|
|
|
| Re: Review: BOSE personal amplification system [message #321797 is a reply to message #321787 ] |
Sun, 11 May 2008 17:44   |
 Brad Weber
Messages: 1158
Registered: December 2005
Location: Marietta, GA |
Has No Life |
|
|
| Robert Lunceford wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 18:12 |
Cliff Hendrickson is credited with being the "inventor" of the Bose L1.
If I recall correctly, Mr. Hendrickson also did some design work for Electrovoice.
|
My understanding is that Cliff became so involved with the L1 and the Bose music products that it took him away from the Pro products which is why that line has perhaps not progressed as envisioned a few years ago.
And yes, Cliff was at EV, in fact he was one of the people that I met during my interview for a position with EV almost 25 years ago.
Brad Weber
muse Audio Video
|
|
|
|
| Re: Review: BOSE personal amplification system [message #321802 is a reply to message #321787 ] |
Sun, 11 May 2008 18:10 |
Tom Young
Messages: 1694
Registered: April 2004
Location: Oxford CT |
Has No Life |
|
|
... and Altec and others. He is one of the original "cream of the crop" pro audio / live sound loudspeaker design engineers.
Tom Young
Electroacoustic Design Services
Oxford CT
Tel: 203.888.6217
Email: dbspl@earthlink.net
www.dbspl.com
|
|
|
| Re: Review: BOSE personal amplification system [message #321804 is a reply to message #321758 ] |
Sun, 11 May 2008 18:15 |
Tom Young
Messages: 1694
Registered: April 2004
Location: Oxford CT |
Has No Life |
|
|
Don't rule out installer or consultant incompetence.
Bose loudspeakers, just like any other loudspeaker, need to be measured and optimized in situ after they are installed.
I have a few installations of MA12's with MB4's and they sound just as natural and powerful as anything else I have done or seen in that level of system.
Tom Young
Electroacoustic Design Services
Oxford CT
Tel: 203.888.6217
Email: dbspl@earthlink.net
www.dbspl.com
|
|
|
| Re: Review: BOSE personal amplification system [message #321806 is a reply to message #321778 ] |
Sun, 11 May 2008 18:18 |
|
I figured out it was Bose marketing prose by line 3, the link at the end served as confirmation.
when does Oxford arrive at this train?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Review: BOSE personal amplification system [message #321913 is a reply to message #321209 ] |
Mon, 12 May 2008 03:24 |
Mitch Grant
Messages: 210
Registered: April 2004 |
Has No Life |
|
|
| SteveKirby wrote on Fri, 09 May 2008 10:20 |
| Robert Lunceford wrote on Fri, 09 May 2008 10:04 |
He was named Inventor of the Year in 1987 by the Intellectual Property Owners Association and holds numerous patents in the fields of acoustics, electronics, nonlinear systems, and communication theory.
|
That would be most of his audio reproduction systems? 
My issue with Bose is that for every claimed "proprietary technology" I easily can think of prior examples. And probably those weren't the original art, just obvious examples that I know about. I've never bothered to delve into their patents, but I suspect at the very least they are "improvement" patents, or at worst on very shaky ground. The huge marketing machine they've built gives them the financial resouces to force these patents in spite of their tenuous technical merit.
The second issue is the implementation of these "technologies". KEF came out with a bandpass enclosure in an attempt to gain extended response. Bose then put the principal in a plastic table radio with a high Q so that it faked the impression of bass and sold the ingnorant public that it was some secret proprietary magic. Every "technology" that Bose has brought to the mass market, from "cylinderical wavefront line arrays" to noise canceling headphones, has been such a cut down and cheapened version of established technology that it would probably embarass the offshore copycats who directly counterfeit the higher end implementations.
I really lost it with Bose when they attacked Thiel (a small audiophile speaker manufacturer) for useing the decimal model numbering system. e.g. 3.0, 3.2, 4.5 ect... At the time Bose had just recently begun using this marketing concept that had been successfully used for years by BMW, and thus had a sort of higher end cachet to it. That they felt such a blatent marketing rip off should be exclusively theirs, and that a fringe company who posed no threat to their target market should be enjoined from doing this as well (even though said company had been doing it before them and doing it since the outset of their company) just tourqued my squirel past the breaking point. Maybe it was because Thiel actually sold product with serious engineering into the fringe audiophile market that Bose would like the general public to believe that they own. The primary thrust to Bose's marketing scheme is to convince people who don't know any better, that the folks who are experts in the field, use their stuff. Nothing could be further from the truth.
For instance, as JR points out, the 901's best presentation was for large scale classical music. But the underground audiophiles who Bose would like the general public to belive were all over the 901's hated them. No imaging at all. They were already using "direct-reflecting" speakers. Primarilly dipoles like the Quad electrostatic from the 50's, updates like Sound Labs, and electrodynamic dipoles like Magnapans. Most Bose customers have no idea who these companies are, or what their speakers sound like.
|
Several good points there Steve! I used to work in the "underground audiophile" market for a couple of years, and Bose products are as laughable to real audiophiles as they are to most audio professionals.
However, "there's an ass for every seat", as they say. If you advertise enough, people will even pay dearly for water when they can get it (almost) for free out of their faucets.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Review: BOSE personal amplification system [message #321942 is a reply to message #321800 ] |
Mon, 12 May 2008 08:05 |
 |
Tom Manchester
Messages: 2214
Registered: December 2004
Location: Delaware |
Has No Life |
|
|
| Robert Lunceford wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 19:00 |
| Tom Manchester wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 22:15 |
I again had the oppourtunity yesterday to hear a system consisting of several BOSE MA12 line arrays supplemented by MB4 bass modules. They were in a situation where sight lines were important so a slender loudspeaker was needed. The first thing I noticed was the sound was very "weak." Even at moderate distances it was hard to hear over crowd noise, and intelligibility was average. Low end presence for music playback was also fairly mediocre.
Finally, when I got up close to the MA12 sticks I noticed a very pronounced midrange and severely lacking high end extension. It was akin to listening to an inexpensive home stereo loudspeaker with no tweeter.
All in all it was another fairly unimpressive experience with the Bose products. They did a good job of blending in with the environment but I think any good quality small trap box would have been a better sounding solution despite the moderate sight line issues.
|
Tom,
You didn't like the Adamson T21 subs either. The following is what you wrote in the Product Reviews Forum in regards to the T21.
"The subs had some decent impact from the kick but when I got up real close to listen to what the box was doing half the time it was making a strained grumbling sound like it was trying to make noise but failing, and you would occasionally get the "big note" which I recollect as being around 60hz."
Based on these two reviews, I'd go with the Bose subs. I'll take "fairly mediocre" over "strained grumbling sounds, trying to make noise but failing" anyday.
|
Non sequitur
[Updated on: Mon, 12 May 2008 08:19]
-Tom
TM S&L
Foh Engineer, AV Installer, Lighting designer
"Less brand stroking, more useful discussion please!"
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Review: BOSE personal amplification system [message #322195 is a reply to message #322180 ] |
Mon, 12 May 2008 22:05 |
|
| Don Lind wrote on Mon, 12 May 2008 22:21 |
From what I recall, toms girlfriend got an "owie" from mishandling the T21. Thus starting off on a rant
|
That, coupled with the fact that their size/weight to output ratio was flat out embarassing. I also lost a new pair of Mechanix gloves to that quality wheelboard arrangement.
[Updated on: Mon, 12 May 2008 22:06]
|
|
|
|
Forum Home
Login
Forum Search
Register
FAQ
) 2 Vote(s)
