because Arny or I or JGH or anyone
else doesn't like the way it sounds (the 901 can be quite euphonic, actually),
but because everything about its design contradicts what is needed for accurate,
REALISTIC sound reproduction. The 901s are to speakers (roughly) what DynaGroove
was to phonograph records.

I'm tempted to use Julian Hirsch's favorable review as the ultimate condemnation
of his reviewing career, but the sad truth is that many other reviewers -- who
should have known better, and later admitted it -- were taken in. As I was.

As JGH said, in a hi-fi store the 901s sound like the truth and the light. This,
combined with the revolutionary "paradigm shift" the 901s represented, lead many
listeners to believe they represented a real advance in sound reproduction.

"Arny Krueger"
"Phil Allison"

There is no significant "lobing and comb-filter effects" with a
driver array that is **NOT** facing the listener - compared with
one that is.

In most cases the back drivers on a 901 are facing a smooth wall.
Lobes bounced off a wall are still lobes.


** The lobes are spread way out by the off angle reflection and
lost to the listener. A listener seated in the usual central position
could not detect
them.

Furthermore, there are those oddities where the array has a critical
distance,

** Define your terms, please.

I've cited this paper once already, and it's clear that there aren't a lot
of people on this thread who have actually even glanced at it:

** Being pompous and quoting absent documents does you no credit.



Author(s): Keele, Jr., D. B. Publication: JAES Volume 38 Number 10 pp.
723·748; October 1990.

Well, not everybody has the kind of library I have at my disposal. Sadly,
I
can't find any online references with enough detail. The "critical
distance"
w/r/t to an array of speakers is the point where the sound from the array
drivers starts to fuse into a single pattern.

** Which makes your original "oddities" remark even more mysterious.



This affects 89% of the sound coming out of a 901, if Bose is to be
believed.

** The "Hass" effect plus the extra proximity and brighter sound of
the forward facing driver normally makes it the apparent source for a
centrally positioned listener.

Already considered. Since I've been doing SR quite a bit I've learned to
love the Haas effect and figuratively take it to the bank every
opportunity.
However, Haas Effect fusion is not perfect - there is some perception of
added fullness or fuzziness, depending on the individual perceptions.

The other rear facing ones will produce a delayed and duller sound
- depending on the nature of the walls, distance away and their
coefficient of absorption at various frequencies. If the walls are
far away and acoustically dead then the forward facing driver
dominates strongly.

Agreed that if the back wall is dead than much of what the back speakers
do
is moot. However, most architectural features are not good absorbers below
1
KHz, less below 500 Hz, and very few below 200 Hz. Since all drivers in
the
901 are supposedly full-range...


** You say there is significant lobing going on at or below 500 Hz from an
array of 4 inch drivers ??

Below 500 Hz 901s pretty soon become non directional - providing there is
actually a wall behind them.




The "lobing ... effects" are only going to be audible if the
listener moves their head in the direct field where the lobes exist
- ie behind the 901.

Or as I've said once and feel somewhat put-upon to have to repeat - the
lobes will exist in front of the 901s if the walls are good reflectors.


** Keep repeating the dubious claim - it gets more convincing every time
you know. You need to show these alleged lobes are actually audible to a
listener seated in the central position on *music* programme.



The "...comb-filter effects" are audible where rear wall proximity
and reflection of sound creates them - it is not due to the way the
drivers are arrayed.

I've cited this paper once already, and it's clear that there aren't a lot
of people on this thread who have actually even glanced at it:


** Quoting the absent expert is a debating cheat - Arny.

You have seen my 10 cheats list.



IME both the 901 and 802 suffer from *gross* IM and Doppler
distortion at high SPL levels - nauseatingly so to my ears.


Well, that too. I think we're now agreeing about one of my earlier points
about how many small drivers it takes to equal a larger one.


** The comparison fails since the Bose 901 has falling output below 300Hz
without its equaliser. Early 901s ( there are at least 12 distinct
versions) used a sealed box with the drivers operating below resonance. The
equaliser added up to 15 dB boost ( 31 times power) at low frequencies to
compensate. The excursion limit of those drivers was *very soon* exceeded
if an amp of any size ( PL700s were popular !) were being used.

A good 10 inch driver has about the same cone area as the 9 used in the
Bose 901. Mounted in a tuned box somewhat bigger than a 901 it could equal
the 901's SPL at low frequencies with 31 times LESS power input and hence
massively reduced THD. Allow that 10 inch to be accompanied by a mid and
treble drivers and IM is reduced to nil as well.

I well remember a demo session with 901s and a PL700 in 1977 - every time
the bass drum thumped there was a distinct crack from the 901s and the mids
and tops went on a short holiday. The only surprising thing was that the
owner thought this sounded great and pushed the PL700 right up to clipping.

I left the room suffering from nausea after 10 minutes - just the sight of
a 901 induces that feeling now.




............. Phil

One complimentary thing I must say about Bose. At least they make enough
money that they still have actual people working there, answering the
phones, repairing equipment (at a fair price, too!) providing tech support,
etc.
My every dealing with the company itself has ended satisfactorily. Not so
with Denon, Marantz, Sony and others I deal with on a regular basis. It's
such a competitive business, with such slim margins, that there's a constant
wave of layoffs, forced retirements etc. Broken promises, people dropping
the ball, voice - and E-mails never returned, incompetent service etc are
the rule these days. Bose is a very pleasant exception to this trend.
Now if their speakers only sounded good!


Mark Z.

--
Please reply only to Group. I regret this is necessary. Viruses and spam
have rendered my regular e-mail address useless.


"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger"
"Phil Allison"

There is no significant "lobing and comb-filter effects" with a
driver array that is **NOT** facing the listener - compared with
one that is.

In most cases the back drivers on a 901 are facing a smooth wall.
Lobes bounced off a wall are still lobes.


** The lobes are spread way out by the off angle reflection and
lost to the listener. A listener seated in the usual central position
could not detect
them.

Furthermore, there are those oddities where the array has a critical
distance,

** Define your terms, please.

I've cited this paper once already, and it's clear that there aren't a
lot
of people on this thread who have actually even glanced at it:

** Being pompous and quoting absent documents does you no credit.



Author(s): Keele, Jr., D. B. Publication: JAES Volume 38 Number 10 pp.
723·748; October 1990.

Well, not everybody has the kind of library I have at my disposal.
Sadly,
I
can't find any online references with enough detail. The "critical
distance"
w/r/t to an array of speakers is the point where the sound from the
array
drivers starts to fuse into a single pattern.

** Which makes your original "oddities" remark even more mysterious.



This affects 89% of the sound coming out of a 901, if Bose is to be
believed.

** The "Hass" effect plus the extra proximity and brighter sound of
the forward facing driver normally makes it the apparent source for a
centrally positioned listener.

Already considered. Since I've been doing SR quite a bit I've learned to
love the Haas effect and figuratively take it to the bank every
opportunity.
However, Haas Effect fusion is not perfect - there is some perception
of
added fullness or fuzziness, depending on the individual perceptions.

The other rear facing ones will produce a delayed and duller sound
- depending on the nature of the walls, distance away and their
coefficient of absorption at various frequencies. If the walls are
far away and acoustically dead then the forward facing driver
dominates strongly.

Agreed that if the back wall is dead than much of what the back speakers
do
is moot. However, most architectural features are not good absorbers
below
1
KHz, less below 500 Hz, and very few below 200 Hz. Since all drivers in
the
901 are supposedly full-range...


** You say there is significant lobing going on at or below 500 Hz from
an
array of 4 inch drivers ??

Below 500 Hz 901s pretty soon become non directional - providing there
is
actually a wall behind them.




The "lobing ... effects" are only going to be audible if the
listener moves their head in the direct field where the lobes exist
- ie behind the 901.

Or as I've said once and feel somewhat put-upon to have to repeat - the
lobes will exist in front of the 901s if the walls are good reflectors.


** Keep repeating the dubious claim - it gets more convincing every
time
you know. You need to show these alleged lobes are actually audible to a
listener seated in the central position on *music* programme.



The "...comb-filter effects" are audible where rear wall proximity
and reflection of sound creates them - it is not due to the way the
drivers are arrayed.

I've cited this paper once already, and it's clear that there aren't a
lot
of people on this thread who have actually even glanced at it:


** Quoting the absent expert is a debating cheat - Arny.

You have seen my 10 cheats list.



IME both the 901 and 802 suffer from *gross* IM and Doppler
distortion at high SPL levels - nauseatingly so to my ears.


Well, that too. I think we're now agreeing about one of my earlier
points
about how many small drivers it takes to equal a larger one.


** The comparison fails since the Bose 901 has falling output below 300Hz
without its equaliser. Early 901s ( there are at least 12 distinct
versions) used a sealed box with the drivers operating below resonance.
The
equaliser added up to 15 dB boost ( 31 times power) at low frequencies to
compensate. The excursion limit of those drivers was *very soon* exceeded
if an amp of any size ( PL700s were popular !) were being used.

A good 10 inch driver has about the same cone area as the 9 used in
the
Bose 901. Mounted in a tuned box somewhat bigger than a 901 it could equal
the 901's SPL at low frequencies with 31 times LESS power input and hence
massively reduced THD. Allow that 10 inch to be accompanied by a mid and
treble drivers and IM is reduced to nil as well.

I well remember a demo session with 901s and a PL700 in 1977 - every
time
the bass drum thumped there was a distinct crack from the 901s and the
mids
and tops went on a short holiday. The only surprising thing was that the
owner thought this sounded great and pushed the PL700 right up to
clipping.

I left the room suffering from nausea after 10 minutes - just the sight
of
a 901 induces that feeling now.




............ Phil

"Mark D. Zacharias"

One complimentary thing I must say about Bose.


** Why ****ing top pot this tripe on one of my posts ?????

Are you some kind of cuckoo ?




........... Phil

Phil Allison wrote:
"Mark D. Zacharias"

One complimentary thing I must say about Bose.



** Why ****ing top pot this tripe on one of my posts ?????

Are you some kind of cuckoo ?



Wow! Tough room...

In article ,
Rob Adelman wrote:

Phil Allison wrote:
"Mark D. Zacharias"

One complimentary thing I must say about Bose.



** Why ****ing top pot this tripe on one of my posts ?????

Are you some kind of cuckoo ?



Wow! Tough room...


Not really Ron
Phil is just a psychopath
nobody responds to him at aapls anymore so he has come trolling for
others to annoy
George

"George"

Not really Ron
Phil is just a psychopath
nobody responds to him at aapls anymore so he has come trolling for
others to annoy
George


** George Gleason is a pig ignorant cowboy - with a PA system for hire.

He has permanent **** on his boots from doing rodeos.

He has no intelligence whatever.

He is the self appointed leader of many NG lunch mobs.

Get my drift ?




.......... Phil

Phil Allison wrote:

He has no intelligence whatever.

He is the self appointed leader of many NG lunch mobs.

Get my drift ?

Hey, I'm always up for a good lunch. What's on the menu? g

He is the self-appointed leader of many NG lunch mobs.

Hmmm... Where do they eat?

"William Sommerwerck"

He is the self-appointed leader of many NG lunch mobs.

Hmmm... Where do they eat?


** Typos do amuse some.



........ Phil

In article ,
"Phil Allison" wrote:

"George"

Not really Ron
Phil is just a psychopath
nobody responds to him at aapls anymore so he has come trolling for
others to annoy
George


** George Gleason is a pig ignorant cowboy - with a PA system for hire.

He has permanent **** on his boots from doing rodeos.

He has no intelligence whatever.

He is the self appointed leader of many NG lunch mobs.

Get my drift ?



Reese does the rodeo's , I do the folk music
George

"George" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Phil Allison" wrote:

"George"

Not really Ron
Phil is just a psychopath
nobody responds to him at aapls anymore so he has come trolling for
others to annoy
George


** George Gleason is a pig ignorant cowboy - with a PA system for
hire.

He has permanent **** on his boots from doing rodeos.

He has no intelligence whatever.

He is the self appointed leader of many NG lunch mobs.

Get my drift ?



Reese does the rodeo's , I do the folk music
George


** So, as you see, he agrees with the rest.




........... Phil

Most of us have a body of work to back up our words. How about you, Phil?

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
u...

"George"

Not really Ron
Phil is just a psychopath
nobody responds to him at aapls anymore so he has come trolling for
others to annoy
George


** George Gleason is a pig ignorant cowboy - with a PA system for hire.

He has permanent **** on his boots from doing rodeos.

He has no intelligence whatever.

He is the self appointed leader of many NG lunch mobs.

Get my drift ?




......... Phil

"Roger W. Norman"

Most of us have a body of work to back up our words.


** Septic Tank ****wits like the one above are obsessed with a phoney
notion called "cred".

If you own some pile of fancy junk or have done something in the public
eye then you get instant "cred !! " Once you have this invisible stuff you
can declare yourself an ** EXPERT** on **ANY** and all topics.

It don't matter one bit that the subject is way outside any actual
knowledge or experience you have.

If someone comes along with less "cred" than another then his views on
whatever topic are dismissed out of hand - no matter how well qualified he
may be on the particular topic and how unqualified the other.

It would be hysterically funny to watch - if the stupid ****s did not
really believe in this insanity.




............ Phil

Phil Allison wrote:


If someone comes along with less "cred" than another then his views on
whatever topic are dismissed out of hand -

No, actually that takes a *special* talent.

BECAUSE, the subject was Bose, and I had another slant on the subject, and
since I had changed the subject a bit, I also changed the subject line a
bit.

****head.

mz


** Why ****ing top pot this tripe on one of my posts ?????

--
Please reply only to Group. I regret this is necessary. Viruses and spam
have rendered my regular e-mail address useless.


"Rob Adelman" wrote in message
...


Phil Allison wrote:
"Mark D. Zacharias"

One complimentary thing I must say about Bose.



** Why ****ing top pot this tripe on one of my posts ?????

Are you some kind of cuckoo ?



Wow! Tough room...

"Peter Sammon" wrote in message
...
wrote in news:_bsVb.18500$8a5.16321
@bignews1.bellsouth.net:


On 2004-02-08 said:
Most of us have a body of work to back up our words.
** Septic Tank ****wits like the one above are obsessed with a
phoney notion called "cred".
Hmmm, I see newsgroup pollution has once again increased in
rec.audio.pro with the appearance of this troll.

Should have known it, a thread on Bose and this creature as well. I
thought something smelled pretty bad in here lately.

Sir, I am but a humble audiophile attempting to enlighten my fellow
audiophiles about the latest advanced audio technology, engineering and
beautiful music played to it's most realistic on Bose speakers.

You call me a troll. You, sir, are wrong. Remember, important advances
such
as Bose technology are ALWAYS contriversial.

I think that Ojunk meant PA is troll-not you.
correction-Phil Alison is not troll,he is just poor prick.

--
--
--
.................................................. ........................
Choky
Prodanovic Aleksandar
YU

"don't use force, "don't use force,
use a larger hammer" use a larger tube
- Choky and IST"
- ZM
.................................................. ...........................

Peter Sammon wrote:
You call me a troll. You, sir, are wrong. Remember, important advances such
as Bose technology are ALWAYS contriversial.

Name one thing Bose invented.

- Logan

Logan Shaw wrote:

Peter Sammon wrote:
You call me a troll. You, sir, are wrong. Remember, important advances such
as Bose technology are ALWAYS contriversial.

Name one thing Bose invented.

Or even one thing that is contriversial.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

"Logan Shaw"
Peter Sammon wrote:
You call me a troll. You, sir, are wrong. Remember, important advances
such
as Bose technology are ALWAYS contriversial.

Name one thing Bose invented.



** Just about all their specifications ;-)



........... Phil

Peter, take some time to listen to what live music sounds like and you will
never want to use your Bose products for anything but plant stands.

No rocket science involved, just music.

"Peter Sammon" wrote in message
...
wrote in news:_bsVb.18500$8a5.16321
@bignews1.bellsouth.net:


On 2004-02-08 said:
Most of us have a body of work to back up our words.
** Septic Tank ****wits like the one above are obsessed with a
phoney notion called "cred".
Hmmm, I see newsgroup pollution has once again increased in
rec.audio.pro with the appearance of this troll.

Should have known it, a thread on Bose and this creature as well. I
thought something smelled pretty bad in here lately.

Sir, I am but a humble audiophile attempting to enlighten my fellow
audiophiles about the latest advanced audio technology, engineering and
beautiful music played to it's most realistic on Bose speakers.

You call me a troll. You, sir, are wrong. Remember, important advances
such
as Bose technology are ALWAYS contriversial.

Bob Cain wrote:


Name one thing Bose invented.


Or even one thing that is contriversial.

l.o.l.

Isn't that a legitimate new Bush word though?

"Logan Shaw" wrote in message
...
Peter Sammon wrote:
You call me a troll. You, sir, are wrong. Remember, important advances
such
as Bose technology are ALWAYS contriversial.

Name one thing Bose invented.


Did'nt they invent worldwide mass-marketing for a sub-standard loudspeaker?

I would guess'ti'mate that by their advertising that the name has more
recognition among the general public than any other.

In a vast crossposting onto the following innocent newsgroups:
rec.audio.tubes,
rec.audio.pro,
rec.audio.misc,
Peter Sammon wrote:

wrote in news:_bsVb.18500$8a5.16321
:


On 2004-02-08 said:
Most of us have a body of work to back up our words.
** Septic Tank ****wits like the one above are obsessed with a
phoney notion called "cred".
Hmmm, I see newsgroup pollution has once again increased in
rec.audio.pro with the appearance of this troll.

Should have known it, a thread on Bose and this creature as well. I
thought something smelled pretty bad in here lately.

Sir, I am but a humble audiophile attempting to enlighten my fellow
audiophiles about the latest advanced audio technology, engineering and
beautiful music played to it's most realistic on Bose speakers.

You call me a troll.

A careful reading shows that he was calling
a troll. But hey, if the shoe fits...

You, sir, are wrong. Remember, important advances such
as Bose technology are ALWAYS contriversial.

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

Prometheus wrote:

Did'nt they invent worldwide mass-marketing for a sub-standard loudspeaker?

No way. Motiograph did this decades before.
--scott

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

"Ben Bradley" wrote in message
...
In a vast crossposting onto the following innocent newsgroups:
rec.audio.tubes,
rec.audio.pro,
rec.audio.misc,
Peter Sammon wrote:

He posted it to rec.audio.tech too. So far, not a single response. Hmmm...

Phread

Prometheus wrote:

"Logan Shaw" wrote in message
...
Peter Sammon wrote:
You call me a troll. You, sir, are wrong. Remember, important advances
such
as Bose technology are ALWAYS contriversial.

Name one thing Bose invented.


Did'nt they invent worldwide mass-marketing for a sub-standard loudspeaker?

I would guess'ti'mate that by their advertising that the name has more
recognition among the general public than any other.

Very sad and likely very true.

By chance, I was visiting a small local industrial estate the other day and
passed by a large electrical / electronic retail warehouse.

Amongst the respectable brand names prominently placed on the facade was indeed
Bose !

shrugs shoulders

Graham

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:



For serious listening, if that's possible at all with a speaker with so
many
inherent flaws, 901s should be used with a competent subwoofer.





Add a good tweeter and maybe a good midrange and then you might have
something.

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

I bought a pair of Boze 501s from a thrift store, and promptly put them on
eBay after a good listen.

However, my car came stock with a Bose sound system. I don't know if they
made the radio, but it's FM section beats every other receiver that I have
tried in its ability to receive one faint (and favorite) station clearly.

In fact, I was thinking about going to the salvage yard getting another just
like it so I could receive the station at home . . . .

The Bose auto application sounds quite good. It's apparent that the system
has been equalized for the passenger section, because the same source
material often ounds quite different when played at home.

My point? Maybe Bose does a few things well . . .





From: Rich Andrews
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Newsgroups: rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.misc
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:33:38 -0000
Subject: Bose 901 Review

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:



For serious listening, if that's possible at all with a speaker with so
many
inherent flaws, 901s should be used with a competent subwoofer.





Add a good tweeter and maybe a good midrange and then you might have
something.

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

"Rich Andrews" wrote in message
.44
"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:



For serious listening, if that's possible at all with a speaker with
so many inherent flaws, 901s should be used with a competent
subwoofer.





Add a good tweeter and maybe a good midrange and then you might have
something.

LOL!

"Phil Allison"

"William Sommerwerck"

He is the self-appointed leader of many NG lunch mobs.

Hmmm... Where do they eat?


** Typos do amuse some.



....... Phil


Especially when they are made with such bravado.

Lines: 24
Message-ID:
X-Trace: pcpocbcnbdmdhgfgdbdpiflmbcekedmfhojhikkbagflhcbola bocfhpopbimgcfecjobkgamippnjnhhkgmbecfekikinnmkmjh khgeliomjaoinfealbidafnhbcfkjclehipnkaofnpocmahnel fnpndmfcag
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 10:02:18 EST
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 15:02:18 GMT
Xref: intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com rec.audio.tubes:279070 rec.audio.pro:1037498 rec.audio.misc:76934


On 2004-02-08 said:
Most of us have a body of work to back up our words.
** Septic Tank ****wits like the one above are obsessed with a
phoney notion called "cred".
Hmmm, I see newsgroup pollution has once again increased in
rec.audio.pro with the appearance of this troll.

Should have known it, a thread on Bose and this creature as well. I
thought something smelled pretty bad in here lately.



Richard Webb
Electric Spider Productions
REplace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real email

--



Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
A: Why is top posting frowned upon?