Bose Personal Amplification System

[none45]

http://www.bose.com/musicians

What are some opinions on this?

--
michael b.
cereboso.com

[mdrainer]

Defiantly interesting seems like it would work well for acoustic music (ex.
string ensemble in a coffee shop or small church) but if you have any
vocals, the instruments will bleed heavily through the microphones. Not to
mention most clubs and arenas are not built for this type of sound
dispersion. The purpose of tight focused patterns is to keep the sound off
the walls and straight to the crowd before reflection.

Just my opinion though!

md


"none45" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.bose.com/musicians
>
> What are some opinions on this?
>
> --
> michael b.
> cereboso.com
>
>

[dt king]

"none45" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.bose.com/musicians
>
> What are some opinions on this?

It claims to solve some of my gripes about live sound. If it were just me,
I'd go ahead and try one. However, for a five piece band it looks like a
$10,000 investment. I'd have to think about that for a bit.

dtk

[Jay Levitt]

In article >, mab945
@hotmail.com says...
> What are some opinions on this?

Well, let's see...

- Bose generally has much better marketing than technology

- They claim that "the volume is consistent from the front of the room
to the back", unlike conventional speakers whose sound "fall[s] off
rapidly the further the wave travels". I'm no acoustics expert, but
since sound from ANY source drops off as a function of the square of the
distance, I believe this violates the laws of physics.

- They treat room acoustics as a Bad Thing, which (if they succeed)
would mean every room sounds dead




--
Jay Levitt |
Wellesley, MA | Hi!
Faster: jay at jay dot eff-em | Where are we going?
http://www.jay.fm | Why am I in this handbasket?

[Jay Levitt]

In article >, mab945
@hotmail.com says...
> What are some opinions on this?

Well, let's see...

- Bose generally has much better marketing than technology

- They claim that "the volume is consistent from the front of the room
to the back", unlike conventional speakers whose sound "fall[s] off
rapidly the further the wave travels". I'm no acoustics expert, but
since sound from ANY source drops off as a function of the square of the
distance, I believe this violates the laws of physics.

- They treat room acoustics as a Bad Thing, which (if they succeed)
would mean every room sounds dead




--
Jay Levitt |
Wellesley, MA | Hi!
Faster: jay at jay dot eff-em | Where are we going?
http://www.jay.fm | Why am I in this handbasket?

[Raymond]

>none45" > wrote in message
...
>> http://www.bose.com/musicians
>>
>> What are some opinions on this?

Sounds and looks a little to good to be true, I get that feeling from Bose ads.
They glory and glamer the consumer with lots of talk and heavy prices.

[Raymond]

>none45" > wrote in message
...
>> http://www.bose.com/musicians
>>
>> What are some opinions on this?

Sounds and looks a little to good to be true, I get that feeling from Bose ads.
They glory and glamer the consumer with lots of talk and heavy prices.

[dt king]

"Jay Levitt" > wrote in message
...

> - They claim that "the volume is consistent from the front of the room
> to the back", unlike conventional speakers whose sound "fall[s] off
> rapidly the further the wave travels". I'm no acoustics expert, but
> since sound from ANY source drops off as a function of the square of the
> distance, I believe this violates the laws of physics.

I was curious about that, did a little googling. I don't know how the Bose
speakers work, but apparently a linear array of speakers can create an
audio image that does not seem to drop off with distance from the speaker.
It's a bit like a hologram with constructive wave interference boosting the
audio volume a distance from the speakers.

It's apparently not practical for frequencies lower than about 500hz.

dtk

[dt king]

"Jay Levitt" > wrote in message
...

> - They claim that "the volume is consistent from the front of the room
> to the back", unlike conventional speakers whose sound "fall[s] off
> rapidly the further the wave travels". I'm no acoustics expert, but
> since sound from ANY source drops off as a function of the square of the
> distance, I believe this violates the laws of physics.

I was curious about that, did a little googling. I don't know how the Bose
speakers work, but apparently a linear array of speakers can create an
audio image that does not seem to drop off with distance from the speaker.
It's a bit like a hologram with constructive wave interference boosting the
audio volume a distance from the speakers.

It's apparently not practical for frequencies lower than about 500hz.

dtk

[William Sommerwerck]

> They claim that "the volume is consistent from the front of the room
> to the back", unlike conventional speakers whose sound "fall[s] off
> rapidly the further the wave travels." I'm no acoustics expert, but
> since sound from ANY source drops off as a function of the square
> of the distance, I believe this violates the laws of physics.

Sorry, but Böse is correct -- in principle. Sort of.

If a sound source projects a planar wavefront -- that is, if the source is
significantly larger than the wavelengths it reproduces -- the intensity falls
off only as the linear inverse of the distance, not the square of the inverse.

[William Sommerwerck]

> They claim that "the volume is consistent from the front of the room
> to the back", unlike conventional speakers whose sound "fall[s] off
> rapidly the further the wave travels." I'm no acoustics expert, but
> since sound from ANY source drops off as a function of the square
> of the distance, I believe this violates the laws of physics.

Sorry, but Böse is correct -- in principle. Sort of.

If a sound source projects a planar wavefront -- that is, if the source is
significantly larger than the wavelengths it reproduces -- the intensity falls
off only as the linear inverse of the distance, not the square of the inverse.

[Dik LeDoux]

Rrrriiiiigggghhhht. That little thingy will put out enough sound so a bass
player can ditch his Ampeg SVT 8x10 cab, or enough sound to adequately
amplify drums in a 300 seat club fulla screamin drunks.

I say horse****.

Might be cool for small venue coffee-house stuff. But then again every
other live music amplification product from Bose sounds like ass, so I doubt
they've got anything substantially different there. That Bose stuff is
always wimpy, fake, colored to me regardless of the volume level.

my .02

dik

[Dik LeDoux]

Rrrriiiiigggghhhht. That little thingy will put out enough sound so a bass
player can ditch his Ampeg SVT 8x10 cab, or enough sound to adequately
amplify drums in a 300 seat club fulla screamin drunks.

I say horse****.

Might be cool for small venue coffee-house stuff. But then again every
other live music amplification product from Bose sounds like ass, so I doubt
they've got anything substantially different there. That Bose stuff is
always wimpy, fake, colored to me regardless of the volume level.

my .02

dik

[Jay Levitt]

In article >, =20
says...
> Sorry, but B=F6se is correct -- in principle. Sort of.
>=20
> If a sound source projects a planar wavefront -- that is, if the source i=
s
> significantly larger than the wavelengths it reproduces -- the intensity =
falls
> off only as the linear inverse of the distance, not the square of the inv=
erse.

Ah, interesting.

Does that need to be a single source, or would a linear array (as a=20
previous poster mentioned) be enough for that effect? And what's=20
"significantly larger"? The Bose unit looks to be about six feet or=20
166Hz tall.

--=20
Jay Levitt |=20
Wellesley, MA | Hi!
Faster: jay at jay dot eff-em | Where are we going?=20
http://www.jay.fm | Why am I in this handbasket?

[Jay Levitt]

In article >, =20
says...
> Sorry, but B=F6se is correct -- in principle. Sort of.
>=20
> If a sound source projects a planar wavefront -- that is, if the source i=
s
> significantly larger than the wavelengths it reproduces -- the intensity =
falls
> off only as the linear inverse of the distance, not the square of the inv=
erse.

Ah, interesting.

Does that need to be a single source, or would a linear array (as a=20
previous poster mentioned) be enough for that effect? And what's=20
"significantly larger"? The Bose unit looks to be about six feet or=20
166Hz tall.

--=20
Jay Levitt |=20
Wellesley, MA | Hi!
Faster: jay at jay dot eff-em | Where are we going?=20
http://www.jay.fm | Why am I in this handbasket?

[William Sommerwerck]

> If a sound source projects a planar wavefront -- that is, if the source is
> significantly larger than the wavelengths it reproduces -- the intensity falls
> off only as the linear inverse of the distance, not the square of the inverse.

Ah, interesting.

Does that need to be a single source, or would a linear array (as a
previous poster mentioned) be enough for that effect? And what's
"significantly larger"? The Bose unit looks to be about six feet or
166Hz tall.

If the drivers in an array (of any shape or size) are significantly closer than
the wavelengths being reproduced, they "look" like a single source. See Huygens.

[William Sommerwerck]

> If a sound source projects a planar wavefront -- that is, if the source is
> significantly larger than the wavelengths it reproduces -- the intensity falls
> off only as the linear inverse of the distance, not the square of the inverse.

Ah, interesting.

Does that need to be a single source, or would a linear array (as a
previous poster mentioned) be enough for that effect? And what's
"significantly larger"? The Bose unit looks to be about six feet or
166Hz tall.

If the drivers in an array (of any shape or size) are significantly closer than
the wavelengths being reproduced, they "look" like a single source. See Huygens.

[ScotFraser]

<< I don't know how the Bose
speakers work, but apparently a linear array of speakers can create an
audio image that does not seem to drop off with distance from the speaker. >>

Right. A line array, properly set up, will have substantially the same high end
response at 300 feet as it does at 50 feet. It's an amazing thing to behold.
The fly in the ointment, though, seems to be that there are a lot more ways to
incorrectly array & focus a line array than correct ways.


Scott Fraser

[Arny Krueger]

"dt king" > wrote in message
hlink.net
> "Jay Levitt" > wrote in message
> ...

>> - They claim that "the volume is consistent from the front of the
>> room to the back", unlike conventional speakers whose sound "fall[s]
>> off rapidly the further the wave travels". I'm no acoustics expert,
>> but since sound from ANY source drops off as a function of the
>> square of the distance, I believe this violates the laws of physics.

It doesn't violate the laws of physics. Sound intensity falls off with the
square of the distance for spherical radiators. It falls off proportional to
distance for a cylindrical radiator. It doesn't fall off at all if the
radiation pattern doesn't diverge. Regrettably, achieving a cylindrical or
non-divergent radiation pattern takes some work.

I wrote an article here about some european line radiators that I heard
demoed at a local AES meeting a year or two ago. They were line arrays, but
the powerful technology was in the electronics that drove them. Their
radiation pattern could be changed in a fraction of a second. The range of
possible radiation patterns was mind-boggling.

> I was curious about that, did a little googling. I don't know how
> the Bose speakers work, but apparently a linear array of speakers can
> create an audio image that does not seem to drop off with distance
> from the speaker. It's a bit like a hologram with constructive wave
> interference boosting the audio volume a distance from the speakers.

That's about it. Now that DSPs and small power amps have fallen in price, it
is practical to do some very impressive things with them. The benefits come
from controlling the radiation pattern. Linear arrays are just one of
several ways to do that.

> It's apparently not practical for frequencies lower than about 500hz.

In the demos I've heard the low end response seemed better than that - maybe
100Hz. It was good enough to sound natural with a male voice.