Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
gregz gregz is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 131
Default Bose 901

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Yes that's 3 db down at 30 Hz from 1khz. My old boxes resonated at 100 Hz.
That was the peak.

Sure, if you do a swept sine test without a filter. Put 30 Hz into the box
and you get output, but none of that output is actually at 30 Hz.



Not true.
If you put 30 Hz into a closed box speaker, sure you'll get some 30 Hz out.
I used to put 16 Hz in and rattle the window, but almost nothing heard
except the spiders.
You will also find a delay of the 30 Hz since it's below resonance, the
spider will slow it down and cause a phase shift.

Thats all I'm going to rehash about the 901, plenty of old stuff in the
archives.

Greg
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default Bose 901


"gregz" wrote in message
...
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Yes that's 3 db down at 30 Hz from 1khz. My old boxes resonated at 100 Hz.
That was the peak.

Sure, if you do a swept sine test without a filter. Put 30 Hz into the box
and you get output, but none of that output is actually at 30 Hz.



Not true.
If you put 30 Hz into a closed box speaker, sure you'll get some 30 Hz
out.
I used to put 16 Hz in and rattle the window,


Some "closed box speakers" perhaps, but not one with 4" drivers.

Trevor.




  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
MrTallyman MrTallyman is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Bose 901

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:28:07 +1000, "Trevor" wrote:


"gregz" wrote in message
...
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Yes that's 3 db down at 30 Hz from 1khz. My old boxes resonated at 100 Hz.
That was the peak.

Sure, if you do a swept sine test without a filter. Put 30 Hz into the box
and you get output, but none of that output is actually at 30 Hz.



Not true.
If you put 30 Hz into a closed box speaker, sure you'll get some 30 Hz
out.
I used to put 16 Hz in and rattle the window,


Some "closed box speakers" perhaps, but not one with 4" drivers.

Trevor.



I still have a nice pair of circa 1972 Scott acoustic suspension
speakers. The 8 Inch driver 3 way model. Finding a sealed driver (cone,
button, and surround)is not easy. But they are still fine and still make
great surround speakers.
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
gregz gregz is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 131
Default Bose 901

MrTallyman wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:28:07 +1000, "Trevor" wrote:


"gregz" wrote in message
...
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Yes that's 3 db down at 30 Hz from 1khz. My old boxes resonated at 100 Hz.
That was the peak.

Sure, if you do a swept sine test without a filter. Put 30 Hz into the box
and you get output, but none of that output is actually at 30 Hz.



Not true.
If you put 30 Hz into a closed box speaker, sure you'll get some 30 Hz
out.
I used to put 16 Hz in and rattle the window,


Some "closed box speakers" perhaps, but not one with 4" drivers.

Trevor.



I still have a nice pair of circa 1972 Scott acoustic suspension
speakers. The 8 Inch driver 3 way model. Finding a sealed driver (cone,
button, and surround)is not easy. But they are still fine and still make
great surround speakers.


I don't completely understand that. My first set of pre built speakers I
bought in1969 from allied radio, Utah components, acoustic suspension. Then
I had AR4x's. I still have small set of advents in the garage, and I recall
rebuilding a set of AR2ax's in the 80's. In the army in 1970' I really
wanted a set of AR3's but out of range for me. I settled for upside down
trash can's in the barracks, with radio shack coaxial's

Greg
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default Bose 901


"MrTallyman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:28:07 +1000, "Trevor" wrote:
"gregz" wrote in message
...
I used to put 16 Hz in and rattle the window,


Some "closed box speakers" perhaps, but not one with 4" drivers.

I still have a nice pair of circa 1972 Scott acoustic suspension
speakers. The 8 Inch driver 3 way model. Finding a sealed driver (cone,
button, and surround)is not easy. But they are still fine and still make
great surround speakers.


What has that got to do with the Bose 901's though?

Trevor.




  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Dick Pierce[_2_] Dick Pierce[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 151
Default Bose 901

gregz wrote:
You will also find a delay of the 30 Hz since it's below resonance, the
spider will slow it down and cause a phase shift.


Uh, no. The spider does not "slow it down and cause a
phase shift." Whatever phase shift exists is not because
the "spider slows it down."

Thats all I'm going to rehash about the 901,


That's good to know.

plenty of old stuff in the archives.


And just like the Internet in general, some of it right,
some of it wrong, and much of it irrelevant.

--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+
  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Dick Pierce[_2_] Dick Pierce[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 151
Default Bose 901

MrTallyman wrote:
I still have a nice pair of circa 1972 Scott acoustic suspension
speakers. The 8 Inch driver 3 way model. Finding a sealed driver (cone,
button, and surround)is not easy. But they are still fine and still make
great surround speakers.


I remember Scott's ad compaign at the time: the basic theme was
"Where do Scott speakers sound best." I also remember Jim
Wilkinson taping the ad to the bottom of the lid of the
toilet in the bathroom at the hi fi store where he worked.

--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+
  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
gregz gregz is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 131
Default Bose 901

Dick Pierce wrote:
gregz wrote:
You will also find a delay of the 30 Hz since it's below resonance, the
spider will slow it down and cause a phase shift.


Uh, no. The spider does not "slow it down and cause a
phase shift." Whatever phase shift exists is not because
the "spider slows it down."


I guessed. When I was trying to figure out transmission line speakers, I
experimented with a 6.5 inch driver and a pipe. I was trying to figure out
delays along the pipe with stuffing. I first used the generator as sync and
measured various lengths along pipe. What was predicted was lower
frequencies having longer delays through stuffing. Until I placed a second
mic right behind the driver did I discover the delay was caused by the
driver. This was below resonate frequency of driver. I never found the
predicted longer delay at lower frequencies according to at least one
paper.

Greg

Thats all I'm going to rehash about the 901,

That's good to know.

plenty of old stuff in the archives.


And just like the Internet in general, some of it right,
some of it wrong, and much of it irrelevant.

  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
gregz gregz is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 131
Default Bose 901

Dick Pierce wrote:
MrTallyman wrote:
I still have a nice pair of circa 1972 Scott acoustic suspension
speakers. The 8 Inch driver 3 way model. Finding a sealed driver (cone,
button, and surround)is not easy. But they are still fine and still make
great surround speakers.

I remember Scott's ad compaign at the time: the basic theme was
"Where do Scott speakers sound best." I also remember Jim
Wilkinson taping the ad to the bottom of the lid of the
toilet in the bathroom at the hi fi store where he worked.



I know nothing about Scott speakers, but I read about them from literature
in the 60's. What I do know, they had a small anechoic chamber. I was
staying in a motel in Maynard. One night I walked next door to Scott
through over a foot of snow. I looked in the window. I relived the visions
of the advertising flyer. Anechoic chamber right near the front window !
Just reliving a fond old memory of mine.

Greg
  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Dick Pierce[_2_] Dick Pierce[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 151
Default Transmission line nonsense, was Bose 901

gregz wrote:
Dick Pierce wrote:

gregz wrote:

You will also find a delay of the 30 Hz since it's below resonance, the
spider will slow it down and cause a phase shift.


Uh, no. The spider does not "slow it down and cause a
phase shift." Whatever phase shift exists is not because
the "spider slows it down."



I guessed. When I was trying to figure out transmission line speakers, I
experimented with a 6.5 inch driver and a pipe. I was trying to figure out
delays along the pipe with stuffing. I first used the generator as sync and
measured various lengths along pipe. What was predicted was lower
frequencies having longer delays through stuffing. Until I placed a second
mic right behind the driver did I discover the delay was caused by the
driver. This was below resonate frequency of driver. I never found the
predicted longer delay at lower frequencies according to at least one
paper.


And assuming your technique was oging to give you a reliable
measure of actual propogation delay is what's wrong with so-
called "transmission line theory". People have used these
measurements and derived completely absurd conclusions about the
effective speed of sound through such a line. I've seen claims
that the "speed of sound" in a transmission line drops by 75%.
Sorry, but that's just plain nuts.

The MOST the stuffing can do is drop the tranmission speed
by about .7 times, and that's assuming a PERFECT absorber,
capable of complete conversion from adiabatic to isothermal
conditions. And that just doesn't happen. You'll be lucky to
see a 15% actual reduction in propogation velocity.

And to talks about something that's shorter than a wavelength
as a transmission line itself is bordering on absurd. Consider
the fact that at those frequencies, you're actually looking at
the system as a Helmholtz resonator with a whopping large
acoustic inertance, a tinu effective acoustic cimpliance, and
a pretty high absorbtion loss, and then calculate what happens
to the effective pahse shift as you move through that overdamped resonance.

Bud Fried (of, among other things, IMF fame) did more to set back
the amateur's grasp of physical acoustics then damned near anyone
else: he, regretfuylly, was a very persuasive, charming personality
who was otherwise clueless about acoustics.

--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+


  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
gregz gregz is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 131
Default Transmission line nonsense, was Bose 901

Dick Pierce wrote:
gregz wrote:
Dick Pierce wrote:
gregz wrote:

You will also find a delay of the 30 Hz since it's below resonance, the
spider will slow it down and cause a phase shift.

Uh, no. The spider does not "slow it down and cause a
phase shift." Whatever phase shift exists is not because
the "spider slows it down."

I guessed. When I was trying to figure out transmission line speakers, I

experimented with a 6.5 inch driver and a pipe. I was trying to figure out
delays along the pipe with stuffing. I first used the generator as sync and
measured various lengths along pipe. What was predicted was lower
frequencies having longer delays through stuffing. Until I placed a second
mic right behind the driver did I discover the delay was caused by the
driver. This was below resonate frequency of driver. I never found the
predicted longer delay at lower frequencies according to at least one
paper.


And assuming your technique was oging to give you a reliable
measure of actual propogation delay is what's wrong with so-
called "transmission line theory". People have used these
measurements and derived completely absurd conclusions about the
effective speed of sound through such a line. I've seen claims
that the "speed of sound" in a transmission line drops by 75%.
Sorry, but that's just plain nuts.

The MOST the stuffing can do is drop the tranmission speed
by about .7 times, and that's assuming a PERFECT absorber,
capable of complete conversion from adiabatic to isothermal
conditions. And that just doesn't happen. You'll be lucky to
see a 15% actual reduction in propogation velocity.

And to talks about something that's shorter than a wavelength
as a transmission line itself is bordering on absurd. Consider
the fact that at those frequencies, you're actually looking at
the system as a Helmholtz resonator with a whopping large
acoustic inertance, a tinu effective acoustic cimpliance, and
a pretty high absorbtion loss, and then calculate what happens
to the effective pahse shift as you move through that overdamped resonance.

Bud Fried (of, among other things, IMF fame) did more to set back
the amateur's grasp of physical acoustics then damned near anyone
else: he, regretfuylly, was a very persuasive, charming personality
who was otherwise clueless about acoustics.


I used a very short line and your probably right. Typical delay I measured
about 7 % . However, at 2.6 lbs per cubic foot, I got up to 35% , and was
hard to measure because it was a highly attenuated signal. at suggested
stuffing rates, 8 oz per cu ft., more like less than 3% delay. I don't
think its a transmission line if there is no signal at the end of the pipe.

Greg
  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default Transmission line nonsense, was Bose 901


"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
...
Bud Fried (of, among other things, IMF fame) did more to set back
the amateur's grasp of physical acoustics then damned near anyone
else: he, regretfuylly, was a very persuasive, charming personality
who was otherwise clueless about acoustics.


Great to see you back Dick, and help to counteract such BS that some claim
as "science".

Trevor.


  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Dick Pierce[_2_] Dick Pierce[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 151
Default Transmission line nonsense, was Bose 901

gregz wrote:
I used a very short line and your probably right. Typical delay I measured
about 7 % . However, at 2.6 lbs per cubic foot, I got up to 35% , and was
hard to measure because it was a highly attenuated signal. at suggested
stuffing rates, 8 oz per cu ft., more like less than 3% delay. I don't
think its a transmission line if there is no signal at the end of the pipe.


How are you measuring delay? By using the phase shift?

--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+
  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
gregz gregz is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 131
Default Transmission line nonsense, was Bose 901

Dick Pierce wrote:
gregz wrote:
I used a very short line and your probably right. Typical delay I measured
about 7 % . However, at 2.6 lbs per cubic foot, I got up to 35% , and was
hard to measure because it was a highly attenuated signal. at suggested
stuffing rates, 8 oz per cu ft., more like less than 3% delay. I don't
think its a transmission line if there is no signal at the end of the pipe.


How are you measuring delay? By using the phase shift?



That's primarily how I did it, comparing wavefront near rear of driver with
microphone, then some distance away with identical microphone. I was using
a storage oscilloscope.

Greg
  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
gregz gregz is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 131
Default Transmission line nonsense, was Bose 901

gregz wrote:
Dick Pierce wrote:
gregz wrote:
I used a very short line and your probably right. Typical delay I measured
about 7 % . However, at 2.6 lbs per cubic foot, I got up to 35% , and was
hard to measure because it was a highly attenuated signal. at suggested
stuffing rates, 8 oz per cu ft., more like less than 3% delay. I don't
think its a transmission line if there is no signal at the end of the pipe.


How are you measuring delay? By using the phase shift?



That's primarily how I did it, comparing wavefront near rear of driver with
microphone, then some distance away with identical microphone. I was using
a storage oscilloscope.

Greg


Just thinking, I was using higher density stuffing amounts that would
ordinarily be used, but my short line was just that, short. A full line
would show more delay but using a lot less stuffing, so the delay would
probably be no more than 15%, perhaps closer to 10% .

Greg


  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Dick Pierce[_2_] Dick Pierce[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 151
Default Transmission line nonsense, was Bose 901

gregz wrote:
Just thinking, I was using higher density stuffing amounts that would
ordinarily be used, but my short line was just that, short. A full line
would show more delay but using a lot less stuffing, so the delay would
probably be no more than 15%, perhaps closer to 10% .


No, it wouldn't.

You're not looking at "delay" per se as in propogation delay
down a transmission line. You're simply looknig at the fact
that at those wavelengths, the line is acting as a simple
damped resonator.

In other words, all the bobonsense you read about lines
ignores that they are behaving just like a bass reflex
with a whopping big port, a tiny volume, and a lot of
damping.

--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+
  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
gregz gregz is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 131
Default Transmission line nonsense, was Bose 901

Dick Pierce wrote:
gregz wrote:
Just thinking, I was using higher density stuffing amounts that would
ordinarily be used, but my short line was just that, short. A full line
would show more delay but using a lot less stuffing, so the delay would
probably be no more than 15%, perhaps closer to 10% .


No, it wouldn't.

You're not looking at "delay" per se as in propogation delay
down a transmission line. You're simply looknig at the fact
that at those wavelengths, the line is acting as a simple
damped resonator.

In other words, all the bobonsense you read about lines
ignores that they are behaving just like a bass reflex
with a whopping big port, a tiny volume, and a lot of
damping.



That's no fun.

I never tried to make one, but I guess they were interesting to me.

Greg
  #18   Report Post  
cometodeal cometodeal is offline
Junior Member
 
Posts: 1
Send a message via MSN to cometodeal Send a message via Skype™ to cometodeal
Default

That is really useful information!
!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Pierce[_2_] View Post
gregz wrote:
Dick Pierce wrote:

gregz wrote:

You will also find a delay of the 30 Hz since it's below resonance, the
spider will slow it down and cause a phase shift.


Uh, no. The spider does not "slow it down and cause a
phase shift." Whatever phase shift exists is not because
the "spider slows it down."



I guessed. When I was trying to figure out transmission line speakers, I
experimented with a 6.5 inch driver and a pipe. I was trying to figure out
delays along the pipe with stuffing. I first used the generator as sync and
measured various lengths along pipe. What was predicted was lower
frequencies having longer delays through stuffing. Until I placed a second
mic right behind the driver did I discover the delay was caused by the
driver. This was below resonate frequency of driver. I never found the
predicted longer delay at lower frequencies according to at least one
paper.


And assuming your technique was oging to give you a reliable
measure of actual propogation delay is what's wrong with so-
called "transmission line theory". People have used these
measurements and derived completely absurd conclusions about the
effective speed of sound through such a line. I've seen claims
that the "speed of sound" in a transmission line drops by 75%.
Sorry, but that's just plain nuts.

The MOST the stuffing can do is drop the tranmission speed
by about .7 times, and that's assuming a PERFECT absorber,
capable of complete conversion from adiabatic to isothermal
conditions. And that just doesn't happen. You'll be lucky to
see a 15% actual reduction in propogation velocity.

And to talks about something that's shorter than a wavelength
as a transmission line itself is bordering on absurd. Consider
the fact that at those frequencies, you're actually looking at
the system as a Helmholtz resonator with a whopping large
acoustic inertance, a tinu effective acoustic cimpliance, and
a pretty high absorbtion loss, and then calculate what happens
to the effective pahse shift as you move through that overdamped resonance.

Bud Fried (of, among other things, IMF fame) did more to set back
the amateur's grasp of physical acoustics then damned near anyone
else: he, regretfuylly, was a very persuasive, charming personality
who was otherwise clueless about acoustics.

--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+
  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Peter Larsen[_3_] Peter Larsen[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,295
Default Transmission line nonsense, was Bose 901

Dick Pierce wrote:

And to talks about something that's shorter than a wavelength
as a transmission line itself is bordering on absurd. Consider
the fact that at those frequencies, you're actually looking at
the system as a Helmholtz resonator with a whopping large
acoustic inertance, a tinu effective acoustic cimpliance, and
a pretty high absorbtion loss, and then calculate what happens
to the effective pahse shift as you move through that overdamped
resonance.


So what you say is that a "transmission line speaker" is a bass reflex box
with a very small box volume and a very large port volume?

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

Bud Fried (of, among other things, IMF fame) did more to set back
the amateur's grasp of physical acoustics then damned near anyone
else: he, regretfuylly, was a very persuasive, charming personality
who was otherwise clueless about acoustics.



  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 205
Default Transmission line nonsense, was Bose 901


"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
. ..
Dick Pierce wrote:

And to talks about something that's shorter than a wavelength
as a transmission line itself is bordering on absurd. Consider
the fact that at those frequencies, you're actually looking at
the system as a Helmholtz resonator with a whopping large
acoustic inertance, a tinu effective acoustic cimpliance, and
a pretty high absorbtion loss, and then calculate what happens
to the effective pahse shift as you move through that overdamped
resonance.


So what you say is that a "transmission line speaker" is a bass reflex box
with a very small box volume and a very large port volume?


And a highly damped port.

A transmission line speaker can be considered to be a very wastefully
designed bass reflex.




  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Dick Pierce[_2_] Dick Pierce[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 151
Default Transmission line nonsense, was Bose 901

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
. ..

Dick Pierce wrote:


And to talks about something that's shorter than a wavelength
as a transmission line itself is bordering on absurd. Consider
the fact that at those frequencies, you're actually looking at
the system as a Helmholtz resonator with a whopping large
acoustic inertance, a tinu effective acoustic cimpliance, and
a pretty high absorbtion loss, and then calculate what happens
to the effective pahse shift as you move through that overdamped
resonance.


So what you say is that a "transmission line speaker" is a bass reflex box
with a very small box volume and a very large port volume?


And a highly damped port.


At low frequencies.

The notion of a transmission line involves the concept that
at the frequencies and wavelengths involved, the "line" is
long compared to the wavelength. At low frequencies, this is
decidedly not the case. A so-called "1/4 wave" line simply
acts as a system of lumped components. The old IMF Monitor used
a Kef B139, with a 25 Hz nominal resonance. At 25 Hz, the
wavelength is some 45 feet long, and 1/4 of that is almost 12
feet. That line is NOT 12 feet long.

And even considering absolute optimal absorbtive material that
fully converts the internal operating conditions from adiabatic
to isothermal (which it is FAR from doing), that's still over 8
feet.

People measure the output of the line and compare its phase to the
output of the woofer, and from that derive a bizarrely low
propogation velocity. The same can be done with a standard bass
reflex, which suggests a small bass reflex has an internal
propogation volecity FAR lower than that of sound in normal.
This simply ignores the phase rotation one goes through in a
normal 2nd-order resonat system.

At higher frequencies, it's a different story, in the sense
that the line is, indeed, long compared to the wavelengths
involved.

A transmission line speaker can be considered to be a very wastefully
designed bass reflex.


Well, careful. "Wasteful" is in the eye of a beholder.
A side effect of the traditional design of a transmission
line (the old IMF Monitor/Studio model) results in two things
that are very useful:

1. Midbass and up, the rear wave is lost, gone, forgotten
and never to bother us again,

2. The cabinet walls can be VERY stiff and inert (the rear
wall is problematic, but there are solutions to this).
Now, that in and of itself is not a feature unique to
transmission lines, but it is a useful feature,
nonetheless.

Some of Fried's designs (notably the ALS-50 and its
derivatives) were at best, well, interesting (a 5-legged
horse is interesting, too).

Some of the notions (I hesitate to call them "theories"
becasue their predictive power is pretty poor) surrounding
transmission lines falls into the same category that inspires
people to worry about the effective impedance of their speaker
wires, leading to bizarre (and, mostly, very expensive) wire
contrivances.

--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
BOSE AM5 and BOSE 502 B Base Unit Mix???? Efe Pro Audio 7 February 12th 07 04:51 AM
BOSE AM5 and BOSE 502 B Base Unit Mix???? Efe Pro Audio 1 February 6th 07 10:14 AM
Bose Comment. Prev was Bose 901 Review [email protected] Vacuum Tubes 0 March 10th 05 01:00 AM
Bose Comment. Prev was Bose 901 Review Fletis Humplebacker Pro Audio 0 February 24th 04 12:40 AM
FA: 2 Replacement Bose 5.5" Bose woofer / subwoofer Kenny General 0 November 15th 03 01:31 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:52 PM.

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

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"