Bose and name recognition

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Yovr claim abovt CR fear-of Bose is totally vnsvbstantiated making it merely
yovr opinion, which is fine. Yov are entitled to hold incorrect views.

On the other hand, Bose speakers do well in svbjective testing backed by
data collected by CR.

And no, I don't own any Bose speakers. Never have. Probably never will. (OK,
maybe in a car.) I do own PSB, NHT, and Paradigm. I object to Bose on a
valve basis, not on a performance basis. CR tells me they work pretty darn
good and I believe them.

--

- GRL

"It's good to want things."

Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, hvmorist, chemist,
Visval Basic programmer)
"UnionPac2001" <vnionpac2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c6cadj015iv@news3.newsgvy.com...
> "GRL" GLitwinski@CHARTERMI.COM wrote:
>
>
> >Well, yov may "all" hear how awfvl they sovnd, bvt they do pretty good in
> >comparison tests that Consvmer Reports does and the company does manage
to
> >sell a lot of speakers.
>
> Yeah, and McDonalds manages to sell a lot of bvrgers.
>
> IIRC, Consvmer Reports got their asses sved by Bose a few years back for
giving
> a Bose prodvct a bad (bvt honest) review. Ever since, CR has had nothing
bvt
> good things to say abovt Bose prodvcts, fearing another lawsvit.
>
> >Ever occvr to yov that maybe, jvst maybe, they are not as bad as yov make
> >ovt?
>
> Not even dvring drvg indvced hallvcinations...
>
> Jeff

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 00:27:40 +0000, GRL wrote:

> Your claim about CR fear-of Bose is totally unsubstantiated making it merely
> your opinion, which is fine. You are entitled to hold incorrect views.
>
> On the other hand, Bose speakers do well in subjective testing backed by
> data collected by CR.
>
> And no, I don't own any Bose speakers. Never have. Probably never will. (OK,
> maybe in a car.) I do own PSB, NHT, and Paradigm. I object to Bose on a
> value basis, not on a performance basis. CR tells me they work pretty darn
> good and I believe them.

I use Bose in a professional setting all the time (802's) and have them in
one of my cars and they are not *that* bad.
Overpriced for sure, but not terrible sounding.

However, CR as far as I know, did testing in anechoic chambers which would
yield terrible results for speakers like Allison or Maggies which are
designed to be placed in specific locations in the room.
IOW their response takes room reflections into account, kind of like Bose
in general.
CR did not take this into account in their tests.

Even still, a typical home user could never expect to achieve the same
results, both good and bad, that CR got because of the anechoic chamber
measurements.

In the past CR has liked Boston Acoustics which I have found to be
excellent but overly bright.
They liked Advent, which I find to be dull.
They hated Bose, which I actually find to be quite decent, but way, and I
mean WAY, overpriced.
Personally I like Maggies, Dahlquist, Infinity, PD and Tannoy.

--
Elliot Zimmerman
"Life is Precious"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

In article <c6mq9h02gqb@news1.newsguy.com>, normanstrong wrote:
>> BTW I remember in the late '90s they said that the Paradigm Titan
>> sounded "disturbing" due to the midbass peak. That sounds pretty
>> subjective to me.
>
> I don't recall that CU ever tested a Paradigm speaker. What issue
> would that be?
>
> Norm Strong

It was a bit earlier than I recalled, Feb., 1996, page 31 to be exact.
(Ah, the joys of access to a university library.) The exact quote was
"Spike in mid-bass creates a boomy quality that may sound disturbing."
Their overall recommendation was "Okay". Regarding the
Boston Acoustics CR7, they said "Uneven response creates a sound
quality that may be disturbing." The recommendation was "There are
better choices, especially at this price."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Jim West wrote:


> It was a bit earlier than I recalled, Feb., 1996, page 31 to be exact.
> (Ah, the joys of access to a university library.) The exact quote was
> "Spike in mid-bass creates a boomy quality that may sound disturbing."
> Their overall recommendation was "Okay". Regarding the
> Boston Acoustics CR7, they said "Uneven response creates a sound
> quality that may be disturbing." The recommendation was "There are
> better choices, especially at this price."

Well, since they only test mid-fi under $400 crud, it's not going
to be a pair of Genelecs.

I remmber when they tested a B&W 601, which is their budget model,
and it nearly aced the tests.

I'd like for them to test some $500-$2000 speakers for a change.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

In article <uEDjc.248$RE1.50176@attbi_s54>, Elliot Zimmerman wrote:
>
> However, CR as far as I know, did testing in anechoic chambers which would
> yield terrible results for speakers like Allison or Maggies which are
> designed to be placed in specific locations in the room.

In addition to the anechoic results, they do consistently comment upon
the room placement that yielded flatest response for them, which is
really all that can be objectively stated. They point out that room
placement, as well as room geometry, furnishing, etc. can have a
significant effect on sound and that "tinker(ing) a bit" is beneficial
for those who are "more particular" (taken from the August 2001, page 35
sidebar at the bottom). As has been pointed out, they always state that
speakers that test the same in their accuracy measurements can sound
very different, and that ideally you should have the option to return
a pair that you decide you do not like in your environment. This is
all excellent advice. I really do not understand all the CR bashing.

> Even still, a typical home user could never expect to achieve the same
> results, both good and bad, that CR got because of the anechoic chamber
> measurements.

This is true about any measured response since all rooms are different.
Measured response can never be more than a starting point.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

GRL asked:

> Finally I'm not sure I understand your statement: about the CR tests of old
> "They even pointed out that the audibly smooth sound of a speaker, perhaps
> the factor actually resulting in its high rating, was actually due to a
> broad, shallow (around 1dB) dip in measured frequency response centered at
> around 1000 Hz.". Using the CR rating system, flat frequency response is
> rewarded with a high score. As such your statement only makes sense to me if
> you mean that the near flat response of that speaker (1 dB broad dip is
> basically nothing) yielded both good sound and a high score, validating
> their test protocol. I assume you meant this as a compliment to CR on their
> test protocol?

I don't know how old you are, so this may have been well before you
began reading Consumer Reports. The speaker in question was the AR-3,
which makes this comment nearly 40 years old. Although the magazine
clearly judged the AR-3 highly on the basis of its good sound, there was
no "high score" in accuracy involved because there was no "accuracy
score" at that time. I did mean the comment as a compliment to Consumer
Reports, in the day when their judgments of loudspeaker performance were
subjective. They uncovered the AR-3's secret when nobody else did.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: (More info?)

>You have any evidence that this is the case?

No. I should have placed the word "apparently" between "products" and
"fearing". My bad...

Jeff

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

I remember (fondly) the AR3a's. The AR3's were slightly before the time my
interest in audio developed.

I still don't understand the statement. I take you to mean that CR said that
the AR3's "smooth" sound was due to a shallow dip centered around 1 kHz. As
I said, that is virtually flat as far as speaker response goes and would be
considered a very minor flaw. It would not be the cause of "smooth"
response, however, except in the sense that it is a flaw so minor as to be
non-detectable.

--

- GRL

"It's good to want things."

Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, humorist, chemist,
Visual Basic programmer)
"Gene Poon" <sheehans@ap.net> wrote in message
news:97Rjc.6048$RE1.748831@attbi_s54...
> GRL asked:
>
> > Finally I'm not sure I understand your statement: about the CR tests of
old
> > "They even pointed out that the audibly smooth sound of a speaker,
perhaps
> > the factor actually resulting in its high rating, was actually due to a
> > broad, shallow (around 1dB) dip in measured frequency response centered
at
> > around 1000 Hz.". Using the CR rating system, flat frequency response is
> > rewarded with a high score. As such your statement only makes sense to
me if
> > you mean that the near flat response of that speaker (1 dB broad dip is
> > basically nothing) yielded both good sound and a high score, validating
> > their test protocol. I assume you meant this as a compliment to CR on
their
> > test protocol?
>
> I don't know how old you are, so this may have been well before you
> began reading Consumer Reports. The speaker in question was the AR-3,
> which makes this comment nearly 40 years old. Although the magazine
> clearly judged the AR-3 highly on the basis of its good sound, there was
> no "high score" in accuracy involved because there was no "accuracy
> score" at that time. I did mean the comment as a compliment to Consumer
> Reports, in the day when their judgments of loudspeaker performance were
> subjective. They uncovered the AR-3's secret when nobody else did.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

If you are considering direct radiators (not reflective designs like Maggies
or 901's or Def Techs or the like), which most speakers are, the only fair
way to comparison test them for frequency response is in a anechoic chamber.
Otherwise you are testing the room as much as the speakers. (I think that's
how many if not most speakers are tested during their design, anyway,
witness the great use made of the Canadian government owned facility by
Canadian firms, like PSB, that produce excellent speakers.)

--

- GRL

"It's good to want things."

Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, humorist, chemist,
Visual Basic programmer)
"Elliot Zimmerman" <octal_madness@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uEDjc.248$RE1.50176@attbi_s54...
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 00:27:40 +0000, GRL wrote:
>
> > Your claim about CR fear-of Bose is totally unsubstantiated making it
merely
> > your opinion, which is fine. You are entitled to hold incorrect views.
> >
> > On the other hand, Bose speakers do well in subjective testing backed by
> > data collected by CR.
> >
> > And no, I don't own any Bose speakers. Never have. Probably never will.
(OK,
> > maybe in a car.) I do own PSB, NHT, and Paradigm. I object to Bose on a
> > value basis, not on a performance basis. CR tells me they work pretty
darn
> > good and I believe them.
>
> I use Bose in a professional setting all the time (802's) and have them in
> one of my cars and they are not *that* bad.
> Overpriced for sure, but not terrible sounding.
>
> However, CR as far as I know, did testing in anechoic chambers which would
> yield terrible results for speakers like Allison or Maggies which are
> designed to be placed in specific locations in the room.
> IOW their response takes room reflections into account, kind of like Bose
> in general.
> CR did not take this into account in their tests.
>
> Even still, a typical home user could never expect to achieve the same
> results, both good and bad, that CR got because of the anechoic chamber
> measurements.
>
> In the past CR has liked Boston Acoustics which I have found to be
> excellent but overly bright.
> They liked Advent, which I find to be dull.
> They hated Bose, which I actually find to be quite decent, but way, and I
> mean WAY, overpriced.
> Personally I like Maggies, Dahlquist, Infinity, PD and Tannoy.
>
> --
> Elliot Zimmerman
> "Life is Precious"
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"GRL" <GLitwinski@CHARTERMI.COM> wrote

> I still don't understand the statement. I take you to mean that CR said that
> the AR3's "smooth" sound was due to a shallow dip centered around 1 kHz. As
> I said, that is virtually flat as far as speaker response goes and would be
> considered a very minor flaw. It would not be the cause of "smooth"
> response, however, except in the sense that it is a flaw so minor as to be
> non-detectable.
====================

It's what Consumer Reports wrote in the magazine, whether you
understand it or not. The article is from a test in the early to mid
1960s. A shallow dip centered around 1 kHz was apparently detectable
and audible to them, and at the time, audibility (what this group now
calls 'subjective testing') was the basis of Consumer Reports's
ratings.

The AR-3 was their top-rated loudspeaker in that issue.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

sheehans@ap.net (Gene Poon):

>"GRL" <GLitwinski@CHARTERMI.COM> wrote
>
>> I still don't understand the statement. I take you to mean that CR said
>that
>> the AR3's "smooth" sound was due to a shallow dip centered around 1 kHz. As
>> I said, that is virtually flat as far as speaker response goes and would be
>> considered a very minor flaw. It would not be the cause of "smooth"
>> response, however, except in the sense that it is a flaw so minor as to be
>> non-detectable.
>====================
>
>It's what Consumer Reports wrote in the magazine, whether you
>understand it or not. The article is from a test in the early to mid
>1960s. A shallow dip centered around 1 kHz was apparently detectable
>and audible to them, and at the time, audibility (what this group now
>calls 'subjective testing') was the basis of Consumer Reports's
>ratings.
>
>The AR-3 was their top-rated loudspeaker in that issue.

Whether a "shallow" dip "around" 1 kHz is audible depends on the width of the
dip (as well as the depth.) For example a -2 dB dip 1/12 of an octave wide
would certainly be inaudible. But 1/3 of an octave it may be. A full octave for
certain.