Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Polarity

Expand Messages
  • Robert
    While I agree that polarity reversal of the tweeter is not likely to be a major issue, it is not because so many recordings are polarity reversed. After all,
    Message 1 of 14 , Mar 7 10:26 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      While I agree that polarity reversal of the tweeter
      is not likely to be a major issue, it is not because
      so many recordings are polarity reversed. After all,
      if it is really true(which on the face of it seems
      unlikely) that 90% of the classical recordings are reversed[
      one would expect around 50%--to get 90% people would
      have to be reversing them on purpose! one would think],
      then surely the thing to do, if one does not have a polarity
      switch, is simply to run one's system in reverse polarity!
      Then only 10% are wrong.

      Actually it is hard to believe that someone touchy about
      this does not have a polarity switch!

      Be that as it may, polarity perception is mostly centered
      in the low mmidrange and upper bass frequencies, as I
      understand things. Reversing polarity on the upper frequencies
      is a quite subtle effect to say the least, if perceptible on
      music material at all.

      Almost all the perceived effects that arise from orders of crossovers
      and associated polarity effects have to do with on and off axis
      frequency response matters. The literal effect of phase and driver polarity matters is quite small(though not zero). The trouble with
      these dual concentric drivers is that they are high coloration.
      The Tannoys have historically been wildly colored. (There are many versions so I cannot comment on all of them but the ones I am
      familiar with are really not very sensible sounding--they sound like
      speakers in a rather obvious fashion, and old fashioned speakers at that).

      The advantages of true point source operation are really fairly minimal--being mostly stereo imaginging--if purchased at the price
      of any coloration of the sound at all.

      To my mind(no surprise here), the beginning of good sense about audio
      is that speakers need to sound right in timbre and coloration senses. If the music spounds weird, it does not matter if it is imaged like crazy or not. Who cares if something is precisely located if it sounds wrong? (I am mystified by the enthusiasm for those KEF UniQ derived speakers--those are not exactly colored in the usual sense
      but they are lifeless sounding because of the oddly contoured radiation pattern. And the top is all raggedy anywhere but precisely on axis. This is an idea that to my mind does not work. I have never liked it and I still do not. Real musical instruments tend to have increasing directivity in the high frequencies, but not of this oddball sort. Really screwy. This makes one hear that one is listening to a driver in an annoying way. Horn loading without a horn. )

      REG
    • David
      Robert, what would be the diference between these Kef coaxial drivers and the one used in the Gradient Revolution? I understand that the directivity is quiet
      Message 2 of 14 , Mar 7 1:41 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Robert, what would be the diference between these Kef coaxial drivers and the one used in the Gradient Revolution? I understand that the directivity is quiet diferent but what about those colouration you are talking about?

        PS. We just played the Korngold violin concerto, and i had a wonderfull time with this music, the violinist was a young russo-austrian, miss Pinchas, really good fiedler. I could not avoid thinking of you and your love for the piece so i privatly dedicated to you :-)

        Envoyé de mon iPhone

        Le 07/03/2013 à 19:26, "Robert" <regtas43@...> a écrit :

         

        While I agree that polarity reversal of the tweeter
        is not likely to be a major issue, it is not because
        so many recordings are polarity reversed. After all,
        if it is really true(which on the face of it seems
        unlikely) that 90% of the classical recordings are reversed[
        one would expect around 50%--to get 90% people would
        have to be reversing them on purpose! one would think],
        then surely the thing to do, if one does not have a polarity
        switch, is simply to run one's system in reverse polarity!
        Then only 10% are wrong.

        Actually it is hard to believe that someone touchy about
        this does not have a polarity switch!

        Be that as it may, polarity perception is mostly centered
        in the low mmidrange and upper bass frequencies, as I
        understand things. Reversing polarity on the upper frequencies
        is a quite subtle effect to say the least, if perceptible on
        music material at all.

        Almost all the perceived effects that arise from orders of crossovers
        and associated polarity effects have to do with on and off axis
        frequency response matters. The literal effect of phase and driver polarity matters is quite small(though not zero). The trouble with
        these dual concentric drivers is that they are high coloration.
        The Tannoys have historically been wildly colored. (There are many versions so I cannot comment on all of them but the ones I am
        familiar with are really not very sensible sounding--they sound like
        speakers in a rather obvious fashion, and old fashioned speakers at that).

        The advantages of true point source operation are really fairly minimal--being mostly stereo imaginging--if purchased at the price
        of any coloration of the sound at all.

        To my mind(no surprise here), the beginning of good sense about audio
        is that speakers need to sound right in timbre and coloration senses. If the music spounds weird, it does not matter if it is imaged like crazy or not. Who cares if something is precisely located if it sounds wrong? (I am mystified by the enthusiasm for those KEF UniQ derived speakers--those are not exactly colored in the usual sense
        but they are lifeless sounding because of the oddly contoured radiation pattern. And the top is all raggedy anywhere but precisely on axis. This is an idea that to my mind does not work. I have never liked it and I still do not. Real musical instruments tend to have increasing directivity in the high frequencies, but not of this oddball sort. Really screwy. This makes one hear that one is listening to a driver in an annoying way. Horn loading without a horn. )

        REG

      • Robert
        Thank you for the thought! I do love it. My late wife Lis once described Korngold s music at its best as almost too beautiful to listen to[without just
        Message 3 of 14 , Mar 7 4:39 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Thank you for the thought! I do love it. My late wife Lis
          once described Korngold's music at its best as "almost too beautiful to listen to[without just breaking your heart]"
          This surely applies to the slow movement of the violin concerto
          to my mind, though she was talking about Die Tote Stadt in particular
          as it happens.

          The Gradient driver is quite flat--geometrically I mean. WHile
          it too has a somewhat raggedy top, there is a subtle(to look at)
          but important difference compared to say the TAD Compact Reference
          http://www.stereophile.com/content/tad-compact-reference-cr1-loudspeaker-measurements figure 4 for the TAD,
          http://www.stereophile.com/content/gradient-revolution-loudspeaker-measurements figure 4 for the Gradient.

          I might point out that the TAD is very very bad below 500 Hz(figure 6 in the link already given) in room while the Revolution is very good figure 5 here
          http://www.stereophile.com/content/gradient-revolution-loudspeaker-john-atkinson-march-1997
          The Revolution is a little light weight by my idea--it has a flat
          "target curve" as it were--but at least it does not have a Grand Canyon dip(two of them actually) between 80 and 200 Hz.
          And the TAD costs $37,000 a pair- the stands alone are almost
          as much as a pair of Gradients were in 1995! (they are presumably more
          now --but not anything like $30000 plus)

          High End audio is really Emperors New Clothes over and over.
          That is better than being The Little Match Girl(which is about
          as bad as things get) but it is still not good.

          Look at that in room response for the TAD. How can anyone
          take that as serious? It looks like a table radio--all mids-- with
          a not very good sub attached but not well integrated.
          The Gradient response is one of the best ever shown by Atkinson(only
          the PSB Synchrony 1 comes to my mind as being as good,really). The Gradient is a high fidelity transducer, the TAD is an expensive disaster. Which one
          costs more than the other by a factor of six or the like?

          REG

          --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, David <david_etheve@...> wrote:
          >
          > Robert, what would be the diference between these Kef coaxial drivers and the one used in the Gradient Revolution? I understand that the directivity is quiet diferent but what about those colouration you are talking about?
          >
          > PS. We just played the Korngold violin concerto, and i had a wonderfull time with this music, the violinist was a young russo-austrian, miss Pinchas, really good fiedler. I could not avoid thinking of you and your love for the piece so i privatly dedicated to you :-)
          >
          > Envoyé de mon iPhone
          >
          > Le 07/03/2013 à 19:26, "Robert" <regtas43@...> a écrit :
          >
          > > While I agree that polarity reversal of the tweeter
          > > is not likely to be a major issue, it is not because
          > > so many recordings are polarity reversed. After all,
          > > if it is really true(which on the face of it seems
          > > unlikely) that 90% of the classical recordings are reversed[
          > > one would expect around 50%--to get 90% people would
          > > have to be reversing them on purpose! one would think],
          > > then surely the thing to do, if one does not have a polarity
          > > switch, is simply to run one's system in reverse polarity!
          > > Then only 10% are wrong.
          > >
          > > Actually it is hard to believe that someone touchy about
          > > this does not have a polarity switch!
          > >
          > > Be that as it may, polarity perception is mostly centered
          > > in the low mmidrange and upper bass frequencies, as I
          > > understand things. Reversing polarity on the upper frequencies
          > > is a quite subtle effect to say the least, if perceptible on
          > > music material at all.
          > >
          > > Almost all the perceived effects that arise from orders of crossovers
          > > and associated polarity effects have to do with on and off axis
          > > frequency response matters. The literal effect of phase and driver polarity matters is quite small(though not zero). The trouble with
          > > these dual concentric drivers is that they are high coloration.
          > > The Tannoys have historically been wildly colored. (There are many versions so I cannot comment on all of them but the ones I am
          > > familiar with are really not very sensible sounding--they sound like
          > > speakers in a rather obvious fashion, and old fashioned speakers at that).
          > >
          > > The advantages of true point source operation are really fairly minimal--being mostly stereo imaginging--if purchased at the price
          > > of any coloration of the sound at all.
          > >
          > > To my mind(no surprise here), the beginning of good sense about audio
          > > is that speakers need to sound right in timbre and coloration senses. If the music spounds weird, it does not matter if it is imaged like crazy or not. Who cares if something is precisely located if it sounds wrong? (I am mystified by the enthusiasm for those KEF UniQ derived speakers--those are not exactly colored in the usual sense
          > > but they are lifeless sounding because of the oddly contoured radiation pattern. And the top is all raggedy anywhere but precisely on axis. This is an idea that to my mind does not work. I have never liked it and I still do not. Real musical instruments tend to have increasing directivity in the high frequencies, but not of this oddball sort. Really screwy. This makes one hear that one is listening to a driver in an annoying way. Horn loading without a horn. )
          > >
          > > REG
          > >
          > >
          >
        • neuromudfud
          Hi Robert, May I ask a na�ve question about the in-room response of the TAD? Aren t you just pointing out the advantage of the dipole bass in the Gradient? I
          Message 4 of 14 , Mar 8 5:11 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Robert,

            May I ask a naîve question about the in-room response of the TAD? Aren't you just pointing out the advantage of the dipole bass in the Gradient? I assume those dips in the TAD are from room modes, or am I missing something here? I suppose the measurement is representative of what would happen in most people's listening rooms, but I suppose most conventional speakers would have similar problems in JA's listening room...

            Given your comments about the point source approach and the colorations, are you suggesting that your ideal would be a conventional 2-way supplemented by Gradient SmartBass?

            Best,
            Chris Min

            --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <regtas43@...> wrote:
            >
            > Thank you for the thought! I do love it. My late wife Lis
            > once described Korngold's music at its best as "almost too beautiful to listen to[without just breaking your heart]"
            > This surely applies to the slow movement of the violin concerto
            > to my mind, though she was talking about Die Tote Stadt in particular
            > as it happens.
            >
            > The Gradient driver is quite flat--geometrically I mean. WHile
            > it too has a somewhat raggedy top, there is a subtle(to look at)
            > but important difference compared to say the TAD Compact Reference
            > http://www.stereophile.com/content/tad-compact-reference-cr1-loudspeaker-measurements figure 4 for the TAD,
            > http://www.stereophile.com/content/gradient-revolution-loudspeaker-measurements figure 4 for the Gradient.
            >
            > I might point out that the TAD is very very bad below 500 Hz(figure 6 in the link already given) in room while the Revolution is very good figure 5 here
            > http://www.stereophile.com/content/gradient-revolution-loudspeaker-john-atkinson-march-1997
            > The Revolution is a little light weight by my idea--it has a flat
            > "target curve" as it were--but at least it does not have a Grand Canyon dip(two of them actually) between 80 and 200 Hz.
            > And the TAD costs $37,000 a pair- the stands alone are almost
            > as much as a pair of Gradients were in 1995! (they are presumably more
            > now --but not anything like $30000 plus)
            >
            > High End audio is really Emperors New Clothes over and over.
            > That is better than being The Little Match Girl(which is about
            > as bad as things get) but it is still not good.
            >
            > Look at that in room response for the TAD. How can anyone
            > take that as serious? It looks like a table radio--all mids-- with
            > a not very good sub attached but not well integrated.
            > The Gradient response is one of the best ever shown by Atkinson(only
            > the PSB Synchrony 1 comes to my mind as being as good,really). The Gradient is a high fidelity transducer, the TAD is an expensive disaster. Which one
            > costs more than the other by a factor of six or the like?
            >
            > REG
            >
            > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, David <david_etheve@> wrote:
            > >
            > > Robert, what would be the diference between these Kef coaxial drivers and the one used in the Gradient Revolution? I understand that the directivity is quiet diferent but what about those colouration you are talking about?
            > >
            > > PS. We just played the Korngold violin concerto, and i had a wonderfull time with this music, the violinist was a young russo-austrian, miss Pinchas, really good fiedler. I could not avoid thinking of you and your love for the piece so i privatly dedicated to you :-)
            > >
            > > Envoyé de mon iPhone
            > >
            > > Le 07/03/2013 à 19:26, "Robert" <regtas43@> a écrit :
            > >
            > > > While I agree that polarity reversal of the tweeter
            > > > is not likely to be a major issue, it is not because
            > > > so many recordings are polarity reversed. After all,
            > > > if it is really true(which on the face of it seems
            > > > unlikely) that 90% of the classical recordings are reversed[
            > > > one would expect around 50%--to get 90% people would
            > > > have to be reversing them on purpose! one would think],
            > > > then surely the thing to do, if one does not have a polarity
            > > > switch, is simply to run one's system in reverse polarity!
            > > > Then only 10% are wrong.
            > > >
            > > > Actually it is hard to believe that someone touchy about
            > > > this does not have a polarity switch!
            > > >
            > > > Be that as it may, polarity perception is mostly centered
            > > > in the low mmidrange and upper bass frequencies, as I
            > > > understand things. Reversing polarity on the upper frequencies
            > > > is a quite subtle effect to say the least, if perceptible on
            > > > music material at all.
            > > >
            > > > Almost all the perceived effects that arise from orders of crossovers
            > > > and associated polarity effects have to do with on and off axis
            > > > frequency response matters. The literal effect of phase and driver polarity matters is quite small(though not zero). The trouble with
            > > > these dual concentric drivers is that they are high coloration.
            > > > The Tannoys have historically been wildly colored. (There are many versions so I cannot comment on all of them but the ones I am
            > > > familiar with are really not very sensible sounding--they sound like
            > > > speakers in a rather obvious fashion, and old fashioned speakers at that).
            > > >
            > > > The advantages of true point source operation are really fairly minimal--being mostly stereo imaginging--if purchased at the price
            > > > of any coloration of the sound at all.
            > > >
            > > > To my mind(no surprise here), the beginning of good sense about audio
            > > > is that speakers need to sound right in timbre and coloration senses. If the music spounds weird, it does not matter if it is imaged like crazy or not. Who cares if something is precisely located if it sounds wrong? (I am mystified by the enthusiasm for those KEF UniQ derived speakers--those are not exactly colored in the usual sense
            > > > but they are lifeless sounding because of the oddly contoured radiation pattern. And the top is all raggedy anywhere but precisely on axis. This is an idea that to my mind does not work. I have never liked it and I still do not. Real musical instruments tend to have increasing directivity in the high frequencies, but not of this oddball sort. Really screwy. This makes one hear that one is listening to a driver in an annoying way. Horn loading without a horn. )
            > > >
            > > > REG
            > > >
            > > >
            > >
            >
          • regtas43
            1 The mechanisms of stereo perception are described here(rather well if I may say so)
            Message 5 of 14 , Mar 14 10:40 AM
            • 0 Attachment

              1 The mechanisms of stereo perception are described here(rather well if I may say so)

              http://www.regonaudio.com/Directional%20Hearing%20How%20To%20Listen%20to%20Stereo.htm

              2 Polarity change is audible on certain types of material and under certain conditions. This is a scientific fact and there is no particular point in discussing whether or not the thing is audible in that precise sense . It is. End of that story.

              3 The previous point does not ,however, mean that it is very important in practice. People vary in their senstivity to it , it seems. But clearly the fact--and it is a fact--that the audio industry and the audio public ignored the whole matter for decades suggests that it is not all that important to most people. It is like  most audiophile "discoveries"--not discovered by audiophiles , and not all that significant but a source of obsessive interest to some people, either because they are really sensitive to it in an unusual way (which I am supposing HM is) or because people want to show off that they are especially sensitive to something.  Since essentially everyone can hear this, being proud of being able to hear it is a bit odd to my mind, but ...

              Of course channels not in the same polarity as each other create a truly obvious effect which quite rightly was regarded as obviously important from the start of stereo. It is true that some sort of pseudo centering occurs because of the vote(see below), the extent to which this is so depending on the spectral content of the maerial,. but if it is not clear to you when one of your speakers is reversed in polarity relative to the other, truly obvious, then you need a new pair of speakers or a new setup. Listen to a centered (mono, same in both channels of the recording)  speaking voice--if the difference is not night and day, you are in big trouble for hearing stereo at all correctly in your situation.

              4  There is no particular reason to suppose polarity switch of both channels  affects stereo perception all that much  as such, though as far as I am aware there have been no real studies of this question. In real life, perception of location of sound sources is very much over-encoded--there are a lot of cues which combine. So exactly what goes on in a specific situation is somewhat ambiguous. The brain takes a vote, roughly speaking, when cues contradict each other. But the brain remains aware if a vote was not unanious--which is why images outside the speakers are not stable and solid and convincing like the center image, where all the cues(except timbre mod by the pinnae) agree. It is aall really quite simple but Pearson refused to admit that stereo images belonged between the speakers so here High End is  decades later still chasing the chimera.

              REG

            • regtas43
              This is an odd issue. First of all, it is without question audible. This is a scientific fact. Everyone can hear it with the right signals. It is not esoteric
              Message 6 of 14 , Oct 10, 2014
              • 0 Attachment
                This is an odd issue. First of all, it is without question audible. This is a scientific fact. Everyone can hear it with the right signals. It is not esoteric and not something audiophiles "discovered".
                However, most people on music material do not care much. This is why the recording industry has been so largely indifferent to the issue--not many people care very much as opposed to say frequency response, where lots of people are really bummed out if it is way off(though audiophiles can talk themselves into all kinds of weird stuff like Mercury sound--but the general  public is typically annoyed if frequency response is too weird).
                People who are either particularly sensitive to polarity or are just inclined to worry--well it is not much of a problem. Get a preamp with a polarity switch and switch it when you want to.
                Particularly easy to live with is the situation where one finds most recordings out of polarity---wire your speakers backwards and then most of them will be in polarity!
                No big deal. If it bugs you, change it. (I have a switch on my preamp. If I am being bugged, I switch. Sometimes it helps, sometimes it was something else bugging me.
                But it is easy and worth a try.  ) Probably it is reasonably important to understand that a great many multimiked recordings do not have a correct polarity because the individual mike feeds were random relative to each other in this regard. Purist recordings of course are different--though spaced omni recordings are so screwed up in other ways that worrying about this is hardly worth while. Blumlein--there it at least makes sense to think about it.
                REG
              • Peter
                ... I m sorry, but I still can t get over the notion that perfect sound, forever involves a pair of ears, dead center in the middle of my head, listening to
                Message 7 of 14 , Oct 10, 2014
                • 0 Attachment
                  Blumlein--there it at least makes sense to think about it. 

                  I'm sorry, but I still can't get over the notion that "perfect sound, forever" involves a pair of ears, dead center in the middle of my head, listening to nothing but what's in front of me.  

                  Every time I try to listen like that at Philadelphia Orchestra concerts, it just doesn't work.  

                  I know, I know.  It must be me.  Where can I find help?


                  On Friday, October 10, 2014 8:59 PM, "regtas43@... [regsaudioforum]" <regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


                   
                  This is an odd issue. First of all, it is without question audible. This is a scientific fact. Everyone can hear it with the right signals. It is not esoteric and not something audiophiles "discovered".
                  However, most people on music material do not care much. This is why the recording industry has been so largely indifferent to the issue--not many people care very much as opposed to say frequency response, where lots of people are really bummed out if it is way off(though audiophiles can talk themselves into all kinds of weird stuff like Mercury sound--but the general  public is typically annoyed if frequency response is too weird).
                  People who are either particularly sensitive to polarity or are just inclined to worry--well it is not much of a problem. Get a preamp with a polarity switch and switch it when you want to.
                  Particularly easy to live with is the situation where one finds most recordings out of polarity---wire your speakers backwards and then most of them will be in polarity!
                  No big deal. If it bugs you, change it. (I have a switch on my preamp. If I am being bugged, I switch. Sometimes it helps, sometimes it was something else bugging me.
                  But it is easy and worth a try.  ) Probably it is reasonably important to understand that a great many multimiked recordings do not have a correct polarity because the individual mike feeds were random relative to each other in this regard. Purist recordings of course are different--though spaced omni recordings are so screwed up in other ways that worrying about this is hardly worth while. Blumlein--there it at least makes sense to think about it.
                  REG


                • regtas43
                  But Blumlein 1 gets interaural phase right in the region where the ear is sensitive to phase 2 has information from behind. And there is a lot of evidence the
                  Message 8 of 14 , Oct 10, 2014
                  • 0 Attachment
                    But Blumlein
                    1 gets interaural phase right in the region where the ear is sensitive to phase
                    2 has information from behind.

                    And there is a lot of evidence the suppressed interaural transient arrival cues do not have much impact.

                    The trouble with people is that they cannot make up their minds whether they want a recording of something real or they want a kind of fake reconstruction of a concert experience, derived not from the reality but from spreading things out with fake phase differences etc.

                    To each his own  A lot of people like the Bose 901--serious people ,too.

                    Whatever works for you. But  spaced omnis do not make sense in the sense that there are phase differences introduced that do not correspond to any reality that one might actually hear

                    REG
                  • Ken Holder
                    ... Well, the only time I heard them I actually liked what I heard. This was in a recording studio, and it occurred to me that that gigantic image I was
                    Message 9 of 14 , Oct 11, 2014
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On 10/10/2014 6:49 PM, regtas43@... [regsaudioforum] wrote:
                       

                      To each his own  A lot of people like the Bose 901--serious people ,too.

                      Well, the only time I heard them I actually liked what I heard.
                      This was in a recording studio, and it occurred to me that
                      that gigantic image I was hearing was exactly what it
                      would have sounded like if I was somehow listening
                      from the position of each of the microphones. Close-up
                      equals IT SOUNDS BIG!

                      I listened to a bit of one master tape of some blue
                      grass or something. I didn't get to hear a commercial
                      classical symphonic recording or anything. Sometimes
                      my life seems to be filled with snippets.

                      Ken Holder
                      Old Guy


                    • regtas43
                      There were really two objections made to the Bose 901s at the time, two that made sense anyway. One was the claim that the speaker had a lot of distortion
                      Message 10 of 14 , Oct 12, 2014
                      • 0 Attachment
                        There were really two objections made to the Bose 901s at the time, two that made sense anyway. One was the claim that the speaker had a lot of distortion because bass was generated by EQing the heck out of the relatively small speakers. The other was more fundamental in terms of relevance to speaker design as a whole. It was that the speaker produced the same gigantic sound for every kind of source since the big sound was produced as an artifact of playback rather than as something recorded.
                        People did like it--some people. Others got tired of the same big sound all the time.
                        Of course you can sort of do it yourself. Take some extra speakers and aim them at the back and side walls! Worth a try if you are interested.

                        REG
                      • Peter
                        Given what you ve said, would they be suitable as surround speakers? On Sunday, October 12, 2014 12:58 PM, regtas43@gmail.com [regsaudioforum]
                        Message 11 of 14 , Oct 12, 2014
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Given what you've said, would they be suitable as surround speakers?


                          On Sunday, October 12, 2014 12:58 PM, "regtas43@... [regsaudioforum]" <regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


                           
                          There were really two objections made to the Bose 901s at the time, two that made sense anyway. One was the claim that the speaker had a lot of distortion because bass was generated by EQing the heck out of the relatively small speakers. The other was more fundamental in terms of relevance to speaker design as a whole. It was that the speaker produced the same gigantic sound for every kind of source since the big sound was produced as an artifact of playback rather than as something recorded.
                          People did like it--some people. Others got tired of the same big sound all the time.
                          Of course you can sort of do it yourself. Take some extra speakers and aim them at the back and side walls! Worth a try if you are interested.

                          REG


                        • jeffstakehifi
                          IIRC, Bose advertised the 901 by saying that measurements taken in live halls showed that about 8/9 of the sound reaching a person s ears was reflected sound.
                          Message 12 of 14 , Oct 12, 2014
                          • 0 Attachment
                            IIRC, Bose advertised the 901 by saying that measurements taken in live halls showed that about 8/9 of the sound reaching a person's ears was reflected sound. Therefore, Bose said, it would be most realistic to point 8/9 of the drivers at the front or side walls in one's room, instead of at the listener. Setting aside the accuracy of the original measurements and the points that recordings capture some of that reflected sound and that room reflections are a problem, pointing 8/9 of the drivers away from the listener doesn't add up. Even when a single driver is aimed at the listener, a good portion of the sound reaching the listener will be reflected sound, as we here all know and Bose even contended! If we assume that a single driver aimed at the listener will result in half of the sound reaching him being reflected, for example, then aiming 8/9 of the drivers at the walls would result in only half as much direct sound as is supposedly desirable. In other words, even on Bose's advertised assumptions, the 901 design made no sense. What a way for a company to start. But it did give big sound. And Bose has a good reputation among the public today, as evidenced by the fact that Bose speakers are an advertised bonus in some cars and non-audiophiles ask me about Bose more often than any other manufacturer. Annoying.
                            jeff stake



                            ---In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, <regtas43@...> wrote :

                            There were really two objections made to the Bose 901s at the time, two that made sense anyway. One was the claim that the speaker had a lot of distortion because bass was generated by EQing the heck out of the relatively small speakers. The other was more fundamental in terms of relevance to speaker design as a whole. It was that the speaker produced the same gigantic sound for every kind of source since the big sound was produced as an artifact of playback rather than as something recorded.
                            People did like it--some people. Others got tired of the same big sound all the time.
                            Of course you can sort of do it yourself. Take some extra speakers and aim them at the back and side walls! Worth a try if you are interested.

                            REG
                          • regtas43
                            The audio public has an apparently almost unlimited capacity to believe things on no basis at all. (For a start, while it is quite true--and pointed out here
                            Message 13 of 14 , Oct 12, 2014
                            • 0 Attachment
                              The audio public has an apparently almost unlimited capacity to believe things on no basis at all. (For a start, while it is quite true--and pointed out here
                              Records and Reality

                               

                              as well as many other places, some much earlier than Bose, that concert hall sound is dominated by sound that is not direct, no one ought to believe that the proportion of direct to the rest is some fixed number. Up close one hears more of the direct sound, further back , less so how could there be a fixed number?This was just feeding the US public's desire for fake numerical data. This was one of the problems in Vietnam--fake statistics, cf Halberstam)

                              But there was more of this. The timing of reflections is important. Beranek and many other people had established that. But Bose replaced the actual timing with arbitrary timing depending on the size of the home listening room. And of course they arrived too soon, as well as arriving always at the same times

                              If people liked it, fine But justifying it by "science" was baloney.

                              REG
                            • regtas43
                              PS Of course one has to admit that almost everything in that period--and even now--was very dubious as science since almost no recordings are made in a way
                              Message 14 of 14 , Oct 12, 2014
                              • 0 Attachment
                                PS Of course one has to admit that almost everything in that period--and even now--was very dubious as science since almost no recordings are made in a way that even begins to make scientific sense. This is "science" as ad copy rather than real science, in almost all cases.

                                How many recordings are there where what was done really records any kind of acoustic reality at all?

                                REG
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.