Bose system

[paul tumolo]

The new Bose system is getting quite a good report among folkies. Here is
one comment from a well know regular poster to one of the folk music lists:
"This Bose system is reputed to represent a real divergence in sound system
conceptual design and one that seems as though it might be
particulary "folk friendly". This is a apparently an approach that,
while it may not be appropriate for everyone, all musicians should
probably be familiar with."

And Bose is pushing it hard to the folk musician. They are doing a special
presentation at the upcoming Folk Alliance conference. I haven't heard the
system yet, but I plan to.
I've always felt that a musician on stage can not properly adjust a sound
system from the stage because they can not hear what the audience hears nor
hear how things change out in the hall as the concert progresses- nor can
they make the small adjustments that make a great mix great (e.g. tweeking
the guitar during a solo). So, I am skeptical of the Bose and I know Scott
is not fond of it. But here's my question:

What about this system for a solo or duet folk act? Can it be any good- why
not? other comments?

[Pooh Bear]

paul tumolo wrote:

> The new Bose system is getting quite a good report among folkies. Here is
> one comment from a well know regular poster to one of the folk music lists:
> "This Bose system is reputed to represent a real divergence in sound system
> conceptual design and one that seems as though it might be
> particulary "folk friendly". This is a apparently an approach that,
> while it may not be appropriate for everyone, all musicians should
> probably be familiar with."
>
> And Bose is pushing it hard to the folk musician. They are doing a special
> presentation at the upcoming Folk Alliance conference. I haven't heard the
> system yet, but I plan to.
> I've always felt that a musician on stage can not properly adjust a sound
> system from the stage because they can not hear what the audience hears nor
> hear how things change out in the hall as the concert progresses- nor can
> they make the small adjustments that make a great mix great (e.g. tweeking
> the guitar during a solo). So, I am skeptical of the Bose and I know Scott
> is not fond of it. But here's my question:
>
> What about this system for a solo or duet folk act? Can it be any good- why
> not? other comments?

It may even be ideal for them, price aside.

Any application not requiring high SPL is a candidate.

Question is - (a) can you bear the price just to have Bose - (b) surely you can
do better ( sound and price / versatility wise ) with conventional kit ?


Graham

[Scott Dorsey]

paul tumolo > wrote:
>I've always felt that a musician on stage can not properly adjust a sound
>system from the stage because they can not hear what the audience hears nor
>hear how things change out in the hall as the concert progresses- nor can
>they make the small adjustments that make a great mix great (e.g. tweeking
>the guitar during a solo). So, I am skeptical of the Bose and I know Scott
>is not fond of it. But here's my question:
>
>What about this system for a solo or duet folk act? Can it be any good- why
>not? other comments?

It does what they say it does. The question is whether what they say it
does is really something you want.

It does actually give you the same sound on stage that it does out in
the audience. Unfortunately, this is a recipe for feedback problems.
Also if you have slap echo problems from behind the stage (as is the
case in some theatres with cement rear walls), this will make it worse.

And, of course, you can no longer control monitor mixes, so the fellow
who always wants "more me" is out of luck. This could be an advantage
on the other hand.

But if you're working a group where the stage levels are low and it
does not have to be very loud in the house, the Bose columns are a way
you can avoid needing monitors and avoid horn speakers.

I didn't think the voice reproduction on them was very natural, but it
_was_ a lot more natural than most cheapie horns.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[George]

In article >,
"paul tumolo" > wrote:

> The new Bose system is getting quite a good report among folkies. Here is
> one comment from a well know regular poster to one of the folk music lists:
> "This Bose system is reputed to represent a real divergence in sound system
> conceptual design and one that seems as though it might be
> particulary "folk friendly". This is a apparently an approach that,
> while it may not be appropriate for everyone, all musicians should
> probably be familiar with."
>
> And Bose is pushing it hard to the folk musician. They are doing a special
> presentation at the upcoming Folk Alliance conference. I haven't heard the
> system yet, but I plan to.
> I've always felt that a musician on stage can not properly adjust a sound
> system from the stage because they can not hear what the audience hears nor
> hear how things change out in the hall as the concert progresses- nor can
> they make the small adjustments that make a great mix great (e.g. tweeking
> the guitar during a solo). So, I am skeptical of the Bose and I know Scott
> is not fond of it. But here's my question:
>
> What about this system for a solo or duet folk act? Can it be any good- why
> not? other comments?
>
>
>

For a solo act into a nearly silent respectful audience it can work
esp if the performer likes to sing through one of the "approved" mics(a
58)
it is not "club" friendly nor is it usable as asystem for several
musos, they each need thier own
and then there are serious problems getting balance and your on stage
sound correct
Be VERY suspect of any demo that is being run by BOSE personell
it is doubtful you would ever achieve the level of performance Bose does
thier demos define the word "slick"
George

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> What about this system for a solo or duet folk act? Can it be any good- why
> not? other comments?

I think that's what's most likely its most successful application. If
you're going to the Folk Alliance conference, let us know how their
schpiel goes. I'll bet they're going to be putting some in the
showcase or demo rooms.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Brian Standefer]

> I think that's what's most likely its most successful application. If
> you're going to the Folk Alliance conference, let us know how their
> schpiel goes. I'll bet they're going to be putting some in the
> showcase or demo rooms.

A friend of mine plays with the Flatlanders, who got some to demo at a show
last night here in Austin...I don't know how the show went but he said in
yesterday's rehearsal they sounded incredible but it was difficult to get
the mix right since everyone kept turning themselves up, and feedback was a
problem at high levels...it also opens up a new problem: Jimmie Dale
Gilmore forgot to bring his to the rehearsal!

Time will tell...

Brian

[paul tumolo]

That is correct, they are doing three nights of showcases, plus an demo and
Q/A session in the daytime. Certainly this is one of their primary target
crowds. I am likely to have clients asking me about this system in the near
future. I know what I can achieve from behind the board at a folk club with
an excellent sound system, such as the Freight & Salvage, so that is what
the new Bose system is going to have to come up to before it'll get my
recommendation. I have a feeling, however, that most folkies rarely
experience either a good FOH engineer or a good house system, let alone
both, and most may conclude that the Bose is as good as it gets. I sincerely
doubt that it can match a good engineer operating a good system. I will,
however, try to keep my bias under control when listening to their
showcases. -paul


"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1077283145k@trad...
>
> In article > writes:
>
> > What about this system for a solo or duet folk act? Can it be any good-
why
> > not? other comments?
>
> I think that's what's most likely its most successful application. If
> you're going to the Folk Alliance conference, let us know how their
> schpiel goes. I'll bet they're going to be putting some in the
> showcase or demo rooms.
>
>
>
> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers )
> However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
> lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
> you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
> and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[George]

In article >,
"paul tumolo" > wrote:

> That is correct, they are doing three nights of showcases, plus an demo and
> Q/A session in the daytime. Certainly this is one of their primary target
> crowds. I am likely to have clients asking me about this system in the near
> future. I know what I can achieve from behind the board at a folk club with
> an excellent sound system, such as the Freight & Salvage, so that is what
> the new Bose system is going to have to come up to before it'll get my
> recommendation. I have a feeling, however, that most folkies rarely
> experience either a good FOH engineer or a good house system, let alone
> both, and most may conclude that the Bose is as good as it gets. I sincerely
> doubt that it can match a good engineer operating a good system. I will,
> however, try to keep my bias under control when listening to their
> showcases. -paul
>
most likey your biggest problem facing a group is the complete lack of
ability to create seperate monitor mixes
your musos will not be able to get"More of me"or "less of her"
and as they futz with thier personal coloums to get it to sound "right"
to them on stage they will bung up the house mix
the house will have no ability to "Mix" a show no ability to cut
someone back who is too loud(due to poor hearing or ego)no ability to
bring forth a solo, no ability to make eq adjustments
in short I can only see these working for solo acts
George

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> I know what I can achieve from behind the board at a folk club with
> an excellent sound system, such as the Freight & Salvage, so that is what
> the new Bose system is going to have to come up to before it'll get my
> recommendation. I have a feeling, however, that most folkies rarely
> experience either a good FOH engineer or a good house system, let alone
> both, and most may conclude that the Bose is as good as it gets.

I remember back in the '70's when folkies considered that Bose (at the
time, a pair of B-800 on the 40 pound Atlas steel stands) was as good
as it gets - and y'know, it just about was, considering the
portability, the venues, and the sources.

> I sincerely
> doubt that it can match a good engineer operating a good system. I will,
> however, try to keep my bias under control when listening to their
> showcases.

Think of it as you would a recording system - someone who buys
recording gear in hopes of making recordings at home that are as good
as those done in a good studio with a good engineer isn't going to do
it, at least for a while, but if it offers some improvement over what
people are using now, that's a good thing. I was at the 2001 Folk
Alliance meeting as the Mackie rep when I got them to be a sponsor
that year and people were really happy with what they heard from the
SRM-450 powered speakers that were in several of the showcase rooms. I
don't know how many were actually purchased as a result of that show,
however. Mackie seemed to lose interest in that market even before I
left the company.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> most likey your biggest problem facing a group is the complete lack of
> ability to create seperate monitor mixes
> your musos will not be able to get"More of me"or "less of her"

The good thing about folk musicians is that mostly they all just want
to hear a balanced mix. Sometimes I think it's because they want to
hear what the audience hears to be sure that the engineer is mixing
them correctly.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Bob Olhsson]

"paul tumolo" > wrote in message
...
>> What about this system for a solo or duet folk act? Can it be any good-
why
> not? other comments?

It's more or less a cross between a serious update of the old Shure
VocalMonster system and Dan Healy's "wall of sound" that the Dead used.

With the right microphones, it could probably do a great job. With the wrong
ones, there's gonna be feedback problems. Healy wound up having people sing
into one of two Sennheiser omnis that were out of phase with each other. My
guess is that Beyer M-88s would probably work great.

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com

[George]

In article <znr1077311256k@trad>, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

> In article >
> writes:
>
> > most likey your biggest problem facing a group is the complete lack of
> > ability to create seperate monitor mixes
> > your musos will not be able to get"More of me"or "less of her"
>
> The good thing about folk musicians is that mostly they all just want
> to hear a balanced mix. Sometimes I think it's because they want to
> hear what the audience hears to be sure that the engineer is mixing
> them correctly.
>
>
>
haveing run several folk club stages as foh man I do not find this
statment to be true
George

[George]

In article >,
"Bob Olhsson" > wrote:

> "paul tumolo" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> What about this system for a solo or duet folk act? Can it be any good-
> why
> > not? other comments?
>
> It's more or less a cross between a serious update of the old Shure
> VocalMonster system and Dan Healy's "wall of sound" that the Dead used.
>
> With the right microphones, it could probably do a great job. With the wrong
> ones, there's gonna be feedback problems. Healy wound up having people sing
> into one of two Sennheiser omnis that were out of phase with each other. My
> guess is that Beyer M-88s would probably work great.

bose has radical eq and dsp presets for approved mics
the m88 is not one of them, either is the beta 87
I know the 58 is , but not sure about what others have been given slots
in the dsp engine
George

[Pooh Bear]

Brian Standefer wrote:

> > I think that's what's most likely its most successful application. If
> > you're going to the Folk Alliance conference, let us know how their
> > schpiel goes. I'll bet they're going to be putting some in the
> > showcase or demo rooms.
>
> A friend of mine plays with the Flatlanders, who got some to demo at a show
> last night here in Austin...I don't know how the show went but he said in
> yesterday's rehearsal they sounded incredible but it was difficult to get
> the mix right since everyone kept turning themselves up,

So nothing's changed then - lol.

You can't really expect musos to be mixing engineers as well ( at the same time
as performing at least ).

Really does illustrate that a decent FOH man makes all the difference.
Curiously ? Bose's marketing tries to convince you that the FOH man is a
liability.


Graham

[George]

on the other hand.
>
> But if you're working a group where the stage levels are low and it
> does not have to be very loud in the house, the Bose columns are a way
> you can avoid needing monitors and avoid horn speakers.
>
> I didn't think the voice reproduction on them was very natural, but it
> _was_ a lot more natural than most cheapie horns.
> --scott

at 2000$ each I don't think the "cheapie horn" buyers will be snapping
these up

George

[Todd Bradley]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> And, of course, you can no longer control monitor mixes, so the fellow
> who always wants "more me" is out of luck. This could be an advantage
> on the other hand.

Why don't you just have that guy stand closer to "his" speaker? Isn't
that the whole point? That each performer has one of these things which
they stand in front of, naturally giving him a mix where his own sound
level is a bit (but hopefully not too much) louder than the rest of the
band?


Todd.

[George]

In article >,
Todd Bradley > wrote:

> Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > And, of course, you can no longer control monitor mixes, so the fellow
> > who always wants "more me" is out of luck. This could be an advantage
> > on the other hand.
>
> Why don't you just have that guy stand closer to "his" speaker? Isn't
> that the whole point? That each performer has one of these things which
> they stand in front of, naturally giving him a mix where his own sound
> level is a bit (but hopefully not too much) louder than the rest of the
> band?
>
>
> Todd.
>

Todd is is a line array speaker and is claimed tomaintain even sound
volume from where it stands to almost 70 feet out
there should not be a appreciatable diffrence in volume wether the muso
is 2 feet or ten feet away
George

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> > The good thing about folk musicians is that mostly they all just want
> > to hear a balanced mix. Sometimes I think it's because they want to
> > hear what the audience hears to be sure that the engineer is mixing
> > them correctly.

> haveing run several folk club stages as foh man I do not find this
> statment to be true

There's folk and then there's folk.

I've run sound for bands who not only ask for but demand multiple
monitor mixes and spend two hours on sound checks (mostly getting
their instruments in tune). They're no different than pop acts that
don't spend enough time on stage (see thread about respect for an
artist). There are others who have their act together and work well
with a "professional" sound system and engineer. A coffee house duo
who doesn't need a sound system at all but to make them feel like
they're different from the audience can do fine with a simple system
and a simple mix (and no monitors).

I would certainly not put a system like this new Bose thing on a stage
at a folk festival and leave it unattended. But I would be interested
in knowing how it works out for the portable folk who do gigs in all
sorts of places, don't have a FOH engineer, and rarely have time for
anything more complex at setup than finding a power outlet.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[George]

> I would certainly not put a system like this new Bose thing on a stage
> at a folk festival and leave it unattended. But I would be interested
> in knowing how it works out for the portable folk who do gigs in all
> sorts of places, don't have a FOH engineer, and rarely have time for
> anything more complex at setup than finding a power outlet.
>
>
for a solo it can be just the thing
in a group setting it does not fair so well
several foks over at rec.music.makers.guitar .acoustic have reviewed it
one fellow actully bought one but returned it as it could not approach
the qualityof his(well above average) SLS /A&H icon rig

but if your refrence is the behringer/mackie small mixer and JBL eons,
the bose unit is a huge step up

he reported it really did not like being feed from a mixer
and that the only mics that sounded near acceptable were 57's and 58's
He also found it to be "VERY" difficult to use if you mic your acoustic
instrument
over all it offered him no sonic advantagge over any other $2000.system
he had used
it was not really any eaiser to carry, setup, or play through
he let it remain a option but not really anything revolutionairy for the
working musician
just diffrent
I am sorry i can only remember his first name this morning(Steve)
George

[George]

here is a google cut&paste review of the Bose system
this fellow has the chopsand actually owned (bought with his own money)
the bose PAS system
I offer up Steve Scott's Review>

> Here's a followup on my experience with the Bose PAS/L-1/Cylindrical
> Radiator/Whatever-Else-Name-They-Can-Call-It... See RMMGA thread "New
> type of PA system" for previous discussions. I was using a single tower
> and subwoofer ($2000) with a duo - myself and singing partner vocals, one
> acoustic guitar.
>
> Pros:
> We can hear close to what the audience is hearing. The system sounds
> better at a distance, pretty nice dispersion through the room. It's
> compact (four pieces as we used it), no tangle of cords, no monitors
> needed. Have to stay at least 4 feet away -- it can play loud, but will
> start feeding back and/or hurting your ears even that close to it. If we
> could get 8 feet away it would probably work better, but we didn't try
> that as it wouldn't be practical at the gigs we'd use it for. Can sound
> pretty good with acoustic guitar by itself, nothing spectacular. I like
> the concept, and applaud Bose for trying to simplify (improve?) the
> musician's SR needs.
>
> Cons:
> The sound is "flat", kind of two-dimensional. As I said before, it
> somehow sounds disconnected, like a recording of ourselves... There are
> no models for vocal condenser mics. We prefer the Shure Beta 87A, but
> they just wouldn't work, all screech and feedback with any existing mic
> presets. We tried running the 87's through outboard mixers (Allen &
> Heath DP1000, Behringer MXB1002, and Pendulum SPS-1), none of those
> worked either with or without the mic models.
>
> So we used SM57 and SM58, with their respective presets. These were
> better, I like the 57 on my voice and used it for a couple of years, it
> worked fairly well on the PAS. My wife has a beautiful alto voice, which
> is spectacular on our DP1000/SLS system - it sounded absolutely
> _terrible_ on the PAS, with any combination of mics and presets. She
> detested the PAS (duh).
>
> Overall, the vocals were "honky", just nasal and compressed, with no air
> or resonance. It feels like... singing through a tall, slender column of
> very small, very focused speakers.... Oh wait... Anyway, some of this
> is probably because of the lack of reverb or delay. There are no onboard
> effects. There are inserts on channels 1 and 2, but we didn't use them -
> that might have helped, or not, Bose has been insistent that the system
> will work as designed, no outboard FX recommended.
>
> A real non-starter for me - the system I had emitted a _very_ high-
> pitched squeal. I admit I have extremely sensitive hearing, my wife says
> I have "dog ears". This noise caused me physical discomfort, I could
> never use it that way. Maybe it was defective, or maybe most people
> (Bose engineers? :-) don't notice it. Maybe in a noisy venue it wouldn't
> be a problem.
>
> There are no remote controls for the line inputs, you must set the trim
> on the base and use that as your volume reference, kinda awkward. I've
> posted elsewhere about the inconvenience of having to crawl around on the
> floor behind the base and squint to adjust settings for all the inputs -
> I guess if you had it already dialed in properly this wouldn't be
> necessary.
>
> The system will definitely feed back. If it's turned up and you move
> from between the mic and tower, look out! I tried as a solo, one
> acoustic guitar mic only. The only condenser mic preset is AKG 451,
> which I don't have. I tried Audio Technica AT4051A, a very nice cardioid
> condenser with outstanding off-axis response. The sound was not too good
> even at low volume, and not a chance with any amp gain, all boom, squeal,
> string or pick noise with any or no presets. Large diaphragms (AT4033a,
> ADK A-48, Shure KSM27, Soundelux U195) were a little better, not too bad
> at low-to-mid volume, no good at higher levels. The best? -- Shure SM57,
> no question. This one worked nicely (using the appropriate SM57 preset
> and careful positioning of course), no doubt a lot of programming went
> into its model.
>
> Now here's the downside -- after setting the 57 guitar mic, I turned on
> the vocal mic (also SM57) and the sound went straight to hell. Rumbling,
> echoing, jangle, feedback, hollow sound, you name it. Turn one mic off
> (either one) and the sound is fine. Obviously the PAS has a problem with
> multiple open mics when one is in front of an acoustic guitar. Now, I
> only tried with the Gibson SJ200, admittedly a _large_ resonant surface,
> so maybe this would have worked better with my Martin 000-16SGT, but I
> didn't try it. I tried combinations of this setup several times, always
> similar results -- with a vocal mic open, low volume on the guitar mic
> was ok, so if you wanted to blend with a pickup it might work a little
> better, but I could not recommend guitar on microphone only, if you're
> going to sing.
>
> I used these pickups, again with the SJ200 - Trance Audio Acoustic Lens,
> Sunrise, and Baggs Element Active. I liked Acoustic lens and Sunrise the
> best. Using with the subwoofer can produce too much bass, not a good
> kind either, much too loose and woofy for me. Will cause low resonance
> even on the Sunrise. I went direct into the PAS preamp using various
> pickup models and also through outboard preamps and into the PAS line
> inputs. After tweaking, I could get a fairly nice sound, but nothing
> remarkable. It was nice to have the sound "spread" more than with an
> acoustic amp. But again there's a drawback -- after dialing in a good
> tone, I put a capo on the 3rd fret and started to play -- yuk, all nasal
> and compressed, very shrill and dull at the same time (bad combination).
> I tried this lots of times, the system for whatever reason just doesn't
> respond well with the strings capoed, unless set up for that. If I set
> up for the clamp, I could get it to work fairly well, then I had awful
> rumble and rattle when I removed the capo. I know this sounds weird, I
> was stymied and finally gave up.
>
> Some of our problems were due to trying with more than one musician per
> system. The sound tends to get "cluttered", with lack of distinction
> between tones when multiple sources are mixed in one tower. It was very
> difficult to sing harmony parts together. To be fair, Bose recommends
> one for each musician, and I think it would definitely work better that
> way, of course that can get expensive. Some of my concerns might get
> resolved (more mic models, onboard effects, better controls, etc.) with
> subsequent upgrades, which I suspect Bose has in the works. I don't
> believe they will get condenser microphones to work very well with the
> tower design; I think the sensitivity and broader frequency response of
> the condensers will continue to cause problems.
>
> So, in summary -- can it work... in a band? Yes, I think so -- I was at
> our company Christmas party last weekend and people were leaving in
> droves because of the ungodly nasty sound -- 9-foot ceiling, rock walls,
> tile floor, and these guys brought in screaming compression horns at ear
> level, individual electric guitar amps tilted up with full distortion and
> feedback, 3-piece horn section also mic'ed, and a half-drunk soundman who
> hasn't heard anything over 4 kHz in five years, you get the picture...
> Anything would have been better than that mess, and this is part of
> Bose's target. With several towers, some of the "compressed" sound I had
> a problem with might ease. I'd like to hear the systems like this
> sometime, although I firmly believe that if you put George Gleason or
> Richard Battaglia in front of this band, even with its existing
> equipment, the Bose PAS would still not compete.
>
> ... As acoustic solo? Probably work ok, if you're singing you'll likely
> need a supplemental pickup. It obviously spreads the sound out nicer
> than a single amp. I think you'll want some outboard effects and EQ, so
> it's not entirely self-contained. Fairly expensive just as an amp
> replacement.
>
> ... Acoustic/electric duo/trio/quartet? No way. A single tower is just
> not capable of or designed for this.
>
> Cost comparison? My current system:
> Pendulum SPS-1 preamp = $1400
> Allen and Heath DP1000 powered mixer = $900
> SLS 8190 ribbon speakers = $1000 (or so...)
> Total = $3300
> These are new prices - I bought some used, and got a great deal from
> George on the SLS, so my total cost was about $2200. The Pendulum is
> definitely optional, the A&H mic pre's are very nice alone, but we like
> the "extra" feel we get from the dedicated preamp. As I said, I can't
> use a single PAS tower for my group, I would need two, so Bose cost is
> $4000.
>
> Number of pieces?
> Mine: (1) Preamp/Mixer in a case, (2) speakers, (2) stands = 5 pieces,
> 105 lb.
> Bose: (1) base, (2) towers, (1) sub = 4 pieces, 95 lb.
>
> My bottom line? I had the system on 30-day approval. I returned it for
> a refund. When we got tired and frustrated from trying to make it work,
> we turned our regular system back on -- Ahhh!! This is the real deal,
> the sound just _sweeps_ the room, control of every whisper or shout, full
> strong acoustic bass, shimmering vocal air, ... It was like breaking
> free from being tied up or something, after singing on the PAS. This
> system is just too much competition for the Bose, as I suspect others
> will be as well.
>
> Hope that's of use to you folks, thanks for reading. Just remember, its
> about the music -- none of this is worth getting too worked up about,
> it's fun to compare and contrast but I always end up liking variety and
> moving stuff around anyway. Peace at your holiday season...
>
> Steve



:

[Scott Dorsey]

George > wrote:
>
>bose has radical eq and dsp presets for approved mics
>the m88 is not one of them, either is the beta 87
>I know the 58 is , but not sure about what others have been given slots
>in the dsp engine

I think preset EQ curves for anything is really a bad idea. But you can
just ignore them, which I recommend doing.

I mean, somebody selected that mike because they like the sound of it,
so doing something deliberately intended to eliminate whatever coloration
they like is silly. If they didn't want that coloration, they should
have got a different mike.

But then, I also think that the various "flat" presents on the Bose all
sound different, too.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Pooh Bear > wrote:
>
>Really does illustrate that a decent FOH man makes all the difference.
>Curiously ? Bose's marketing tries to convince you that the FOH man is a
>liability.

Sadly, this is probably the case. Folk clubs can't afford to pay a
real FOH mixer, who will probably be asking for more money than the
whole band gets even for a fairly big name folk act. So you get kids
who don't know the music and don't know how to listen.

This is why there is the big push to using one mike on stage for a lot
of acoustic groups... musicians are just getting to the point where they
have had it with bad sound reinforcement support. And there just isn't
the money in it to provide them with good sound reinforcement.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Brian Standefer]

> So nothing's changed then - lol.
>
> You can't really expect musos to be mixing engineers as well ( at the same
time
> as performing at least ).
>
> Really does illustrate that a decent FOH man makes all the difference.
> Curiously ? Bose's marketing tries to convince you that the FOH man is a
> liability.

That's exactly right...just talked with my friend last night who said that
it was kind of a mess...because of the size of the venue they used the P.A.
in addition to the Bose system, the result not being very good...I don't
know what they were thinking, the Flatlanders is 4 guitars drums and bass,
and were in a 2000 capacity club, hardly the intended use of these things!

Brian

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Todd it is a line array speaker and is claimed tomaintain even sound
> volume from where it stands to almost 70 feet out
> there should not be a appreciatable diffrence in volume wether the muso
> is 2 feet or ten feet away

They've managed to defeat the inverse square law? What will they think
of next?



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[[email protected]]

">They've managed to defeat the inverse square law? What will they think
>of next?"

In a manner of speaking, yes, but it is just the expression of a variation
of the law, consider:

" Basically, a line of sources will create a wavefront of sound
pressure
that is loosely cylindrical in nature at a particular range of
wavelengths (frequencies). Its idealized shape is actually more
like a
section of a cake, and the wavefront surface area, as it expands
only
in the horizontal plane, doubles in area for every doubling of
distance. This equates to a 3dB SPL loss of level for every
doubling
of distance.
SPHERICAL WAVEFORM
An idealized point source, imperfectly represented by a
loudspeaker or
nonlinear cluster of loudspeakers, radiates in a spherical
waveform
rather than cylindrical. This wavefront expands to four times the
area
with each doubling of distance, which equates to a 6dB SPL loss
for
every doubling of distance. This is commonly known as the
inverse-square law, and it applies to all point-source radiant
energy.
Hence the big advantage for a line array is that for a given
number of
transducers, the resulting long throw level can be much greater
than
for a non-line array, or point-source, loudspeaker system."

[George]

In article <znr1077375576k@trad>, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

> In article >
> writes:
>
> > Todd it is a line array speaker and is claimed tomaintain even sound
> > volume from where it stands to almost 70 feet out
> > there should not be a appreciatable diffrence in volume wether the muso
> > is 2 feet or ten feet away
>
> They've managed to defeat the inverse square law? What will they think
> of next?
>
the law is diffrent when applied to line arrays
the big feature of the line array is it only drops 3dBper doubleing of
distance where a point source drops 6dB
this (more controlled voume drop)gives you the needed volume at the back
of the house without killing the first 10 rows
George

[Bob Olhsson]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> This is why there is the big push to using one mike on stage for a lot
> of acoustic groups... musicians are just getting to the point where they
> have had it with bad sound reinforcement support. And there just isn't
> the money in it to provide them with good sound reinforcement.

Perhaps another reason is that music usually sounds lots better without
stage monitors unless you are dealing with back-line guitar stacks set on
11!

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> I think preset EQ curves for anything is really a bad idea. But you can
> just ignore them, which I recommend doing.

I suspect that the "mic presets" are an attempt to flatten out the
response of the speaker and mic as a system. But there's no way to
anticipate things that aren't static like proximity effect and buildup
due to reflections from the floor, walls, and ceiling.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Pooh Bear]

Brian Standefer wrote:

> > So nothing's changed then - lol.
> >
> > You can't really expect musos to be mixing engineers as well ( at the same
> time
> > as performing at least ).
> >
> > Really does illustrate that a decent FOH man makes all the difference.
> > Curiously ? Bose's marketing tries to convince you that the FOH man is a
> > liability.
>
> That's exactly right...just talked with my friend last night who said that
> it was kind of a mess...because of the size of the venue they used the P.A.
> in addition to the Bose system, the result not being very good...I don't
> know what they were thinking, the Flatlanders is 4 guitars drums and bass,
> and were in a 2000 capacity club, hardly the intended use of these things!

Indeed ! Absolutely not.

Whatever possesed them to even considering using it ?

Graham

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> " Basically, a line of sources will create a wavefront of sound
> pressure
> that is loosely cylindrical in nature at a particular range of
> wavelengths (frequencies). Its idealized shape is actually more
> like a
> section of a cake, and the wavefront surface area, as it expands
> only
> in the horizontal plane, doubles in area for every doubling of
> distance. This equates to a 3dB SPL loss of level for every
> doubling
> of distance.
> SPHERICAL WAVEFORM
> An idealized point source, imperfectly represented by a
> loudspeaker or
> nonlinear cluster of loudspeakers, radiates in a spherical
> waveform
> rather than cylindrical. This wavefront expands to four times the
> area
> with each doubling of distance, which equates to a 6dB SPL loss
> for
> every doubling of distance.


In real life, and in an enclosed volume, a "normal" speaker works less
like an ideal point source than a relatively short line array works
like an ideal line array. I found (somewhat to my surprise) when I was
experimenting with calibrating the monitor level in my control room
that I was getting about 3 dB loss when doubling the distance.

While there may be a bit of saving here, I hardly think that they
produce the same volume anywhere within 70 feet.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Scott Dorsey]

In article <znr1077375576k@trad>, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>In article > writes:
>
>> Todd it is a line array speaker and is claimed tomaintain even sound
>> volume from where it stands to almost 70 feet out
>> there should not be a appreciatable diffrence in volume wether the muso
>> is 2 feet or ten feet away
>
>They've managed to defeat the inverse square law? What will they think
>of next?

Yup. It's not a point source, it's a line array, so it falls off much
less quickly than a point source would. On the other hand, it's not a
very tall line array, so the distance at which it effectively starts
being like a point source at low frequencies isn't all that far.
And it's dependant on frequency.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
> wrote:
>
>">They've managed to defeat the inverse square law? What will they think
>>of next?"
>
>In a manner of speaking, yes, but it is just the expression of a variation
>of the law,

Incidentally this is a variation that was originally cooked up by the folks
at Electro-Voice in the 1950s, and which for years persisted in the form
of those horrible Bogen sound columns.

I think McIntosh made some line array systems for home use too.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[George]

> While there may be a bit of saving here, I hardly think that they
> produce the same volume anywhere within 70 feet.
>
>
>
>
I have my doubts as well
anything bose publishs is subject to intense review IMO
George

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1077375576k@trad
> In article
> >
> writes:
>
>> Todd it is a line array speaker and is claimed to maintain even sound
>> volume from where it stands to almost 70 feet out
>> there should not be a appreciable difference in volume whether the
>> muso is 2 feet or ten feet away
>
> They've managed to defeat the inverse square law? What will they think
> of next?

The inverse square law only applies to situations where the speaker's
coverage area (in areal measure, not angle) increases with the square of the
distance. This is typical of an ordinary speaker radiating into free space.

Speakers with different directionality characteristics have always followed
different rules. For example, a floor-to-ceiling line array can't have
increased coverage in the vertical dimension because of the floor and the
ceiling. Because its a line array, it does cover the entire floor-to-ceiling
distance close-up. Therefore, intensity falls off proportional to
distance, and not proportional to the square of the distance.

The real fun comes when you try to combine say, a line array with a direct
radiator. This happens when you combine a line array with a typical direct
radiator subwoofer. One speaker's SPL falls off with proportional to the
square of the distance, while the other speaker's SPL falls off proportional
to distance. Obviously, they are in balance over a very limited portion of
the listening area.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> > wrote:
>>
>> ">They've managed to defeat the inverse square law? What will they
>> think
>>> of next?"
>>
>> In a manner of speaking, yes, but it is just the expression of a
>> variation of the law,
>
> Incidentally this is a variation that was originally cooked up by the
> folks at Electro-Voice in the 1950s, and which for years persisted in
> the form of those horrible Bogen sound columns.

> I think McIntosh made some line array systems for home use too.

Right, but they pursued a different approach.

There are line arrays that don't act much like line arrays. For example, the
so-called Bessel array adjusts or shades the polarity and intensity of the
drive to the speakers in the array, so that the whole array acts pretty much
like just one of the speakers in it, as far as directionality goes.

While Phillips made sweeping claims for Bessel array technology, an AES
paper by Keele essentially debunked most Bessel line configurations except
for one, which is composed of 5 drivers. This one is pretty simple - two
drivers are put in series to decrease their output, and one is
polarity-inverted.

The patent should have run out a few years ago.

McIntosh has a N=5 tweeter array.

I built a N=5 Bessel array as a stage monitor from 5 "full-range" 5.5"
drivers. It is relatively free of the kinds of phasiness and comb filter
effects you normally get with line arrays. It sounds pretty much like one
driver, but with about 4 times the power-handling capacity.

[Carey Carlan]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in
:

> While Phillips made sweeping claims for Bessel array technology, an
> AES paper by Keele essentially debunked most Bessel line
> configurations except for one, which is composed of 5 drivers. This
> one is pretty simple - two drivers are put in series to decrease their
> output, and one is polarity-inverted.
>
> I built a N=5 Bessel array as a stage monitor from 5 "full-range"
> 5.5" drivers. It is relatively free of the kinds of phasiness and comb
> filter effects you normally get with line arrays. It sounds pretty
> much like one driver, but with about 4 times the power-handling
> capacity.

Inquiring minds want to know more...

[Brian Standefer]

"> Whatever possesed them to even considering using it ?

Joe Ely was offered them as a try-it-out deal to see if he liked
them...probably by someone who thinks the Flatlanders is a folk group...Joe,
not being a sound-guy probably just said "cool! free ****!"

Brian

[Chris Hornbeck]

On 21 Feb 2004 20:13:36 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>I think McIntosh made some line array systems for home use too.

The McIntosh XRT20's of about 1980 had a vertical line of tweeters
operating above 1500 Hz. Not bad in a big room and with lots of juice.

For an eye-opener to the (seemingly unlikely) possibilities, try
to catch the Nearfield Acoustics Pipedreams, made with paralleled
dynamic drivers in Corian boxes. All it takes sometimes is a big
enough checkbook.

Chris Hornbeck

"Second star to the right,
Then straight on 'til morning."

[John S. Etnier]

In article >, Brian Standefer
> wrote:

> "> Whatever possesed them to even considering using it ?
>
> Joe Ely was offered them as a try-it-out deal to see if he liked
> them...probably by someone who thinks the Flatlanders is a folk group...Joe,
> not being a sound-guy probably just said "cool! free ****!"
>
> Brian
>
>
I have a singer-songwriter friend who's been using a set for several
months now and is totally sold. Haven't heard it myself.

--
John Etnier
Studio Dual
http://www.studiodual.com

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Joe Ely was offered them as a try-it-out deal to see if he liked
> them...probably by someone who thinks the Flatlanders is a folk group...Joe,
> not being a sound-guy probably just said "cool! free ****!"

I saw a photo of The Flatlanders in the newspaper today. Looked like
three guys with acoustic guitars crowded around a single microphone.
That should have worked, but probably not in a 2000 seat venue. Of
course there could have been a drummer, bass player, and others who
weren't in the photo I saw.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Arny Krueger]

"Carey Carlan" > wrote in message
. 201
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in
> :
>
>> While Phillips made sweeping claims for Bessel array technology, an
>> AES paper by Keele essentially debunked most Bessel line
>> configurations except for one, which is composed of 5 drivers. This
>> one is pretty simple - two drivers are put in series to decrease
>> their output, and one is polarity-inverted.

>> I built a N=5 Bessel array as a stage monitor from 5 "full-range"
>> 5.5" drivers. It is relatively free of the kinds of phasiness and
>> comb filter effects you normally get with line arrays. It sounds
>> pretty much like one driver, but with about about 4 times the
>> power-handling capacity.

> Inquiring minds want to know more...

Statement of the problem with pretty pictures:

http://yu-ra.tripod.com/array.htm

The Phillips paper I referred to can be found at

http://www.ee.ic.ac.uk/hp/staff/pnaylor/papers/LineSourceLoudspeakers/philip
s091.pdf

The AES Keele paper is:

Effective Performance of Bessel Arrays
Author(s): Keele, Jr., D. B.
Publication: Volume 38 Number 10 pp. 723·748; October 1990
Publication: Preprint 2846; Convention 87; October 1989

<paragraph breaks are mine>

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. The results of a
computer simulation are described, which uses point sources to determine the
effective operating frequency range, working distance, efficiency, power
handling, maximum acoustic output, efficiency·bandwidth product, and
power·bandwidth product of the array.

The various Bessel configurations are compared to one-, two-, and
five-source equal-spaced equal-level equal-polarity line arrays. As compared
to a single source, a five source Bessel array is 14% (0.6dB) more
efficient, can handle 3.5 (+5.4dB) more power, and has 4 times (+6dB) the
maximum midband acoustic output power, and is usable for omnidirectional
radiation up to the frequency where the overall length is 11 wavelengths
long.

As compared to a two-source equal-level in-phase array, a five-source Bessel
array is 43% (2.4dB) less efficient, can handle 1.75 (+2.4dB) more power,
has the same maximum midband acoustic output power, and is usable for
omnidirectional radiation 10 times higher in frequency.

A working distance of 20 times the length of the Bessel array was assumed,
with the length of the Bessel array (center-to-center distance of outside
sources) being four times that of the two-source array. Analysis reveals
that the three Bessel arrays have equal maximum acoustic output, but that
the five-element Bessel array has the highest efficiency and power·bandwidth
product.

The seven- and nine-source Bessel arrays are found to be effectively
unusable, as compared to the five-source array, due to much lower
efficiency, requirement for more sources, and poor high-frequency
performance. Judging polar peak-to-peak ripple and high-frequency response,
the performance of the Bessel array is found to improve in direct proportion
to the working distance away from the array. Unfortunately the phase versus
direction and phase versus frequency characteristics of the Bessel array are
very nonlinear and make it difficult to use with other sources.