In article , Dan wrote:
Do all satellite speaker systems with bass module have these frequency gaps?

Most of them do, because most of them have satellites that are just too
small to really cross over seamlessly.

And the ones that _do_ have large enough satellites still usually have to
cross the subwoofer over so high that there is a total lack of bass imaging.
The human ear can't perceive real imaging at 20 Hz, but at 100 Hz it sure
can, and most of the satellite-sub systems have substantial subwoofer output
well above that.

But I don't think ANY of them have as much midrange suckout as the Bose
Acoustimass.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Dan" wrote in message
...
I have a BOSE Acoustimass 7 (3 saterlite speakers and bass speaker) I
brought this for surround sound. I have two BOSE VS100 small sized
speakers at the back of the room, near the ceiling.

I read in a article that the frequency range is:
Base module 46Hz to 202Hz at +-2.3dB
Satellites 280Hz to 13.3k Hz at +-10.5 dB
Can someone who has tested these speaker confirm that this is the
frequency range.
There seems to be gaps at
20Hz to 46 Hz
202Hz to 280Hz and
13.3k Hz to 20K Hz.


That is correct. Are you surprised? You shouldn't be. What you have
discovered is exactly why many folks don't like Bose speakers. For the
money, you can get much better sound.
I recently brought a sub woofer to try and full in the gap at the low
frequency range. The sub woofer is 28Hz to 200Hz.
I can't see anyway of disableing the BOSE bass speaker so that the Sub
Woofer is used.
I have a Surround 5.1 sound decoder in my DVD player and connected the
player to the ampilifer using 6 leads (one for each speaker). In doing
this I was hoping that the subwoofer would get only the low frewuency
sounds. I have since found that the cut off frequency for the sub
woofer filter built into the DVD player is 120K Hz. This leaves a gap

from 120K Hz to 202K Hz.

Another reason for connecting the amplifer with 6 leads was to be able
to play super audio cd's (SA-CD).
Any advice would be most welcome.


I would sell the Bose set up and get a decent set of speakers that does
not
have such huge gaps in it's sound reproduction.

Do all satellite speaker systems with bass module have these frequency
gaps?

**Some do, though few are as bad as Bose. Any satellite which has published
specs guaranteeing a performance down to around 100Hz (at less than -6dB)
will provide relatively seamless blending with a subwoofer. Obviously, a
lower response than 100Hz is even better. Naturally, the 280Hz response of
the Bose satellites is a joke.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Do all satellite speaker systems with bass module have these frequency
gaps?

Actually, most anything with smaller than 4 inch speakers
and a tweeter do, though a seperate tweeter is crutial.

The best midrange speaker on the market that you could
make a one-way speaker with is about 80hz to 16Khz, though
with "flat" response. Yes, it's very pricey.

Still, it doesn't get to 20Khz or down to low speaking
voices, or say a bass guitar(50hz or so), so a 2-way speaker
is pretty much non negotiable.

Thanks Neil for your feedback.
I've added some comments to your reply below

Parts of the post were removed to reduce the size of this post.

wrote:


Brian wrote:
I have a BOSE Acoustimass 7 (3 saterlite speakers and bass speaker) I
brought this for surround sound. I have two BOSE VS100 small sized
speakers at the back of the room, near the ceiling.

I read in a article that the frequency range is:
Base module 46Hz to 202Hz at +-2.3dB
Satellites 280Hz to 13.3k Hz at +-10.5 dB
Can someone who has tested these speaker confirm that this is the
frequency range.
There seems to be gaps at
20Hz to 46 Hz
202Hz to 280Hz and


It's really easy to get focussed on these sort of numbers and lose
track of whether the speakers are doing what you want. Somebody else's
measurements don't really tell you how the speakers will measure or
sound in your room. Furthermore, no speaker is perfect, and all
speakers will have some anomalies that prevent them from being perfect.
That's true but I could bring home a truck load of speakers and still
not find any suitable. By having some technical details helps me
narrow down my choice of speakers. I also am keen on reading reviews.

Are you in some way dissatisfied with your speakers?
People are often updating their hifi systems as the systems are
improving over time. The weakness in BOSE is when the sound of a
singer comes only from one satellite speaker rather than being blended
between two speakers. Many of the early stereo recording were like
this for example Nancy Sinatra singing "My baby shot me down". Don't
get me wrong I like the more recent songs as well.


If you're happy with the sound of your current speakers, then keep
them.
Some music sounds good on BOSE speakers and other music does not sound
so good.

13.3k Hz to 20K Hz.

Assuming you can hear above 13.3kHz, there's little or no music there.
Don't forget that with the recent Super Audio CD's that you need
speakers that have a range up to 50Khz (Sony sell these speakers)
A high and a low note can form an overtone which can be heard.
Overtones help the listener tell the difference of a grand piano and
common home piano.

Can you name something that you're missing way up there? That's much
higher than anything you'd ordinarily hear. Almost all sound is much,
much lower.
Special effects in movies, and like I said the result of overtones.


I recently brought a sub woofer

Is this new sub powered by its own amplifier, or is it powered by your
receiver?
It's an active sub woofer (powered by amp)

to try and full in the gap at the low
frequency range. The sub woofer is 28Hz to 200Hz.
I can't see anyway of disableing the BOSE bass speaker so that the
Sub
Woofer is used.

Can you tell us more about that new sub?
It's a 100 watt sub woofer made by Sony with a frequency range of 28
to 200 Hz. It has an adjustable cutoff filter.
In an early scene from the movie Gladiator the sub woofer is effective
when flaming arrows crash into trees. The sound becomes more
realistic.

What does the new sub's manual say about connecting the new sub to the
receiver?
It can be connected to the amplifiers speaker output, then connected
to speaker from the sub woofer or it can be connected to the sub
output socket on the amplifier.

I have a Surround 5.1 sound decoder in my DVD player and connected
the
player to the ampilifer using 6 leads (one for each speaker). In
doing
this I was hoping that the subwoofer would get only the low frewuency
sounds. I have since found that the cut off frequency for the sub
woofer filter built into the DVD player is 120K Hz. This leaves a gap
from 120K Hz

...I think you meant to say "120Hz" here...
sorry my error

to 202K Hz.

...I think you meant to say "200Hz" here...
sorry my error again

Again, this sort of gap really isn't a big deal, assuming it's really
there. The acoustics of your room could cause much bigger anomalies.
Due to the acoustics of your room, you might even have a peak between
120Hz and 202Hz.
It could be why some music sounds better than other music. Different
musical instruments have a certain frequency range. The electronic
organ has a wide frequency response.


If you really want to get serious about frequency response, you could
start by getting a sound meter from Radio Shack and some test CDs that
will provide test tones at different frequencies.
I hope to connect an audio signal generator for testing.

If you listen to your speakers in your room with CDs and DVDs you know
and like, and the speakers sound OK then, do not add new speakers or
replace your speakers.
I added a sub woofer as I like to hear the deep bass when watching
movies such as flight scenes, explosions etc

BTW, as you've undoubtedly discovered by now, there are some Bose
detractors in the newsgroups. There are some speakers that are bigger
and better than what you've got now, but if your speakers sound and
look good to you in your typical use, that's all that matters.
Once I've listened to some different show room speakers I'll know for
sure.



If you buy more speakers, get return privileges, in case the new
speakers don't sound good in your room.
most have 7 or 14 day returns

If you want to sell the Bose speakers, you'll find many bidders on
eBay. An advantage of owning a really popular brand like Bose is that
there's always a strong resale market.
It's interesting that many don't like BOSE yet there are many that
want to buy them second hand.


Any advice would be most welcome.

Regards Brian


Regards Brian

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Do all satellite speaker systems with bass module have these frequency
gaps?


Actually, most anything with smaller than 4 inch speakers
and a tweeter do, though a seperate tweeter is crutial.

The best midrange speaker on the market that you could
make a one-way speaker with is about 80hz to 16Khz, though
with "flat" response. Yes, it's very pricey.

Still, it doesn't get to 20Khz or down to low speaking
voices, or say a bass guitar(50hz or so), so a 2-way speaker
is pretty much non negotiable.


The M & K satellite system I had many years ago had 2 midrange speakers
and 2 tweeters in each satellite. And the mids were at least 4 inches if
I recall. They sounded very full even without the matching sub. But add
that and they really rocked. Not your father's Bose.

Joe Sensor wrote:
The M & K satellite system I had many years ago had 2 midrange speakers
and 2 tweeters in each satellite. And the mids were at least 4 inches if
I recall. They sounded very full even without the matching sub. But add
that and they really rocked. Not your father's Bose.

That's the basic point. For the whole satellite-sub system to work, you
need to build satellites that go down low enough to be useful all by
themselves in the first place. That means either somewhat large boxes
(a cubic foot minimum), or very inefficient boxes, or both.

These days efficiency is a non-issue, but everybody seems to want tiny
satellites that blend into the decor. You just can't do that and get
satellites that go down low enough.

In a perfect world, the satellite/sub system would have a very sharp
crossover filter, and cross over around 20 Hz or so. This would make
the sub an actual sub, as opposed to most of the systems out there where
the sub is really just a mono woofer taking over all the bass reproduction
duty. But people don't want satellites big enough to do that and
frankly most people listen to panpotted stereo recordings that have no
bass imaging anyway.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:


That's the basic point. For the whole satellite-sub system to work, you
need to build satellites that go down low enough to be useful all by
themselves in the first place. That means either somewhat large boxes
(a cubic foot minimum), or very inefficient boxes, or both.

These days efficiency is a non-issue, but everybody seems to want tiny
satellites that blend into the decor. You just can't do that and get
satellites that go down low enough.

In a perfect world, the satellite/sub system would have a very sharp
crossover filter, and cross over around 20 Hz or so. This would make
the sub an actual sub, as opposed to most of the systems out there where
the sub is really just a mono woofer taking over all the bass reproduction
duty. But people don't want satellites big enough to do that and
frankly most people listen to panpotted stereo recordings that have no
bass imaging anyway.

I agree, Scott. But the question was are there any satellite systems
without the gaps present in the Bose, and the answer is yes. And these
still have some advantages over 2 huge floor speakers.

Joe Sensor wrote:

The M & K satellite system I had many years ago had 2 midrange speakers
and 2 tweeters in each satellite. And the mids were at least 4 inches if
I recall. They sounded very full even without the matching sub. But add
that and they really rocked. Not your father's Bose.

KEF makes a nearly identical speaker in their KHT line.
It sounds pretty decent, even with 4 inchers in it.

Scott Dorsey wrote:

In a perfect world, the satellite/sub system would have a very sharp
crossover filter, and cross over around 20 Hz or so.

How many of your CDs and DVDs have anything below 20Hz?

--
Eiron.

In article , Eiron wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

In a perfect world, the satellite/sub system would have a very sharp
crossover filter, and cross over around 20 Hz or so.

How many of your CDs and DVDs have anything below 20Hz?

Not too many. And the reason nobody is willing to put subsonic information
on recordings is because the average consumer can't reproduce it. People
don't bother trying to set playback systems up with real bass extension
because it's a lot of work and there are so little records with anything
there anyway. It's a vicious cycle.

As always, though, if you want to hear something with plenty of stuff
below 20 Hz, check out the track I submitted to the r.a.p compilation.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ...

"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote in message
newsTq%d.10855$GI6.9327@trnddc05...

Wrong on the wave radio... sorry. I do
have some old, defunct, 501A Series IV cornerhorns that are long
out of service and molding away in the attic.

**Bose corner horns? Sounds like you have a pretty unique speaker. Bose
don't (nor have they ever) built horns. Klipsch build corner horns.


Oh dear heaven... let me apologize profusely. g The Series IV had reverse
firing tweets that were designed to reflect from the rear walls in a room corner
placement. I am sooooo sorry, I should apologize to Paul for using the name.

DM

(Scott Dorsey) wrote in
:

In a perfect world, the satellite/sub system would have a very sharp
crossover filter, and cross over around 20 Hz or so. This would make
the sub an actual sub, as opposed to most of the systems out there
where the sub is really just a mono woofer taking over all the bass
reproduction duty. But people don't want satellites big enough to do
that and frankly most people listen to panpotted stereo recordings
that have no bass imaging anyway.

That wasn't a misprint? 20 Hz? How many full range speakers (let alone
satellites) go down to 20 Hz? And then your sub would be as big as a wall.

On 24 Mar 2005 10:05:01 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

In a perfect world, the satellite/sub system would have a very sharp
crossover filter, and cross over around 20 Hz or so.

Utterly clueless.

Scott Dorsey wrote:

In a perfect world, the satellite/sub system would have a very sharp
crossover filter, and cross over around 20 Hz or so. This would make
the sub an actual sub, as opposed to most of the systems out there where
the sub is really just a mono woofer taking over all the bass reproduction
duty. But people don't want satellites big enough to do that and
frankly most people listen to panpotted stereo recordings that have no
bass imaging anyway.

Generally, if the low-pass filtering is sharp enough (24 dB
per octave should do it), a crossover as high up as 90 Hz is
fine. The THX people have it at 80 Hz, just to make sure.

If you have a sub that is low-pass filtered at 20 Hz, just
what kind of musical sounds do you expect the thing to deal
with? For the most part, all it would reproduce is hall
rumble (not music) at frequencies that were felt rather than
heard. Is that all you want a sub to do?

PS: if you think that bass "images," disconnect your
satellites (all of them) and put on a bass-potent recording
with just the subwoofer playing. Try a variety of crossover
frequencies. I think that you will find that even that 90 Hz
point mentioned above will prevent the sub from being
localized, provided it generates distortion low enough to
not make undesirable harmonic artifacts audible.

Generally, bass "imaging" is the result of the satellite
speakers reproducing the leading edge of a bass note
(bass-drum whack), and not the low-frequency tail of the
signal. The Franssen Effect sees to it that the leading edge
determines the location of the sound.

Howard Ferstler

dizzy wrote:
On 24 Mar 2005 10:05:01 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:


In a perfect world, the satellite/sub system would have a very sharp
crossover filter, and cross over around 20 Hz or so.


Utterly clueless.


Maybe he meant 120.

dizzy wrote:
On 24 Mar 2005 10:05:01 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

In a perfect world, the satellite/sub system would have a very sharp
crossover filter, and cross over around 20 Hz or so.

Utterly clueless.

Play Art Blakey's _A Night at Birdland_ on a good stereo system with serious
low end extension. Now, play it on a satellite-sub system with just as good
low end extension. Listen to the space around the standup bass.

You actually _can_ hear imaging at 20 Hz. Below that, you can't. So if you
have a mono sub, you want to cross it over well below that point. Needless
to say this is ludicrous, and that's the basic problem with the whole
satellite/sub concept.

No, the fundamental on Curly Russell's Bass doesn't go down to 20 Hz. But
it goes down low enough that with a crossover at 20 Hz there is still going
to be a noticeable contribution from the sub.

Not a problem for people who listen to intensity stereo recordings with no
bass imaging anyway, though. Which is probably most of the world today.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Howard Ferstler wrote:
Generally, if the low-pass filtering is sharp enough (24 dB
per octave should do it), a crossover as high up as 90 Hz is
fine. The THX people have it at 80 Hz, just to make sure.

You can still hear directionality at 90 Hz. If you had one sub per channel,
you could easily do that. But if you're crossing over to a single sub you
are reducing your bass imaging severely.

The THX people are dealing with film soundtracks which are not exactly
the most demanding performance recordings out there. The THX standards
for the sub response are pretty terrifying too....

If you have a sub that is low-pass filtered at 20 Hz, just
what kind of musical sounds do you expect the thing to deal
with? For the most part, all it would reproduce is hall
rumble (not music) at frequencies that were felt rather than
heard. Is that all you want a sub to do?

Right, that's basically what a sub is _supposed_ to do. It's a _sub_ woofer
that kicks in below the point where the woofer stops.

PS: if you think that bass "images," disconnect your
satellites (all of them) and put on a bass-potent recording
with just the subwoofer playing. Try a variety of crossover
frequencies. I think that you will find that even that 90 Hz
point mentioned above will prevent the sub from being
localized, provided it generates distortion low enough to
not make undesirable harmonic artifacts audible.

A bunch of folks have done this sort of thing. There was actually a paper
at the last AES show from some folks in Greece who showed no effect on
typical material with the crossover moved up to 200 Hz.

If you listen to minimalist classical recordings, the effect is quite
audible.

Generally, bass "imaging" is the result of the satellite
speakers reproducing the leading edge of a bass note
(bass-drum whack), and not the low-frequency tail of the
signal. The Franssen Effect sees to it that the leading edge
determines the location of the sound.

This _is_ absolutely true, and it's certainly the case for most
percussion. You'll find a distant bass drum is very different than
a distant kettledrum in this regard, though, because of the softer
attack.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 25 Mar 2005 09:42:44 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:


No, the fundamental on Curly Russell's Bass doesn't go down to 20 Hz. But
it goes down low enough that with a crossover at 20 Hz there is still going
to be a noticeable contribution from the sub.

Typical basses (stand-up and electric) are usually tuned with low
string at E, i.e. 43Hz. How something below this can be on the
recording from this instrument is beyond me. Please explain.

Or do you mean that sub is only 12 db or so down at 43 Hz and that is
the reason?

Per.

PS. I think I have a CD copy of this recording somewhere, perhaps it
is time to pull it out and check the facts.

"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote in message
news:%4F0e.13251$wL6.3978@trnddc03...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote in message
newsTq%d.10855$GI6.9327@trnddc05...

Wrong on the wave radio... sorry. I do
have some old, defunct, 501A Series IV cornerhorns that are long
out of service and molding away in the attic.

**Bose corner horns? Sounds like you have a pretty unique speaker. Bose
don't (nor have they ever) built horns. Klipsch build corner horns.


Oh dear heaven... let me apologize profusely. g The Series IV had
reverse
firing tweets that were designed to reflect from the rear walls in a room
corner
placement. I am sooooo sorry, I should apologize to Paul for using the
name.

**They're not horns, either.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" ...

**They're not horns, either.


*** Who do I apologize to for that one?

"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote in message
news:9RZ0e.23693$b_6.21994@trnddc01...

"Trevor Wilson" ...

**They're not horns, either.


*** Who do I apologize to for that one?

**I guess I am curious as to why you would refer to direct radiator speakers
as "horns".


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ...

"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote in message
news:9RZ0e.23693$b_6.21994@trnddc01...

"Trevor Wilson" ...

**They're not horns, either.


*** Who do I apologize to for that one?

**I guess I am curious as to why you would refer to direct radiator speakers
as "horns".


Quite honestly? It was an honest-to-goodness 'brain-fart' over the common
word... "corner" and Paul's Corner Horns, which I have enjoyed many times.
The Bose have been in the attic for years, so I really don't recall the technical
'label' used for the rear firing tweets, designed to be placed only in room corners.
I think the excuse was one that had to do with time alignment... but then, that's
our 'Bose', isn't it?

DM

Brian wrote:
Thanks Neil for your feedback.
I've added some comments to your reply below

Parts of the post were removed to reduce the size of this post.

wrote:


Brian wrote:
I have a BOSE Acoustimass 7 (3 saterlite speakers and bass
speaker) I
brought this for surround sound. I have two BOSE VS100 small sized
speakers at the back of the room, near the ceiling.

(snip)

It's really easy to get focussed on these sort of numbers and lose
track of whether the speakers are doing what you want. Somebody
else's
measurements don't really tell you how the speakers will measure or
sound in your room. Furthermore, no speaker is perfect, and all
speakers will have some anomalies that prevent them from being
perfect.

That's true but I could bring home a truck load of speakers and still
not find any suitable.

I think you'd be much better off to get out to some stores and listen
for yourself. Then you can compare and contrast that experience with
the experience you're used to at home with your present gear.

By having some technical details helps me
narrow down my choice of speakers.

The problem is that these numbers are only part of the story. I've
bought speakers myself based on impressive numbers, great reviews,
etc., only to discover that (probably due to acoustics in my home, my
hearing (which is far from perfect, just like your hearing and everyone
else's), my taste, etc.) that the speakers didn't sound good to me.

I also am keen on reading reviews.

It can be fun to read reviews. There are tons in the magazines, on the
web, etc. But they're no substitute for listening IRL. They can be a
fun way to start shopping, however.

But again, they can be misleading. It's like buying a car. Sure,those
500 mph and 500 mpg specs make impressive reading, but they don't tell
you if you'll be comfortable and happy with the car.

Are you in some way dissatisfied with your speakers?
People are often updating their hifi systems as the systems are
improving over time. The weakness in BOSE is when the sound of a
singer comes only from one satellite speaker rather than being
blended
between two speakers. Many of the early stereo recording were like
this

Agree, but the sound being isolated in an extreme way to one channel,
or mostly to one channel, is a problem in the recording, not your
speakers. Your speakers are merely reproducing what the recording has
sent to the speakers.

You can fix that problem by listening in mono or (possibly) in a
synthesized surround mode. Try some different settings on your
receiver.

for example Nancy Sinatra singing "My baby shot me down". Don't
get me wrong I like the more recent songs as well.


If you're happy with the sound of your current speakers, then keep
them.
Some music sounds good on BOSE speakers and other music does not
sound
so good.

Arguably true for many speakers. BTW, some popular music is
intentionally produced to sound good on boom boxes, cheap car stereos,
etc.

13.3k Hz to 20K Hz.

Assuming you can hear above 13.3kHz, there's little or no music
there.

To get a better grasp of where music really is in terms of frequency
range, see a few examples:

http://www.tnt-audio.com/topics/frequency_e.html

http://music.theory.home.att.net/insrange.htm

http://www.silcom.com/~aludwig/EARS....audio_spectrum

The last has samples at 100hz and 10,000hz (10khz).

You might also want to get your hearing measured by an audiologist to
find out what you really can hear. I think you'll find that
interesting, seriously.

Don't forget that with the recent Super Audio CD's that you need
speakers that have a range up to 50Khz

But nobody can hear that and there's no music there anyway. It's a
pointless feature, other than for Sony to try to convince people it's
worthwhile.

(Sony sell these speakers)

Can you post a link?

It would be like making running shoes that work at 50 mph. It's
pointless, because it's beyond human capability.

A high and a low note can form an overtone which can be heard.
Overtones help the listener tell the difference of a grand piano and
common home piano.

Agree, but the overtones, harmonics, etc. aren't way up high. A piano
might have some higher overtones, but remember that the piano's keys
top out at 4,186 hz, as you saw at the above web sites.

I'll also add that having worked in a piano store in a previous life,
the differences between the sound of different sizes of pianos can be
less obvious than you may think. A room or two away from the piano, and
I've been fooled by some of the better electronic keyboards, I admit.
The biggest differences among pianos are caused by what the music is
and who's playing it, and many players can mimic others easily.

Can you name something that you're missing way up there? That's much
higher than anything you'd ordinarily hear. Almost all sound is
much,
much lower.
Special effects in movies,

Those are much more likely to be at really low frequencies. If you want
to go really low, including room-shaking sound that you can't hear,
you'll need the right sort of room and/or a really big sub.

(I find I don't really need an extreme amount of that at home. I can
hear enough bass through normal speakers and my small sub in my small
room, and I'm watching the screen and know what's going on, and I'm not
usually interested in movies with extreme special effects. YMMV.)

and like I said the result of overtones.

Again, that's arguable.

I really recommend the trip to the audiologist. It'll open your eyes. I
did it and found it very interesting to learn what I really could hear,
not just what I assumed I could hear.

I recently brought a sub woofer

Is this new sub powered by its own amplifier, or is it powered by
your
receiver?
It's an active sub woofer (powered by amp)

to try and full in the gap at the low
frequency range. The sub woofer is 28Hz to 200Hz.
I can't see anyway of disableing the BOSE bass speaker so that the
Sub
Woofer is used.

Can you tell us more about that new sub?
It's a 100 watt sub woofer made by Sony with a frequency range of 28
to 200 Hz.

At what db (volume level) for 28hz and a few other frequencies up to
and including 200 hz?

And to be really picky, I'll add that you'd need to measure it in your
room to really get an accurate measurement.

It has an adjustable cutoff filter.
In an early scene from the movie Gladiator the sub woofer is
effective
when flaming arrows crash into trees. The sound becomes more
realistic.

A powered sub can be really handy, not just to get more bass, but to
dial in just the sort of bass you like.

What does the new sub's manual say about connecting the new sub to
the
receiver?
It can be connected to the amplifiers speaker output, then connected
to speaker from the sub woofer or it can be connected to the sub
output socket on the amplifier.

Either one should work fine.

I have a Surround 5.1 sound decoder in my DVD player and connected
the
player to the ampilifer using 6 leads (one for each speaker). In
doing
this I was hoping that the subwoofer would get only the low
frewuency
sounds. I have since found that the cut off frequency for the sub
woofer filter built into the DVD player is 120K Hz. This leaves a
gap
from 120K Hz

...I think you meant to say "120Hz" here...
sorry my error

to 202K Hz.

...I think you meant to say "200Hz" here...
sorry my error again

Again, this sort of gap really isn't a big deal, assuming it's
really
there. The acoustics of your room could cause much bigger anomalies.
Due to the acoustics of your room, you might even have a peak
between
120Hz and 202Hz.
It could be why some music sounds better than other music.

Could be that, your hearing, and/or your acoustics. Anyway, if it
sounds good to you, that's what's most important.

Different
musical instruments have a certain frequency range. The electronic
organ

....and pipe organs too...

has a wide frequency response.

But not as wide as you may think, and your hearing and taste may or may
not let you hear all of that.

If you really want to get serious about frequency response, you
could
start by getting a sound meter from Radio Shack and some test CDs
that
will provide test tones at different frequencies.
I hope to connect an audio signal generator for testing.

Could be fun! Make sure to get some measurement gear also.

But don't rely solely on technical measurement. Do what it takes to get
sound that suits you.

(snip)

There are some speakers that are bigger
and better than what you've got now, but if your speakers sound and
look good to you in your typical use, that's all that matters.
Once I've listened to some different show room speakers I'll know for
sure.

I think you'll find that while the Bose speakers obviously suit many
consumers, if you want to get a more refined, even, and more pleasing
sound, you'll have to go to the audio specialty stores. Luckily, there
are many good, affordable brands.

BTW, I find I'm less picky with HT speakers than I am when I'm
listening only to music, where I really have to have speakers that suit
me.

If you buy more speakers, get return privileges, in case the new
speakers don't sound good in your room.
most have 7 or 14 day returns

Good.

If you want to sell the Bose speakers, you'll find many bidders on
eBay. An advantage of owning a really popular brand like Bose is
that
there's always a strong resale market.
It's interesting that many don't like BOSE yet there are many that
want to buy them second hand.

Bose is like anything that's really, really popular; it attracts some
rebellion and dislike.

I like some Bose products within certain limitations. But if I was
going to build some sort of ultimate sound system in my home, I'd go
with speakers from specialist makers, such as B&W.

Any advice would be most welcome.

But what about too much advice, as I've probably given already? ;-)

Regards Brian


Regards Brian

TGIF!

"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote in message
news:zB%0e.1480$Go4.1473@trnddc05...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote in message
news:9RZ0e.23693$b_6.21994@trnddc01...

"Trevor Wilson" ...

**They're not horns, either.


*** Who do I apologize to for that one?

**I guess I am curious as to why you would refer to direct radiator
speakers
as "horns".


Quite honestly? It was an honest-to-goodness 'brain-fart'

**Ah, I know about brain farts. Sadly. I've experienced quite a few myself.

over the common
word... "corner" and Paul's Corner Horns, which I have enjoyed many times.
The Bose have been in the attic for years, so I really don't recall the
technical
'label' used for the rear firing tweets, designed to be placed only in
room corners.
I think the excuse was one that had to do with time alignment... but then,
that's
our 'Bose', isn't it?

**Indeed. The rear firing tweeters was just a bull**** solution to a
non-existent problem.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On 25 Mar 2005 09:42:44 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

dizzy wrote:
On 24 Mar 2005 10:05:01 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

In a perfect world, the satellite/sub system would have a very sharp
crossover filter, and cross over around 20 Hz or so.

Utterly clueless.

Play Art Blakey's _A Night at Birdland_ on a good stereo system with serious
low end extension. Now, play it on a satellite-sub system with just as good
low end extension. Listen to the space around the standup bass.

You actually _can_ hear imaging at 20 Hz.

Whatever. What "satellite" speaker goes down to 20 Hz? It seems to
me that you have the mistaken notion that a "subwoofer" is for
reproducing infrasonic frequencies. It's not. It's for reproducing
frequencies below which most "normal" speakers are capable (which sure
the hell isn't 20 Hz).

Hi Neil.
It was interesting to read your comments. From what you've written you
seem to have been studying HiFi for some time.

I hope you don't mind me removing the text from the orginal post as
the post was getting very large and most people would have read it.

I've posted you the Sony New Zealand site that lists some of the Sony
Speakers, many have a range of 45Hz to 70Hz which is for listening to
Super Audio CD's. I hope to have a listen to this type of CD with
speakers in this frequency range to see if I notice much difference.

A HiFi sales person I spoke to recently suggested Mission M30
speakers. I have to have a listen to them soon.

Sony Speaker Site
http://www.sony.co.nz/products/produ...sid=1914715008


Sony Bookself speakers that I hope to listen to as a demo. These may
be better for listening to music.
http://www.sony.co.nz/products/produ...sid=1914715008


Sony SSK30EDP Bookself speaker
Product Features

· 130W Maximum Power Handling
· Extended Frequency for SCAD Playback
· 45Hz-70kHz Frequency Response ===============
· 88dB Sensitivity
· 8 Ohms Impedance
· 2-Way, 2 Speaker System
· Carbon Composite Dome Tweeter
· 165mm Aramid Fibre Woofer

Product Specification

Construction
Speaker type Book Shelf
Magnetically shielded Yes

Speaker unit
Full range -
Woofer 165mm Aramid cone
Mid -
Tweeter (balance dome) 25mm Carbon Composite
Speakers per unit 2

General
Enclosure type Bass Reflex
Maximum power handling 130W
Frequency response 45Hz - 70kHz ========================
Extended frequency for SACD playback Yes ==================
Sensitivity 88dB
Impedance 8ohms
Dimensions (WxHxD) 235 x 430 x 375mm
Weight 8.5kg each

--------------------------------------------------------------
These are the specs on the Sub Woofer I am trying.

Sony SAWM250 Sub woofer
Product Features

· 100W RMS Power Handling
· 20cm Bass Driver
· 28Hz-200Hz Frequency Response
· Speaker/Line Input
· Low Boost Mode
· Magnetically Shielded
· Phase Switch
· Bass Reflex Enclosure
· Dimensions (WxHxD)mm 290x355x385
· Weight: 11.5kg
· Available in Black Only

Product Specification

Construction
Speaker type Active subwoofer
Magnetically shielded Yes
Enclosure type Bass reflex
Speaker unit 20cm

Audio
Power output (RMS) 100W RMS
Frequency response 28Hz-200Hz
Speaker input Yes
Line input Yes
Low boost mode No
Movie/music/bass-boost selector No
Phase switch Yes

General
Colour Silver
Dimensions (WxHxD) 290 x 355 x 385mm
Weight -

Thanks for the helpful site addresses in your last post.
I'm hoping to find a mp3 file that does a frequency sweep from 20Hz to
20000Hz.

Regards Brian

Brian wrote:


Frequency response 45Hz - 70kHz ========================


What do you suppose THAT is all about?

"Trevor Wilson" wrote:

**I guess I am curious as to why you would refer to direct radiator
speakers as "horns".


I guess I'm curious about why you would give Flying **** One WHAT he
called them? But then, I'm weird that way. Other ways, too.

He *DID* list the model number of the speaker to which he referred, so
there really wasn't a lotta room for misunderstanding. Get over it.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 01:00:51 -0600, Joe Sensor
wrote:

Brian wrote:


Frequency response 45Hz - 70kHz ========================


What do you suppose THAT is all about?

It's for shattering wine glasses. Adds real excitement to a wine and
cheese party.


Willie K. Yee, M.D. http://users.bestweb.net/~wkyee
Developer of Problem Knowledge Couplers for Psychiatry http://www.pkc.com
Webmaster and Guitarist for the Big Blue Big Band http://www.bigbluebigband.org

Joe Sensor wrote:

Brian wrote:


Frequency response 45Hz - 70kHz ========================


What do you suppose THAT is all about?

It's so you can play Super Audio CD's (SA-CD) that claim to have a
frequency response greater than 20KHz. The only problem is you also
need to have an amplifer that also has a frequency response greater
than 20Khz.
Some of Sony's speakers are 45Hz to 50KHz

If us humans can't enjoy it then maybe cats and dogs can :=)

Regards Brian

It is simply incredible how any time BOSE is mentioned the threads are
infinitely long. AMAZING what some good propaganda can do to the crowd.
Long live BOSE and their patrons.

dizzy wrote:

Whatever. What "satellite" speaker goes down to 20 Hz? It seems to
me that you have the mistaken notion that a "subwoofer" is for
reproducing infrasonic frequencies. It's not. It's for reproducing
frequencies below which most "normal" speakers are capable (which sure
the hell isn't 20 Hz).

Pretty much none of them do go down that far, and if they did, they'd
be large enough to be impractical. That's why the notion of the
satellite/sub is a basically misguided one.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Joe Sensor wrote:
Brian wrote:

Frequency response 45Hz - 70kHz ========================

What do you suppose THAT is all about?

Marketing. Check out the Tannoy Ellipse as well.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:10:51 GMT, Willie K.Yee, M.D. wrote:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 01:00:51 -0600, Joe Sensor
wrote:

Brian wrote:


Frequency response 45Hz - 70kHz ========================


What do you suppose THAT is all about?

It's for shattering wine glasses. Adds real excitement to a wine and
cheese party.

It isn't ultrasonic frequencies that are used to shatter a wine glass. It is
frequencies right at the glass's resonant frequency and held their long enough
for the glass to oscillate to pieces.

Dickless growled:

held their long enough

Held their what, Scroots? Something you don't have, maybe?

Brian wrote:


What do you suppose THAT is all about?


It's so you can play Super Audio CD's (SA-CD) that claim to have a
frequency response greater than 20KHz. The only problem is you also
need to have an amplifer that also has a frequency response greater
than 20Khz.
Some of Sony's speakers are 45Hz to 50KHz

If us humans can't enjoy it then maybe cats and dogs can :=)


If you look at the sampling rate of SACD's, there is no doubt that a
frequency response greater than 20khz is possible. And amplifiers don't
cut off at 20khz, so that is not a problem either. Now, your ears, on
the other hand..

Willie K.Yee, M.D. wrote:


Frequency response 45Hz - 70kHz ========================


What do you suppose THAT is all about?


It's for shattering wine glasses. Adds real excitement to a wine and
cheese party.


Hahaha. Good one!

Scott Dorsey wrote:


Pretty much none of them do go down that far, and if they did, they'd
be large enough to be impractical. That's why the notion of the
satellite/sub is a basically misguided one.

I'm not understanding you at all on this one. You are saying since a
satellite/sub system cannot be practical to the degree it theoretically
*could*, the whole concept is useless?

If that were true, there are a lot of things we should really just give
up on.

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 08:48:21 -0600, TCS
wrote:

It isn't ultrasonic frequencies that are used to shatter a wine glass. It is
frequencies right at the glass's resonant frequency and held their long enough
for the glass to oscillate to pieces.

Then how come all the wine glasses in my house are broken, and
everyone SWEARS they did not drop them?



Willie K. Yee, M.D. http://users.bestweb.net/~wkyee
Developer of Problem Knowledge Couplers for Psychiatry http://www.pkc.com
Webmaster and Guitarist for the Big Blue Big Band http://www.bigbluebigband.org

Willie K.Yee, M.D. said:

Then how come all the wine glasses in my house are broken, and
everyone SWEARS they did not drop them?

All of them are broken? Probably not a question of audio or swearing. If I
were you, I'd check for gremlins.