Magico Q5

[_Scotty_]

I think the reason people preferred significant sidewall reflections to that of a much deader acoustic environment is that in real life one is constantly surrounded by acoustic reflections. If music is played back in a relatively dead acoustic environment then the music itself must supply the missing sense of ambiance. If you properly record ambient information along with the music and successfully reproduce the information then the listener would hear the original acoustic captured during the recording process and
would not find the resulting virtual acoustic environment unnatural sounding. From the standpoint of our hobby some people prefer to listen to relatively dry recordings which make it sound like the performers are in your listening room while others like recordings with ambiance information from the recording location whether real of artificially created in the studio.
I find that as my sources and amplification improve the recreation of the place where the performance took place becomes much more complete and realistic sounding. Interestingly enough my loudspeakers have also disappeared more completely as my amps and preamps have been upgraded.
Scotty

 

[bpape]

 

Bryan

[tmazz]

I have no way of knowing, but I feel that there is a pretty good chance that Floyd Toolees research was not done with a well set up high end system. This would back up what I said about Bose. If the equipment or the set-up (or both) is deficient in a way that does not allow the system to project a sense of the space and imaging contained in the recording, I most people would prefer significant sidewall reflections because they would provide an artificial, although false sense of acoustic space.While this space is not true or accurate then compared to what can be reproduced on a well tuned high end rig, it is better than nothing. I would be very interested to see that experiment done using a well set up high end system as the base scenario and then have people compare that image with the one produced by significant sidewall reflection. I think the results might be different.

[JLM]

Count me as an early dismisser of all thing Bose.  So I never thought much about the design of the 901's.

Keep in mind that beaming is a function of driver diameter and only occurs for higher frequencies.  The (roughly) 4 inch drivers used in the 901's would beam starting around 8,000 Hz (only about the last octave), so the emphasis on reflected sound primarily enlarges/diffuses the soundstage.  (Americans love the bigger is better adage.)  Don't know what the Fs of those drivers are, but must be pretty low (for their size).  One help in the 901 design is lack of a crossover.  OTOH having 9 soundwave sources per channel can only confuse imaging from midrange frequencies on up (which is probably why only one driver points ahead).

[richidoo]

I have no way of knowing, but I feel that there is a pretty good chance that Floyd Toolees research was not done with a well set up high end system.

Here you go Tom
http://www.amazon.com/Sound-Reproduction-Acoustics-Psychoacoustics-Loudspeakers/dp/0240520092
It was a custom built sound room with variable acoustics and various speakers on rotating tables built for studying psycho-acoustic phenomena with most variables eliminated. The conclusion was that most people prefer the sense of space over tonal accuracy.

BOSE capitalizes on this by putting even more reflections into the room with directivity tricks and EQ and people love it when they first hear it. A diffuse sound field also makes tone feel thicker and more satisfying. Pop music often uses timing tricks to enhance the size of the soundstage unnaturally. This has been done for many decades, even one Miles Davis album from the 50s has slap echo added to make stereo.

It is true what Scotty said, that the brain becomes accustomed to the sound of reflections boosting the sound of everything. This is why people hate the feeling of anechoic space when they first walk in. After about 5 minutes the brain adjusts to the silence and it is very peaceful. Recorded ambience instantly relieves the discomfort and everything on the recording is clearly audible at much lower volume.  If you want to really hear the acoustic and spatial cues on a recording as well as tonal detail even on cheap speakers and electronics then kill all reflections completely. The brain adjusts more quickly to return to normal reflective space.

People who buy bose are not audiophiles. Only audiophiles care about imaging. Regular people don't even assume that the soundstage can be replicated, so they don't miss it. They are only aware of beat/melody/words.  If they knew they could have an accurate soundstage for another $5000 they would say no thanks. Reflection tricks plus dolby surround is good enough, and better than their old $300 htib.

[tmazz]

I think that the bottom line is that Bose speakers were always good at what they do . Where the train comes off the track from our perspective as audiophiles is that we do not really value what they do. They obtain that large soundfield at the detriment of other sonic characteristics that we hold near and dear. However keep in mind that as we all know, the perfection of audiophile sound is quite costly ,not only in therm of money, but also the time needed to perfect it and the space needed to obtain it.
So Bose offered the non-audiophile masses a glimpse into our world with reasonable tonality and a large, if not diffused, soundfield (I  don't even want to call it a soundstage). And a lot of people who didn't want to be bothered with the Nervosa bought into it.
I liken this to maple syrup.  As far I am concerned there is nothing like real maple syrup and I detest those artificial sticky liquid sugar products, but not everybody is so particular and as a result millions of bottles of Mrs. Buttersworth and the like are sold every year. And the people who buy it are are perfectly happy with their purchases. Any while I don't have any facts to back this up I would assume that the market for real maple syrup is only a small percentage of the overall syrup market (as is with most specialty items).
There is one thing that Dr. Bose does better than most other speaker designers and that is sell products.  He identified a market (upper mass consumers) and built a product that appeals to them in therm on price/performance. We can argue whether there are better products out there at a given price, but the bottom line is his sell and sell very well. While his product are not my cup of tea and I choose to own something else, I (and we) are not one of the average ducks. Anyone who doesn't like how his product performs (and most of us don't) is free to buy other speakers (and most of us have), but you have to at least respect the man for operating a very successful company in the face of huge competition for mass market foreign firms. And if nothing else he has provided a portal for millions of people to enjoy music.

[tmazz]

Rich,
I finished my last post before I saw yours, but I think you hit the $64,000 question. My thought was that most people if they heard real imaging over trickery would recognize and prefer it, Youo took it one step further and got to the more important point, even if they did hear and appreciate it, how many of them would care enough to be willing to put out money for it.

I had an engineering professor in undergrad who shocked the class by telling us that the engineers job was not to build the best product. It was to build a product of the minimum acceptable quality, for the lowest possible price. While that floored most of us, when you think about it, it really makes a lot of sense. While we can argue what the min acceptable quality, and that will vary from situation to situation, it is just a waste of money to build  better than what the customer needs or wants. And this is what Bose does so well as a company, identifies the qualities that will help sel speakers to a mass market consumer and puts them out there at a price that they are willing to pay.  We of course would be willing to pay more for better quality, but Bose is not marketing to us.

[richidoo]

Great stuff Tom! I'm with you on the maple syrup. When we travel we bring our own for breakfasts on the road.  But I remember the first time I had real stuff as a young kid used to Jemima - it was strange, powerful and disorienting. Where's the candy? This tastes like food!

I was thinking about this BOSE thing in the last hour again, realizing that even tho they like the first impression of candy sound that the BOSE sound field offers... IF people were able to hear music in a well setup room with a good balance between control and ambience they would probably flip over it the same way we do. Music is so much more powerful and emotionally rewarding when heard like that so people might come to find a lot more value in music listening again, instead of the reality TV "candy."   When you listen to music on a stereo you crave more and more accuracy so the emotional connection can get stronger. But if you have never heard it you just don't know.

I guess the BOSE approach is they add the emotional thrill to the acoustic so you get it no matter what you listen to. But is that satisfying in the long term? I dunno I never lived with them. But in short doses it is enjoyable. I was not in a position to hear any soundfield tricks. I was sitting under one sat along the same wall it was mounted on about 8 feet above me and 8 feet to the left, shooting out over my head. I usually pick apart any audio system playing music and this one really impressed me. Intense tone like Magnepan.

A friend of mine does have a BOSE surround system. He is a pro classical musician, and classical and rock listener. He asked me for advice on what kind of speakers to get that would be better for music listening. He is not satisfied with the BOSE, but I haven't talked with him about why yet nor have i heard his sytsem myself. I have heard another friend's BOSE speakers playing on nice vintage pioneer electronics, setup up in traditional stereo. I was surprised at how nice it sounded.  Oh well, it's interesting. I always expected it to really suck after reading all the trash talk from audiophiles, but it doesn't. They are doing something right, or they have found the secret keyhole of musical satisfaction and giving it in small doses for high price.

Right on about the engineers' role. Sometimes research engineers can have more of a inventive approach than industrial engineers, but it's all loads of fun. I got lured away by IT money - stupid move. Wouldn't it be fun to have a beer with a product development engineer from BOSE? To get the low down on what they're really trying to make and market. I think by now they are just trying to build an empire, but back in the day when it started to take off, what was the technical credo they decided to follow for the big ride?  The early products probably tell the story.

[RichardS]

Trickle down at work -- from Magico to Bose in less than two pages....

I helped a couple lady friends buy speakers some 25 years ago. Each wanted Bose (due to the ad reputation). We went to a Good Guys store (like Best Buy) and listened in the rooms (though you couldn't really set them up properly). They both liked the Bose initially, bit as I coached them on listening they agreed that more information was revealed in a more realistic manner with other speakers. The Bose had a really exaggerated mid bass and staging, and was syrupy warm and sweet (like the Mrs. Buttersworth, I suppose -- if you get used to that sugary flavor, the natural sweet tastes bland at first). One finally bought a pair of JBL and the other some Celestions. They probably still have them -- most folks don't change their systems very often, especially women (now clothes -- that's a whole other story).

My wife has great hearing. She once helped me decide between DACs and I valued her insight (that was when we were first married -- she'd never do it now). But she could care less whether listening to music on my system or the car radio. Just doesn't matter to her (and I'm happy with a $10 haircut and a 20 year old T-shirt bought at Sears). It's often not so much what you hear, as the value you place on it.

Bose, I think, really hit on something with their tiny satellites and hidden subs. Women rule the roost and they don't want giant coffins in the middle of their living spaces. How it sounds is secondary. Only bachelors (and Rich) are allowed line arrays in the living room. My wife and I joke that the reason we moved to NC from CA is that here we could afford a large room over the garage to serve as the man cave music room (and save the marriage).

On another note, I used to own Genesis V speakers and really was taken with them for a while. Ultimately though, the diffuse soundstage wore thin on me. But I can still be seduced by a dipole producing a lovely spacious sound. Recording venue or concert hall???

[JLM]

RichardS,  you're really tempting me to open up a can of worms regarding how some audiophile popular speaker designs can't possibly do a 3D image.

Richidoo,  my whole system costs $5,000, so does that mean it can't produce an accurate soundstage?


Wifey and I were in New Orleans years ago and had pancakes for breakfast.  Can you say "sweet"?  The cakes were soaked in super sweet cane syrup with powdered sugar sprinkled on top and they brought out more of the cane syrup to put on them.  Reminds me now of the big wall of sound (lots to love, but no room left for discernment) the public loves.

Only an audiophile or a real music lover really listens to music for hours on end.  For most the in home sound system (however many channels) is for HT and background music.  So all these audiophile qualities don't mean a thing.

[richidoo]

Richidoo,  my whole system costs $5,000, so does that mean it can't produce an accurate soundstage?

Yes, you need to spend another $1,398.95, then the soundstage will turn on. 

[mdconnelly]

Only an audiophile or a real music lover really listens to music for hours on end.  For most the in home sound system (however many channels) is for HT and background music.  So all these audiophile qualities don't mean a thing.

Setting aside HT for the moment, I think people pursue music in the home in 3 ways...

1) If what you want is excellent sounding music throughout your home but meant primarily as background music while you're cooking, reading or perhaps pursuing more interesting activities with the lights down low, then you can get a lot of bang for your bucks these days.

2) If what you want is something that will literally rock your world (think house full of people dancing on your furniture), it will cost you more but can  be had without spending megabucks.

3) But if you want to immerse yourself in recreation of the acoustical space of a musical performance, and have the room and the budget, it is astounding how good it can be.   

Most people I know fall into the first category (although when I was 30 years younger, the 2nd category was equally important .   But I suspect that for most people reading this forum, the last one defines the nervosa that drives us.