Could you elaborate on why you were disappointed in the Model One?

Gordon Cook


"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ...
But the little KLH table radio isn't half bad at all.

Do you mean the Eight or 21? Both are quite good, though I prefer the tubed
Eight when listening in mono.

If you mean the Tivoli One, it's a major disappointment. It's a shame it was the
last product Henry Kloss designed. Hardly worthy of his reputation.

Single-piece stereo table radios are not very good. I heard the Cambridge
SoundWorks recently -- mediocre sound, way overpriced.

If you want a small system for your desktop, get one of those little "executive"
systems. I have a $200 TEAC that's amazingly good, and very much worth what it
costs. Look for models that have two-way (rather than single-driver) speaker
systems.

If you mean the Tivoli One, it's a major disappointment.
It's a shame it was the last product Henry Kloss designed.
Hardly worthy of his reputation.

Could you elaborate on why you were disappointed
in the Model One?


Yes.

The sound is decidedly "small." It's not boxy or colored, just very "cramped."
It's also overly "liquid" and lacking in detail.

The bass is fat and muddy. (And this from one of AR's founders!) Blocking the
port in the bottom helps.

It won't play very loud. As you turn up the volume, it sounds like compression
has been applied to the sound.

It simply doesn't come close to the 8 or 21.


If all you want is a compact, decent-sounding mono table radio for listening to
talk shows, it's okay. But if you want stereo, and fairly good sound, listen to
the various "executive stereos" available for around $200. Not only do they
often have much-better sound (and not just because they're stereo), but they
include a CD player.

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 19:19:17 -0500, Will Brink
wrote:

In article ,
Peter Sammon wrote:

It's a well known engineering fact that audiophile quality speakers such as
the 901s work well on tube amplifiers. snip

What a line of horse ****!

Nothing Bose makes is audiophile quality. The take outdated design, use
ultra cheap materials, and market to people who fall for the pseudo
science talk. A dead cat sounds better and is better made. snip

Now, THERE'S the truth. Amar Bose developed one of the leading fraud
houses of audio. People with ANY knowledge base at all laugh at
anything with the Bose label. Want to know where he got the idea for
the ill sounding 901? Look back in a 1948 issue of Radio magazine at
their article about the "sweet sixteen" homebrew speaker, where a guy
fills up a box with 16 cheap 4" speakers rather than spend the money
on a good 15" driver. Some guys at Hammond Organ Corporation read
that same article and loaded up a tombstone shaped box full of cheap
10" drivers rather than use good 15"s, and got similarly horrid
results back in late 1948. Of course, the premise didn't work in '48,
didn't work when the 901 was introduced, and doesn't work now. And
remember....

"Got no highs? Got no lows! Only midrange....MUST BE BOSE!"

dB

It's a well-known engineering fact that audiophile-quality speakers
such as the 901s work well on tube amplifiers. snip

This was a joke. Sarcasm does not read well on Usenet.


Now, THERE'S the truth. Amar Bose developed one of the leading
fraud houses of audio. People with ANY knowledge base at all laugh
at anything with the Bose label. Want to know where he got the idea
for the ill-sounding 901? Look back in a 1948 issue of Radio magazine
at their article about the "sweet sixteen" homebrew speaker, where
a guy fills up a box with 16 cheap 4" speakers rather than spend the
money on a good 15" driver.

The "Sweet 16" article actually appeared in Popular Electronics in the early
'60s, at least five years before the 901 hit the market.

The gestation of the 901 was via the 2201, an attempt to produce a "perfect
point-source" speaker. Dr. Thomas Stockham, the founder of Soundstream, worked
with Dr. Bose on the design, providing digital signal processing that "proved" a
properly equalized (???) array of drivers could subjectively reproduce sound in
a way that was indistinguishable from a perfect * point source at the same
position in the listening room. There's a Web article explaining the design
process, but I can't find the URL. This is the closest I can find...

http://history.acusd.edu/gen/recording/stockham.html

Only a few 2201s were sold. (Julian Hirsch gave it a rave review.) Their sound
displeased Dr. Bose, mostly because it seemed too bright (even though it
measured flat). ** This suggested bouncing most of the sound off the wall, to
smooth and soften it. The business about the "optimum" concert-hall ratio of
reflected-to-direct sound is, as far as I know, an ex-post-facto justification.


"Got no highs? Got no lows! Only midrange... MUST BE BOSE!"

The "principles" on which the 901 is designed (other than the use of
equalization) are all technically or aesthetically invalid, and the speaker's
poor sound is proof of this. However, the lack of frequency extremes is no proof
of poor sound quality. The original QUAD electrostatic has an anemic low end,
but is still considered an outstanding speaker. When people criticize the 901s
for "no highs, no lows," they are criticizing it for the wrong reason.


* "Perfect" in this context means not only in terms of point-source dispersion,
but sonic accuracy.

** I don't know whether Dr. Bose asked himself whether this was due to the
recordings, or bothered to make his own live recordings, to try to get a feel
for where the problem lay.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
When people criticize the 901s
for "no highs, no lows," they are criticizing it for the wrong reason.

If it was only supposed to be a mid-range speaker I would agree. However it
is sold with an equaliser as a full range speaker, so one should expect some
highs and some lows.

I wonder what you think the right reason for criticizing it is then. Poor
efficiency, poor dynamics, high distortion, peaky response, or something
else?

Whilst the "no highs, no lows, must be bose", is true, it's still a joke,
and not meant to convey the full extent of it's limitations.

TonyP.

When people criticize the 901s for "no highs, no
lows," they are criticizing it for the wrong reason.

Whilst the "no highs, no lows, must be bose", is true, it's still a
joke, and not meant to convey the full extent of its limitations.

If it was only supposed to be a mid-range speaker I would agree.
However it is sold with an equaliser as a full range speaker, so
one should expect some highs and some lows.

I wonder what you think the right reason for criticizing it is then.
Poor efficiency, poor dynamics, high distortion, peaky response,
or something else?

1. Simply flattening the amplitude response of a mediocre driver will not enable
it to equal the sound quality of a well-engineered driver with similar response.

2. Bouncing the sound off the wall to produce a sense of spaciousness is
aesthetically invalid when the recording itself is supposed to contain the
original acoustics. This effect might be fine for mono recordings, but it is
antithetical to a well-engineered stereo or surround recording.

3. I owned the original 901 and have not heard the later versions. However, it
was not particularly clean, especially at high levels.

4. If you're going to equalize the drivers, wouldn't it have made more sense to
overdamp them, so that only a 6dB•/8ve boost (though admittedly over a wider
range) were required, as KLH did with their portables?

Along those lines... I owned a KLH Model 11 FM before I bought my first "good"
system, which included Bose 901s. My initial reaction in comparing the two was
that, overall, the 901s didn't represent any real improvement over the portable
in terms of transparency, detail, coloration, etc. Which shouldn't have been
surprising, as both used small full-range drivers (though from different
manufacturers, of course).

When people criticize the 901s for "no highs, no
lows," they are criticizing it for the wrong reason.

Whilst the "no highs, no lows, must be bose", is true, it's still a
joke, and not meant to convey the full extent of its limitations.

That's why the complete phrase is "No highs, no lows, sound really blows,
must be Bose." It's the "sound really blows" part that you are missing.
--scott


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

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 00:07:53 -0800, DeserTBoB wrote:

Now, THERE'S the truth. Amar Bose developed one of the leading fraud
houses of audio. People with ANY knowledge base at all laugh at

Never ascribe to malice what can be as easily explained by ignorance and
stupidity.

Bose is market driven. They've discovered that they can sell **** and people
will lap it up. Choice 1: expensive to make quality speaker. Choice 2:
garbage wrapped in slick marketing with a far higher profit margin. They've
obviously picked choice 2 and I don't think the reason has any malice to it.
They're simply out to make a buck and if idiots don't care what they buy then
why should bose?

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 01:12:15 +1100, "TonyP"
wrote:

I wonder what you think the right reason for criticizing it is then. Poor
efficiency, poor dynamics, high distortion, peaky response, or something
else? snip

All of the above, and more. The "direct/reflective" thing was
pseudoscience at its worst...a gimmick. One problem with the Bose
things is Doppler distortion...something Bose doesn't even admit
exists.

Whilst the "no highs, no lows, must be bose", is true, it's still a joke,
and not meant to convey the full extent of it's limitations. snip

I first heard that joke back in the '60s. Although it doesn't really
get to the crux of the 901's (and other Bose abominations') problems,
it's a cute ditty!

dB

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 06:42:08 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

2. Bouncing the sound off the wall to produce a sense of spaciousness is
aesthetically invalid when the recording itself is supposed to contain the
original acoustics. This effect might be fine for mono recordings, but it is
antithetical to a well-engineered stereo or surround recording. snip

On monaural, it'd be the equivalent of "electronic stereo" of the
early '60s...in other terms, a fraud, by any other name.

3. I owned the original 901 and have not heard the later versions. However, it
was not particularly clean, especially at high levels. snip

Doppler distortion, plus the fact that the Bose's crappy efficiency
made it work amplifiers of those days to death, similar to the AR
"heat sinks."

4. If you're going to equalize the drivers, wouldn't it have made more sense to
overdamp them, so that only a 6dB•/8ve boost (though admittedly over a wider
range) were required, as KLH did with their portables? snip

Exactly. KLH had quite a bit of success with that idea, and is, at
least subjectively, was more valid that Bose's "sweet 16" nightmare.
Pound for pound, KLH had a lot more success with exploring the "big
sound in a small box" idea than Bose ever did.

Along those lines... I owned a KLH Model 11 FM before I bought my first "good"
system, which included Bose 901s. My initial reaction in comparing the two was
that, overall, the 901s didn't represent any real improvement over the portable
in terms of transparency, detail, coloration, etc. Which shouldn't have been
surprising, as both used small full-range drivers (though from different
manufacturers, of course). snip

The KLH 11 was easily as good at overall fidelity as a set of 901s,
I'd hazard to guess. What was intersting about 901s was hearing an
album for the first time on a set of them, and then hearing it on a
set of real loudspeakers, and the conflict of impressions you'd get
between the two presentations. Of course, any of the acoustic (real
or electronic) impressions included in the album would be obliterated
by the 901s, thus giving a false impression of the final result.

dB

On 24 Dec 2004 10:25:15 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

That's why the complete phrase is "No highs, no lows, sound really blows,
must be Bose." It's the "sound really blows" part that you are missing. snip

LOL! Too true.

dB

In article writes:

The "Sweet 16" article actually appeared in Popular Electronics in the early
'60s, at least five years before the 901 hit the market.

I built one of those! Also a Celotex corner encloure from a PE
article. They don't make DIY stuff like that any more.

Has anyone built Scott Doresey's monitors?


--
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 he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

EganMedia wrote:

2. Bouncing the sound off the wall to produce a sense of spaciousness is
aesthetically invalid when the recording itself is supposed to contain the
original acoustics. This effect might be fine for mono recordings, but it is
antithetical to a well-engineered stereo or surround recording.


I'm not going to defend Bose. I think they suck as much as everyone else
around here. I do question this particular statement though. If listening
room reflections were "antithetical to a well-engineered stereo or surround
recording", wouldn't there be more people arguing for anechoic listening rooms
and control rooms?


Right. The idea of the 901 is not to recreate the space that the
instruments were recorded in, but rather to add space to your particular
room to make it sound like a more finally tuned listening environment.

If set up properly, which can actually be very difficult, the 901s can
sound reasonably good, though you won't get the crispy highs or ultra
highs that a multi-driver speaker can provide. Of course a lot of old
ears don't hear that much of that anyway.

Regardless, they were always overpriced, and over hyped. Seems nothing
has changed at Bose in all these years.

On 24 Dec 2004 14:54:27 -0500, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

The "Sweet 16" article actually appeared in Popular Electronics in the early
'60s, at least five years before the 901 hit the market.

I built one of those! Also a Celotex corner encloure from a PE
article. They don't make DIY stuff like that any more.



I built them too, used them for stage monitors (hey, it was the '60s)
for years.

Frank /~ http://newmex.com/f10
@/

In article znr1103907439k@trad, Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes:

The "Sweet 16" article actually appeared in Popular Electronics in the early
'60s, at least five years before the 901 hit the market.

I built one of those! Also a Celotex corner encloure from a PE
article. They don't make DIY stuff like that any more.

You need to be reading Audio Express, Mike. I have seen plenty of speaker
building projects that were.... well, they weren't QUITE as nasty, but they
were pretty nasty.

Has anyone built Scott Doresey's monitors?

I think about ten pairs have been built. BUT, unfortunately you can't
get those Radian drivers any more.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

The KLH 11 was easily as good at overall fidelity as a set of 901s,
I'd hazard to guess. What was intersting about 901s was hearing an
album for the first time on a set of them, and then hearing it on a
set of real loudspeakers, and the conflict of impressions you'd get
between the two presentations. Of course, any of the acoustic (real
or electronic) impressions included in the album would be obliterated
by the 901s, thus giving a false impression of the final result.

In "fairness" (!!!), the 901s can be mightily impressive. (I worked in a store
that sold them.) As J. Gordon Holt put it, the 901s can sound like "the truth
and the light," while all the other speakers are just piddling around.

Non-electrostatic speaker systems of 35 years ago weren't anywhere nearly as
good as they are today, so the perceived difference between them and the 901s
(in terms of fidelity) was not as great as it is today. The KLH "full-range"
driver is actually the tweeter -- with a much more compliant surround and bigger
magnet -- used in many KLH two- and three-way systems.

2. Bouncing the sound off the wall to produce a sense of spaciousness
is aesthetically invalid when the recording itself is supposed to contain
the original acoustics. This effect might be fine for mono recordings,
but it is antithetical to a well-engineered stereo or surround recording.

I'm not going to defend Bose. I think they suck as much as everyone else
around here. I do question this particular statement though. If listening
room reflections were "antithetical to a well-engineered stereo or surround
recording", wouldn't there be more people arguing for anechoic listening
rooms and control rooms?

Excellent question! I don't have time to go into a detailed explanation, but
here's part of it.

A completely anechoic listening room would be unpleasant. On the other hand, too
much "liveness" colors the sound and blurs the image -- uncontrolled and
inappropriate room reflections _are_ "antithetical to a well-engineered stereo
or surround recording".

The current opinion is that the walls around and a bit in front of the speakers
should be damped to minimize reflections, while the listening area and the walls
behind it can remain on the live side. This minimizes the effect of the room on
the speakers, while allowing a blend of reflections near the listener, which
(because the arrival times are much longer) degrades the sound less.

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 15:53:27 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

In "fairness" (!!!), the 901s can be mightily impressive.

In a friend's apartment, with a brick wall "behind" them, and
back in the lava lamp era, they gave a colorful but tiring
presentation. The rear wall seems to have mattered even
more than usual.

Paul Klipsch's comment at the time was that they didn't seem
to mess (not his word) up the rhythm too much.

But, at the time and during the times, they could be impressive.
Sadly, we're younger than that now.

Chris Hornbeck
"However I don't think that we're going down the right road fighting it
with an American version of same."
-Richard Webb

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

In a friend's apartment, with a brick wall "behind" them, and
back in the lava lamp era, they gave a colorful but tiring
presentation. The rear wall seems to have mattered even
more than usual.

They work well in night clubs. With all the talking and noise going on,
having excessive mid-range can be beneficial. They cut through pretty
well, and lack of hi-fidelity isn't really an issue.

TCS wrote:
Bose is market driven. They've discovered that they can sell ****
and people
will lap it up. Choice 1: expensive to make quality speaker. Choice
2:
garbage wrapped in slick marketing with a far higher profit margin.
They've
obviously picked choice 2 and I don't think the reason has any malice
to it.
They're simply out to make a buck and if idiots don't care what they
buy then
why should bose?

Bravo. Nail hit, dead on.

Just go to your local Shircuit Shhhh*ty and check the build quality
out. In particular see if you can find a set of 601s. Man, the wood
they are made out of is worse than the stuff in Sauder furniture. The
drivers look like the stuff found in clock radios and cheap intercom
units.

Complete Crap.

There are lots of cheap consumer speakers out there, but I'd put just
about any brand up against B*se. Polk, Infinity, Paradigm, CV,
anything. They are at least trying to give the conumer more than a
peice of junk.

--
8k rules

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 00:30:42 GMT, Chris Hornbeck
wrote:

Paul Klipsch's comment at the time was that they didn't seem
to mess (not his word) up the rhythm too much. snip

Paul's "Bull****" buttons looked especially good on the front of a
pair of 901s.

But, at the time and during the times, they could be impressive.
Sadly, we're younger than that now. snip

We are??

dB

On 24 Dec 2004 17:51:19 -0800, "Gene Sweeny"
wrote:

Polk, Infinity, Paradigm, CV snip

Well, knowing some of Gene Cerwinski's antics in the '70s, I'd say
yes, he WAS trying to give customers more than a piece of junk. They
got a piece of junk and a ****LOAD of hype!

Out of caps for crossovers? Just run down to Factor's Surplus in
Burbank and scoop a bunch of crap of ANY kind out of the surplus bins
and throw 'em in there! At least he wasn't as "preachy" about how
scientifically engineered his Cerwin-Vega crap was. It was junk, but
LOUD junk, and he'd admit it.

dB

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 20:47:28 -0800, DeserTBoB
wrote:

Sadly, we're younger than that now. snip

We are??

Don't you think so? I dunno; maybe it's just the season.
My youth probably peaked in my early 40's, so any current
evaluation is badly outdated. Wonder what Dylan hisownself
would say?

One thing's for sure, he'd say it better than me.
Ho, ho, ho,

Chris Hornbeck

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
That's why the complete phrase is "No highs, no lows, sound really blows,
must be Bose." It's the "sound really blows" part that you are missing.

That's a newer addition I think. Sound really sucks just doesn't fit :-)

TonyP.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
Is there a reason why you deliberately jumbled the context of my post I
wonder?
You simply agree that it sucks from what I read.

TonyP.

"Frank Vuotto" wrote in message
...
I built them too, used them for stage monitors (hey, it was the '60s)
for years.

Exactly the opposite of what you want for stage monitors.
And it took you years to wake up? I'm surprised you admit to that :-)

TonyP.

And what were you using for stage monitors in the 60's? Back then you
put your mic in the second channel of your Fender amp for most gigs.

Believe me, I was plenty awake.

Frank /~ http://newmex.com/f10
@/


On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 16:31:15 +1100, "TonyP"
wrote:


"Frank Vuotto" wrote in message
.. .
I built them too, used them for stage monitors (hey, it was the '60s)
for years.

Exactly the opposite of what you want for stage monitors.
And it took you years to wake up? I'm surprised you admit to that :-)

TonyP.

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 16:18:49 +1100, "TonyP"
wrote:


"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
That's why the complete phrase is "No highs, no lows, sound really blows,
must be Bose." It's the "sound really blows" part that you are missing.

That's a newer addition I think. Sound really sucks just doesn't fit :-) snip

The way I always heard it from the '60s was:

"Got now highs? Got no lows! Only midrange...MUST BE BOSE!"

....but the "sound blows" idea's quite pertinent.

dB

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 23:34:57 -0700, Frank Vuotto
wrote:


And what were you using for stage monitors in the 60's? Back then you
put your mic in the second channel of your Fender amp for most gigs. snip

I seem to remember, "Stage monitors? Foldback? What's that??"

dB

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 15:59:21 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

2. Bouncing the sound off the wall to produce a sense of spaciousness
is aesthetically invalid when the recording itself is supposed to contain
the original acoustics. This effect might be fine for mono recordings,
but it is antithetical to a well-engineered stereo or surround recording.

Studio mixing rooms have evolved into a fairly standard acoustic state
over the years, and it certainly includes a significant degree of
"liveness" (while avoiding the obvious early reflections etc). So
ideally, if every listening room was designed the same, the sound
would be just as the engineer intended it to be. Even for classical
recordings, the recording environment is typically changed as far as
possible to make it sound right in a "standard" mixing studio, as
that's always the reference.

Tony (remove the "_" to reply by email)

"TonyP" wrote

Is there a reason why you deliberately jumbled the
context of my post I wonder?
You simply agree that it sucks from what I read.

I rearranged it, not to misrepresent what you wrote, but because I wanted my
response to appear in a specific order.

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 23:57:30 -0800, DeserTBoB wrote:
On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 16:18:49 +1100, "TonyP"
wrote:


"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
That's why the complete phrase is "No highs, no lows, sound really blows,
must be Bose." It's the "sound really blows" part that you are missing.

That's a newer addition I think. Sound really sucks just doesn't fit :-) snip

The way I always heard it from the '60s was:

"Got now highs? Got no lows! Only midrange...MUST BE BOSE!"

...but the "sound blows" idea's quite pertinent.

Bose has plenty of lows -- that's what idiots find so impressive. They
never notice that it's all the same bass note. Listen to a bass solo
on bose and you'll notice how the response goes up and down 20db depending
how close it's to the resonent frequency.

DeserTBoB wrote:
On 24 Dec 2004 17:51:19 -0800, "Gene Sweeny"
wrote:

Polk, Infinity, Paradigm, CV snip

Well, knowing some of Gene Cerwinski's antics in the '70s, I'd say
yes, he WAS trying to give customers more than a piece of junk. They
got a piece of junk and a ****LOAD of hype!

I remember being given a pair of C-V cabinets for showing some films a
couple years ago. Off-axis they were boomy but okay... on-axis they were
very clangy and ringy. We wound up putting a 1" line of gaffer tape across
the center of the horn and they sounded a good bit cleaner after that. How
anyone can sell junk like this is beyond me, because it wouldn't really take
much engineering to improve them considerably.
--scott

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

On 25 Dec 2004 10:59:51 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

I remember being given a pair of C-V cabinets for showing some films a
couple years ago. Off-axis they were boomy but okay... on-axis they were
very clangy and ringy. We wound up putting a 1" line of gaffer tape across
the center of the horn and they sounded a good bit cleaner after that. How
anyone can sell junk like this is beyond me, because it wouldn't really take
much engineering to improve them considerably. snip

Cerwinski was in for the BIG profit. He knew that the guys up on
Balboa Ave. (JBL) could outengineer him anyday of the week, but he
didn't care. His premise was that of finding a market, hyping it to
death, and providing garbage to serve that market based on a pricing
point, the arguement being, "Hey, my stuff's a clean as their stuff
for a LOT less money!" Of course, that was a baldfaced lie, but
people bought it in much the same way they buy Bose crap.

I think I knew the systems you're referring to...an aluminum capped 15
with that trademark red foam surround and a cheesy $10 radial horn
with a crap driver that would've made a Jensen look good. They were
abyssmal indeed...laden with beaming, distortion of all kinds and
rattles and leaks. But, they could take a hell of a beating from bad
amps of the era like the "Flames In-Your-Ear" 700 watt disaster by Bob
Carver, so, they sold.

In all my years of being exposed to their crap, I NEVER heard anything
CV put out that sounded even remotely "high fidelity," or even
"mid-fi" enough for good SR or PA work. It was just junk, pure and
simple.

dB

"Will Brink" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Peter Sammon wrote:

"Tim Williams" wrote in news:1027nfhh3o9q8c1
@corp.supernews.com:

So why the hell is it here on RAT.

Tim
big snip
Bose spends ~ 85% of its budget on advertising.
west

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 11:32:30 -0500, "Jodster"
wrote:

As posted in other threads Bose are ****e and Bose buyers are too proud to
admit their mistake. http://www.intellexual.net/bose.html snip

Same goes for Monster Cable buyers and buyers of other incredibly
hilarious "audio accessories", like those stupid cones. If people
only knew how ridiculous they look! Biggest laugher yet: "Vibration
of transistors by sound waves causes distortion!"

dB

Jodster wrote:

I remember a flame war that went on here last year between some loser that
said he could hear the difference silver patch cords made while transferring
a DIGITAL signal!!!

Maybe he could.

WTF?! I used to work in an electronics lab that did calibration for the
military and I'm used to measuring jitter and slew rates in the pico-second
range. What does the Military use . .good old copper my friend! a $5.00 BNC
cable from Pomona is good to over 500MHz before it drops 3 dB. as long as
you keep capacitance in check, you could use ****ing coathangers for patch
cables. This guy got rode for over $200.00 to patch a digital signal through
silver.

Yes, and cables that MIGHT have resulted in much higher jitter rates
to the point where the degradation was audible.

It's easy to build something that sounds different, it's hard to build
something that sounds better. The problem is that it's much too easy to
mistake different for better.

Don't laugh when people say they can hear something weird. Laugh when they
say it's an improvement.
--scott


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

On 3 Jan 2005 16:14:06 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Jodster wrote:

I remember a flame war that went on here last year between some loser that
said he could hear the difference silver patch cords made while transferring
a DIGITAL signal!!!

Maybe he could.

sure. and maybe the cables were magic and were able to change the
bits, correct the checksums to match (of course), all to make the
music sound better.

or maybe it was the placebo effect. Nobody likes admitting having ****ed
away $100 due to ignorance and stupdity.

TCS wrote:
On 3 Jan 2005 16:14:06 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Jodster wrote:

I remember a flame war that went on here last year between some loser that
said he could hear the difference silver patch cords made while transferring
a DIGITAL signal!!!

Maybe he could.

sure. and maybe the cables were magic and were able to change the
bits, correct the checksums to match (of course), all to make the
music sound better.

I didn't say it made the music sound better. I said it made the music
sound worse.

It's EASY to make cables that make the music sound worse. It's hard to
realize that what is going on is not an improvement sometimes, though.
--scott

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

On 3 Jan 2005 16:39:24 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:
TCS wrote:
On 3 Jan 2005 16:14:06 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Jodster wrote:

I remember a flame war that went on here last year between some loser that
said he could hear the difference silver patch cords made while transferring
a DIGITAL signal!!!

Maybe he could.

sure. and maybe the cables were magic and were able to change the
bits, correct the checksums to match (of course), all to make the
music sound better.

I didn't say it made the music sound better. I said it made the music
sound worse.

It's EASY to make cables that make the music sound worse. It's hard to
realize that what is going on is not an improvement sometimes, though.

It's practically impossible to change the sound with a digital cable. Either
they work, and work perfectly, or they don't work at all. Digital errors
are about as subtle as shaking a CD player until it skips.