Those new Bose PA speakers

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.audio.pro.live-sound,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Greg Taylor wrote:

> Cerion wrote:
>
>> Bose PA speakers use very inefficient drivers, requiring drastic
>> signal processing to boost low and high end to achieve relatively flat
>> response. In spite of the processing, these systems are typically
>> deficient at extreme ends of the spectrum, i.e. highs and lows.
>
>
> What if someone were to take these Bose speakers and reload them with
> better drivers?


The DSP used for line arrays is quite specific to the drivers used.

Also, I doin't know where you would find 2-1/8" replacement options. I'll venture to say that Bose knows as much about little cones like that as anyone.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.audio.pro.live-sound,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Cerion wrote:
>
> I think you'll find that for a typical small venue system, that a couple of
> 2-way speakers on stands-sticks, say with horn tweeters & 15 inch woofers
> will outperform a Bose system and at a much lower cost.

Depends entirely on the SOS chosen. Personally, I hate the midrange on most 15" 2-ways and that is one area where conventional physics does support the Bose architecture.

A good pair of 10" or 12" SOS's properly driven, with subwoofer(s) if needed, is more to my taste.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.audio.pro.live-sound,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Kurt Albershardt" <kurt@nv.net> wrote in message
news:2oc96bF8tqd1U1@uni-berlin.de
> Greg Taylor wrote:
>
>> Cerion wrote:
>>
>>> Bose PA speakers use very inefficient drivers, requiring drastic
>>> signal processing to boost low and high end to achieve relatively
>>> flat response. In spite of the processing, these systems are
>>> typically deficient at extreme ends of the spectrum, i.e. highs and
>>> lows.
>>
>>
>> What if someone were to take these Bose speakers and reload them with
>> better drivers?

> The DSP used for line arrays is quite specific to the drivers used.

Agreed.

> Also, I doin't know where you would find 2-1/8" replacement options.

Agreed.

> I'll venture to say that Bose knows as much about little cones like
> that as anyone.

I think they are related to the 2.5" drivers in the Bose cubes.

Bottom line, its darn hard to move a decent amount of air with drivers this
size, even if there are lots of them. All things being equal both diaphragm
area and linear displacement go down with diameter. A double whammy, as it
were.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.audio.pro.live-sound,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Cerion <eeeeek@notmail.com> wrote:
>
>How did they get enough gain before feedback occurred for sufficient vocal
>levels, to balance out with a drumset for example?

They don't. They aren't designed for that. They are intended for small
and quiet acoustic acts and not to compete with anything huge.

>I think you'll find that for a typical small venue system, that a couple of
>2-way speakers on stands-sticks, say with horn tweeters & 15 inch woofers
>will outperform a Bose system and at a much lower cost.

The nice thing about the Bose things is that they don't sound like horns.
Also, they have everything all in one box so the skill required to operate
it is minimal. Yes, they are phenomenally inflated in price, but that is
what Bose does. But I think the idea is a good one, and I would like to
see a company that actually cares about sound quality take the idea and do
it right.
--scott

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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.audio.pro.live-sound,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Greg Taylor <gtaylor@umd.umich.edu> wrote:
>Cerion wrote:
>...
>>
>> Also, Bose PA speakers use very inefficient drivers, requiring drastic
>> signal processing to boost low and high end to achieve relatively flat
>> response. In spite of the processing, these systems are typically deficient
>> at extreme ends of the spectrum, i.e. highs and lows. For reproducing
>> pre-recorded music, a subwoofer can remedy this problem, though if all
>> you're doing is vocal reinforcement in a very small venue, then the Bose may
>> actually sound fine, since high end and low end roll off are often dialed in
>> to the mixer in such applications. But then there's that pesky gain before
>> feedback issue...
>
>What if someone were to take these Bose speakers and reload them with
>better drivers?

They'd then have to change the firmware inside the DSP processor, since there
is stuff in there that compensates for the driver characteristics.

>I know a guy who is really sold on these because the demo he saw
>impressed him both with the overall performance of the system and
>especially with the physical size and weight, since he has back
>problems. He travels with his wife and performs Southern Gospel in
>various venues, mainly small to medium size churches (100-400 seat).
>He prerecorded his own rhythm tracks and plays various lead instruments
>along with them live.

That's basically the sort of thing that it's designed for. But quite
frankly, it weighs a ton. It looks like it shouldn't weigh all the much
but try picking it up and you may be surprised.
--scott

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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.audio.pro.live-sound,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Kurt Albershardt <kurt@nv.net> wrote:
>Cerion wrote:
>>
>> I think you'll find that for a typical small venue system, that a couple of
>> 2-way speakers on stands-sticks, say with horn tweeters & 15 inch woofers
>> will outperform a Bose system and at a much lower cost.
>
>Depends entirely on the SOS chosen. Personally, I hate the midrange on most 15" 2-ways and that is one area where conventional physics does support the Bose architecture.
>
>A good pair of 10" or 12" SOS's properly driven, with subwoofer(s) if needed, is more to my taste.

Absolutely, but there aren't many of those things sold in the MI market.
And there are certainly _no_ non-horn-loaded boxes sold in the MI market
by anyone but Bose.

As I said earlier in the thread, Bose found a market niche that nobody
else was filling, and they built a box that fills it. It's a sort of
half-assed box and it's a very high markup box, but there isn't much
else that you can get at the music store that does what it does. Bose
is very good at this sort of thing and they are real marketing geniuses.

It is a real shame that you can't get a 12" Radian or SLS at your corner
music store, though.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.audio.pro.live-sound,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:


>
> They'd then have to change the firmware inside the DSP processor, since there
> is stuff in there that compensates for the driver characteristics.

I didn't know that but it's fascinating. It sure can
explain why the end result is so well reported. The only
requirement on the drivers with the inclusion of DSP
technology is some consistency of the drivers and pretty
good linearity. Actually, if the data in the processor that
performs the correction is determined from a really
straightforward test procedure that would be applied in some
way anyway, then the consistency requirement is lifted.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <gr3Uc.51$Nv1.904@news.itd.umich.edu> gtaylor@umd.umich.edu writes:

> What if someone were to take these Bose speakers and reload them with
> better drivers?

Then they'd be something else and probably you'd have to change some
of the processing that's in the base, too.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.audio.pro.live-sound,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

in article cfqca9$ok1$1@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu, Cerion at eeeeek@notmail.com
wrote on 8/16/04 9:30 AM:

> I gotta question for ya:
>
> How did they get enough gain before feedback occurred for sufficient vocal
> levels, to balance out with a drumset for example?

The pole is some 4-6 feet from the performer and there IS a (desired and
intended) self-limiting level situation involved in that when you hit
feedback point, you're too loud for the way the system works in the room...
and work it does, surprisingly. Something -I- like about this is that it
pretty much forces the ensemble into a only slightly-more-than-human volume
range in the venue. I have always been pissed at the concept that an
'acoustic' band needs to have their PA hit 100db average in a 70-seat pub.
If you haven;t worked with these things, don;t knock the theory until you
understand it.


> Many Bose systems are designed to be omnidirectional,

I have yet to see one of this sort of thing... which models are these?

most ANY speaker system is pretty dang omni below 200Hz. Even
stacks of 802's do maybe a fair 120deg spread (and that's what I pick em
for) above that. I know of no bose system (outside of the woofer units)
'designed' to be omni.


>... under similar circumstances,
> the more directional speaker systems will work better, serving to direct
> acoustic energy where one wants it, the audience' ears, and not mostly
> reflecting all over the room and -then- to the audience' ears

remember, these systems (esp as I use em) are set up to be BOTH the main
sound producer AND the 'monitor' if you will, this solves a special case
problem of making performances blend naturally with the performers
themselves. And yes ANY equally wide smooth dispersion system can accomplish
that as well.


> Also, Bose PA speakers use very inefficient drivers, requiring drastic
> signal processing to boost low and high end to achieve relatively flat
> response.


ummmmm EFFICIENCY and FLAT RESPONSE are very different things... don;t get
em confused. The BOSE 1-driver-for-all systems indeed go to severe
compensatory EQ to make that work, and the attendant sonic compromises are
no mystery, secret or denial.


> I think you'll find that for a typical small venue system, that a couple of
> 2-way speakers on stands-sticks, say with horn tweeters & 15 inch woofers
> will outperform a Bose system and at a much lower cost.

again, staying on-topic, I know of NO horn/woof-on-a-stick that does
anything like what the Bose Pole can... much like no 2kW spotlight can do
what a 2kW distributed diffuse cieling lighting system can

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.audio.pro.live-sound,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

in article gr3Uc.51$Nv1.904@news.itd.umich.edu, Greg Taylor at
gtaylor@umd.umich.edu wrote on 8/16/04 10:23 AM:

>
>
>> I think you'll find that for a typical small venue system, that a couple of
>> 2-way speakers on stands-sticks, say with horn tweeters & 15 inch woofers
>> will outperform a Bose system and at a much lower cost.
>
> Personally, I'm not a big fan of Bose SR products. How do you think
> these speakers compare with, say, those little Community CPL series
> speakers (adding a sub, if necessary).

to make a meaningful comparison here you need to pick the rare speaker
system that has an uncommonly low crossover point and a VERY wide and even
hi-end horn. The old Peavy SP-2 (based on the Altec studio monitor with the
421 woof and the 511b horn) crossed over not at the usual 1.2kHz but at
800Hz. It's a remarkably smooth and wide system for what it is and indeed
was designed as a PLAYBACK speaker.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.audio.pro.live-sound,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

JoVee wrote:
> in article gr3Uc.51$Nv1.904@news.itd.umich.edu, Greg Taylor at
> gtaylor@umd.umich.edu wrote on 8/16/04 10:23 AM:
>>
>>> I think you'll find that for a typical small venue system, that a couple of
>>> 2-way speakers on stands-sticks, say with horn tweeters & 15 inch woofers
>>> will outperform a Bose system and at a much lower cost.
>>
>> Personally, I'm not a big fan of Bose SR products. How do you think
>> these speakers compare with, say, those little Community CPL series
>> speakers (adding a sub, if necessary).
>
> to make a meaningful comparison here you need to pick the rare speaker
> system that has an uncommonly low crossover point and a VERY wide and even
> hi-end horn.

Actually, I prefer the opposite arrangement, where the low-mid cone driver works up to 2500-3000 Hz and the horn only kicks in above the vocal range. This requires 8" or 10" mids and pretty much ensures use of a sub for a wide range of musical styles but results in a more natural-sounding reproduction to my ears.

Big bucks and big weight can yield great results with MF horns that cover down to 400 Hz or so but those hardly qualify in the category we're discussing.




> The old Peavy SP-2 (based on the Altec studio monitor with the
> 421 woof and the 511b horn) crossed over not at the usual 1.2kHz but at
> 800Hz. It's a remarkably smooth and wide system for what it is and indeed
> was designed as a PLAYBACK speaker.

Hey--I used to get great sound out of both JBL Strongboxes and Bose 80whatever they were's by feeding them 800 Watts ad using them as midranges in a 3-way setup.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.audio.pro.live-sound,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> to make a meaningful comparison here you need to pick the rare speaker
> system that has an uncommonly low crossover point and a VERY wide and
> even hi-end horn. The old Peavy SP-2 (based on the Altec studio
> monitor with the 421 woof and the 511b horn) crossed over not at the
> usual 1.2kHz but at 800Hz. It's a remarkably smooth and wide system
> for what it is and indeed was designed as a PLAYBACK speaker.
>

??? I have 4 of the original (800 xover, before they changed to 1200) SP2s
.. I have long ago biamped them because a;they blew horns, and b: although
for the time they sounded ok, they soure sound a lot better at their sweet
spot (I've found 1600 perfect.) I don't use them often, must modern small
speakers are lighter and soungd at least equivilent.

BTW In the near field I found a very intrusive 'sort of squished'
distortion at the original 800 and even the 1200 that dissapeared at the
1600

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.audio.pro.live-sound,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

in article 2odk46F9k040U1@uni-berlin.de, Kurt Albershardt at kurt@nv.net
wrote on 8/17/04 1:41 AM:

> JoVee wrote:
>> to make a meaningful comparison here you need to pick the rare speaker
>> system that has an uncommonly low crossover point and a VERY wide and even
>> hi-end horn.
>
> Actually, I prefer the opposite arrangement, where the low-mid cone driver
> works up to 2500-3000 Hz and the horn only kicks in above the vocal range.
> This requires 8" or 10" mids and pretty much ensures use of a sub for a wide
> range of musical styles but results in a more natural-sounding reproduction to
> my ears.
>
> Big bucks and big weight can yield great results with MF horns that cover down
> to 400 Hz or so but those hardly qualify in the category we're discussing.

agreed on the category but the POINT here is good to play with a LITTLE bit
(as we are).
NB: that "8-10inch" driver issue is CRITICAL as they pretty much DONT SHOW
UP in the uses we're talking about here... it's the ubiquitous 12 or 15
that's up there and beaming honkinawful stuff from 500k-2k out the woof and
down the alley and not spread around while the horn does whatever it manages
to do, usually not prettily. Only the GOOD small boxes (Meyer, Clair etc)
that Weigh and Cost make this a Beautiful Thing to Behold (WITH, as you say,
the appropriate lo-end support from a second box/amp) and again, there's the
SPECTRAL DISPERSION issue... the BASS is EVERYWHERE) especially that damned
200-300 box/room hump) whilst most horns Don't Do That well. I'd rather have
a set of those old Macintosh tower-O-Tweeters systems in theses venues.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.audio.pro.live-sound,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

JoVee <ten.nozirev@dlywsinhoj.com> wrote:
>
>agreed on the category but the POINT here is good to play with a LITTLE bit
>(as we are).
>NB: that "8-10inch" driver issue is CRITICAL as they pretty much DONT SHOW
>UP in the uses we're talking about here... it's the ubiquitous 12 or 15
>that's up there and beaming honkinawful stuff from 500k-2k out the woof and
>down the alley and not spread around while the horn does whatever it manages
>to do, usually not prettily. Only the GOOD small boxes (Meyer, Clair etc)
>that Weigh and Cost make this a Beautiful Thing to Behold (WITH, as you say,
>the appropriate lo-end support from a second box/amp) and again, there's the
>SPECTRAL DISPERSION issue... the BASS is EVERYWHERE) especially that damned
>200-300 box/room hump) whilst most horns Don't Do That well. I'd rather have
>a set of those old Macintosh tower-O-Tweeters systems in theses venues.

Sounds like what you want is a set of the Tannoy v12 speakers.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.audio.pro.live-sound,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

FIRST... I'm NOt disagreeing with you on teh points you make, they;re
hifi-dandy ...

in article Xns9548503CEBF19thomasstratonet@216.168.3.50, reese thomas at
thomastakethisout@strato.net wrote on 8/17/04 8:04 AM:

>> to make a meaningful comparison here you need to pick the rare speaker
>> system that has an uncommonly low crossover point and a VERY wide and
>> even hi-end horn. The old Peavy SP-2 (based on the Altec studio
>> monitor with the 421 woof and the 511b horn) crossed over not at the
>> usual 1.2kHz but at 800Hz. It's a remarkably smooth and wide system
>> for what it is and indeed was designed as a PLAYBACK speaker.
>>
>
> ??? I have 4 of the original (800 xover, before they changed to 1200) SP2s
> . I have long ago biamped them because a;they blew horns,

I've NEVER blown a diaphragm on an SP2... but I don't push them way hard
without safety compression. YES those drivers are touchy and YES they are
far from perfect but look at the COST. Nuff said there. we're all correct in
our points.


> and b: although
> for the time they sounded ok, they soure sound a lot better at their sweet
> spot (I've found 1600 perfect.) I don't use them often, must modern small
> speakers are lighter and soungd at least equivilent.
>
> BTW In the near field I found a very intrusive 'sort of squished'
> distortion at the original 800 and even the 1200 that dissapeared at the
> 1600

I think the aperture/horn throat wants to be bigger to REALLY make 800 work
BEAUTIFULLY... I still say that system, -even- on the internal passive at
800, sounds smoother overall (INCLUDING way off-axis listening, which is
crucial to teh topic at hand) than most common similar-price (cheap_) 2-way
boxes that try to work too-hi a crossover into a 12 or 15 woof. EV wasn't
stupid with that hi-power 8" midrange cone driver they developed in the late
70's.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.audio.pro.live-sound,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

JoVee wrote:
>
> EV wasn't stupid with that hi-power 8" midrange cone driver they developed
> in the late 70's.
> ...
> Same thing happens regularly with the Clair stuff.


IIRC, the JBL 2123s I favored for much of the '80s were originally developed for the S4.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.audio.pro.live-sound,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> JoVee wrote:
>> to make a meaningful comparison here you need to pick the rare speaker
>> system that has an uncommonly low crossover point and a VERY wide and even
>> hi-end horn.
>
> Actually, I prefer the opposite arrangement, where the low-mid cone driver
> works up to 2500-3000 Hz and the horn only kicks in above the vocal range.
> This requires 8" or 10" mids and pretty much ensures use of a sub for a wide
> range of musical styles but results in a more natural-sounding reproduction to
> my ears.
>
> Big bucks and big weight can yield great results with MF horns that cover down
> to 400 Hz or so but those hardly qualify in the category we're discussing.

agreed on the category thing but the POINT here ties, and is good to play
with a LITTLE bit
(as we are).
NB: that "8-10inch" driver issue is CRITICAL as they pretty much DONT SHOW
UP in the uses we're talking about here... it's the ubiquitous 12 or 15
that's up there and beaming honkinawful stuff from 500k-2k out the woof and
down the alley and not spread around while the horn does whatever it manages
to do, usually not prettily. Only the GOOD small boxes (Meyer, Clair etc)
that Weigh and Cost make this a Beautiful Thing to Behold (WITH, as you say,
the appropriate lo-end support from a second box/amp) and again, there's the
SPECTRAL DISPERSION issue... the BASS is EVERYWHERE especially that damned
200-300 box/room hump) whilst most horns Don't Do That well. heck, I'd
rather have a set of those old Macintosh Tower-O-Tweeters systems in these
pubish venues.

a most wonderful thing was a system that combined a big bunch of the Ramsa
10 boxes with one Servodrive monster... everyone smiled deprecatingly during
load and setup... turned it all on and scared the client silly. Same thing
happens regularly with the Clair stuff.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.audio.pro.live-sound,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

FIRST... I'm NOT disagreeing with you on the points you make, they;re
hifi-dandy ...

in article Xns9548503CEBF19thomasstratonet@216.168.3.50, reese thomas at
thomastakethisout@strato.net wrote on 8/17/04 8:04 AM:

>> to make a meaningful comparison here you need to pick the rare speaker
>> system that has an uncommonly low crossover point and a VERY wide and
>> even hi-end horn. The old Peavy SP-2 (based on the Altec studio
>> monitor with the 421 woof and the 511b horn) crossed over not at the
>> usual 1.2kHz but at 800Hz. It's a remarkably smooth and wide system
>> for what it is and indeed was designed as a PLAYBACK speaker.
>>
>
> ??? I have 4 of the original (800 xover, before they changed to 1200) SP2s
> . I have long ago biamped them because a;they blew horns,

I've NEVER blown a diaphragm on an SP2... but I don't push them way hard
without safety compression. YES those drivers are touchy and YES they are
far from perfect but look at the COST. Nuff said there. we're all correct in
our points.


> and b: although
> for the time they sounded ok, they soure sound a lot better at their sweet
> spot (I've found 1600 perfect.) I don't use them often, must modern small
> speakers are lighter and soungd at least equivilent.
>
> BTW In the near field I found a very intrusive 'sort of squished'
> distortion at the original 800 and even the 1200 that dissapeared at the
> 1600

I think the aperture/horn throat wants to be bigger to REALLY make 800 work
BEAUTIFULLY... I still say that system, -even- on the internal passive at
800, sounds smoother overall (INCLUDING way off-axis listening, which is
crucial to teh topic at hand) than most common similar-price (cheap_) 2-way
boxes that try to work too-hi a crossover into a 12 or 15 woof. EV wasn't
stupid with that hi-power 8" midrange cone driver they developed in the late
70's.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.audio.pro.live-sound,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> Many Bose systems are designed to be omnidirectional,


Hemispherical actually, me thinks, depending on how they're mounted & what
band one is talking about...
But you get the idea. Their column speakers are designed for very wide
dispersion.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.audio.pro.live-sound,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> Bottom line, its darn hard to move a decent amount of air with drivers
this
> size, even if there are lots of them. All things being equal both
diaphragm
> area and linear displacement go down with diameter. A double whammy, as it
> were.



Bose pro / commercial speaker lines tend to be inefficient and expensive.
I'd say the perfect application for their little column speakers would be
the surround speakers on a theater sound system. Left Center and Right
speakers in any kind of theater larger than someone's living room would
dictate using something with higher efficiency, better directivity and
better -wider- over all response.

Sklerp