K
Ken Blake
Really? I had no idea. I also have no idea what became of them.
Really? I had no idea. I also have no idea what became of them.
G
Gene E. Bloch
Exactly right, at least in my case.
I remember exactly what Ctrl-H allegedly does, but I think referring
to it in shorthand is funnier.
Inarguable
B
BillW50
In Char Jackson typed:
While for different reasons somewhat this could be said of standard
speakers as well.
Really? Others and me disagree.
"Bose 901 speakers commonly blow out after experiencing extended power
overload."
http://www.ehow.com/how_10051403_repair-bose-901-speaker.html
B = Buy
O = Other
S = Sound
E = Equipment
Others have opinions about how Bose really is like.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/57625-6-bose-cheap-speakers
Another blown out Bose 901s
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/196702-pl-700-series-ii-went-psycho.html
Great speakers systems use crossovers because no diaphragm can produce
20Hz to 20kHz reliably well. To fix this problem, great speaker systems
start by using a diaphragm that are good for a given much narrower
frequency range. Thus small diaphragm speaker is far more efficient at
high frequencies. By the same token, huge diaphragm speakers are far
more efficient at lower frequencies. And putting the wrong frequency in
the wrong sized diaphragm only causes problems. One it means extra watts
through a voice coil that isn't going to produce much volume if anything
at all. And the frequencies that the diaphragm is good at reproducing
will suffer in the long run. So this isn't good at all. So they use
crossovers to filter the right frequencies to the right speakers. And if
you are the wrong frequency, you can't drive the diaphragm that isn't
for you.
Bose breaks this rule. As Bose thinks they can take a bunch of 4.5 inch
diaphragms (which is a good choice if you could only pick one sized
diaphragm for the complete 20Hz-20kHz range, as it sits right about in
the middle of the spectrum). Although Bose compensates the inefficiency
of a 4.5 inch diaphragm outside of the efficient frequency range by
filtering (yes sounds a lot like crossovers but used for the opposite
reason). And what they do is to attenuate the frequencies that the
diaphragm is good at to make it as lousy as it is at other frequencies.
The end result is a more flat line frequency range through 20Hz through
20kHz with a 4.5 inch diaphragm.
Sure this idea works too up to a point. But it is very inefficient
method to go about this. And to compensate the poor sound quality of
such an inefficient diaphragm outside of the frequency range a given
diaphragm is good at. They came up with the idea more inefficient
diaphragms are better than one. Of course it is. Just like taking a
crappy engine and fixing it by adding more crappy engines to fix the
original crappy engine's problem.
Now you can enhance all these inefficient sounds by combining them all
and bouncing them off a hard surface (like a wall). Oh great, now you
attached all of the crappy engines to the same drive shaft. So now you
have something usable. Of course anybody with a good ear can tell that
the low and high frequencies isn't really faithfully reproduced. And
efficiency went down to the tubes. But hey, most people wouldn't know
the difference anyway. And that is how the story of Bose got started.
;-)
While for different reasons somewhat this could be said of standard
speakers as well.
Really? Others and me disagree.
"Bose 901 speakers commonly blow out after experiencing extended power
overload."
http://www.ehow.com/how_10051403_repair-bose-901-speaker.html
B = Buy
O = Other
S = Sound
E = Equipment
Others have opinions about how Bose really is like.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/57625-6-bose-cheap-speakers
Another blown out Bose 901s
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/196702-pl-700-series-ii-went-psycho.html
Great speakers systems use crossovers because no diaphragm can produce
20Hz to 20kHz reliably well. To fix this problem, great speaker systems
start by using a diaphragm that are good for a given much narrower
frequency range. Thus small diaphragm speaker is far more efficient at
high frequencies. By the same token, huge diaphragm speakers are far
more efficient at lower frequencies. And putting the wrong frequency in
the wrong sized diaphragm only causes problems. One it means extra watts
through a voice coil that isn't going to produce much volume if anything
at all. And the frequencies that the diaphragm is good at reproducing
will suffer in the long run. So this isn't good at all. So they use
crossovers to filter the right frequencies to the right speakers. And if
you are the wrong frequency, you can't drive the diaphragm that isn't
for you.
Bose breaks this rule. As Bose thinks they can take a bunch of 4.5 inch
diaphragms (which is a good choice if you could only pick one sized
diaphragm for the complete 20Hz-20kHz range, as it sits right about in
the middle of the spectrum). Although Bose compensates the inefficiency
of a 4.5 inch diaphragm outside of the efficient frequency range by
filtering (yes sounds a lot like crossovers but used for the opposite
reason). And what they do is to attenuate the frequencies that the
diaphragm is good at to make it as lousy as it is at other frequencies.
The end result is a more flat line frequency range through 20Hz through
20kHz with a 4.5 inch diaphragm.
Sure this idea works too up to a point. But it is very inefficient
method to go about this. And to compensate the poor sound quality of
such an inefficient diaphragm outside of the frequency range a given
diaphragm is good at. They came up with the idea more inefficient
diaphragms are better than one. Of course it is. Just like taking a
crappy engine and fixing it by adding more crappy engines to fix the
original crappy engine's problem.
Now you can enhance all these inefficient sounds by combining them all
and bouncing them off a hard surface (like a wall). Oh great, now you
attached all of the crappy engines to the same drive shaft. So now you
have something usable. Of course anybody with a good ear can tell that
the low and high frequencies isn't really faithfully reproduced. And
efficiency went down to the tubes. But hey, most people wouldn't know
the difference anyway. And that is how the story of Bose got started.
;-)
C
Char Jackson
I disagree with you on a lot of things. I don't mind that this is one
of them.
That article doesn't start out talking about 901's. I didn't stick
around long enough to see if it ever got there.
You probably didn't read that article. There was apparently an issue
with the person's amp. There's no mention of any damage to his
speakers.
Straw man argument. I didn't claim that 901's are a "great speaker
system".
Most of that is wrong. The size of the drivers is wrong, what you call
filtering is active equalization, and what you call attenuation is
more like amplification, and it isn't applied to the midrange at all.
You don't seem very knowledgeable about 901's.
901's work fine with a 10 watt amp. I wouldn't, but plenty of people
do. Low-powered amps are very hard on speaker systems. Anyway, that's
not a sign of inefficiency.
Ok, now it's obvious that you aren't the least bit knowledgeable on
the topic.
B
BillW50
In Char Jackson typed:
I meant to add more to this comment. For example, my Sansui SPX9000
speakers, on the floor brings out more of the bass. Anything that can
vibrate well at low frequencies will only bring out the bass more (aka
floor). Another thing about bass, is that it can be focused just about
anywhere. As it travels well in all directions regardless where the
actual sound is coming from. That is why most modern sound systems only
use one bass speaker regardless how many channels you have.
Sure that idea works pretty well. And since it is the low frequencies
that are the hardest to hear where it is coming from, it passes the
mustard by saving money by only having one bass speaker for all channels
(bass speakers cost more than others). But I don't know about other
people, but when I am playing my 70's quad, I still can tell which
speaker the bass is coming from. So I feel cheated when I hear it from
one source alone.
And at the totally other end of the frequency, the super tweeters are
super directional. Meaning on the floor, high in the air and whatever.
they sound best pointed directly at you. If not, the volume drops off
drastically. It is possible to bounce it off of a wall to diffuse it a
bit. Actually the further it has to travel, the more diffused it will
get. So the wall only lengthens the travel pretty much.
The midrange and the tweeter fall between the two extremes. Meaning
something like a floor doesn't help much. Nor having to be directly
pointed at you does either. Neither hurts either, just not that
important.
Somebody who sells replacement parts for Bose speakers I believe would
know what Bose speakers rip through the most.
Yes it did and hot and heavy.
Oh I got the part with the amp. They were saying that the volume control
or something else lost the ground connection. What this means is the
control of the volume was lost and you ended up with full volume
regardless where you place the volume control at. And at max power of
the amp, it had taken out the Bose 901 speakers.
My Marantz 4400 is one of the most powerful quad receiver ever made (I
don't think there was one more powerful). Even still, if the Marantz
lost the ground to the pot to control the volume, it still wouldn't blow
out the Sansui speakers. Even if the worst of the worst say would happen
and the supply DC voltage fed straight into the Sansui speakers, the
Sansui speakers still won't blow. And thanks to crossovers, no speaker
would take the hit except the bass speaker. And that could handle it
anyway.
No you said 901s doesn't use a crossover, and won't blow if overloaded.
And I was adding that non-crossover systems like Bose have lots of
disadvantages and that isn't a good thing and it is more costly. Then
you believe Bose can't blow out. Sure they can.
It doesn't matter how to do it, the results are the same. And no I am
not wrong how it is done. As the result is the same and it is the most
inefficient way to go.
My Sansui SPX9000 will blow away 901s at 10 watts. They produce more
sound per watt than virtually anything else and especially the
inefficient Bose.
What? That makes no sense at all. It is just the opposite. High powered
amps are hard on speaker systems. And if you speaker system can't handle
the power, then kiss it goodbye.
That is what equalizers do. They make what the diaphragm is good at and
weakens it so it is just as crappy as the other frequencies it can't do
as well. So it can produce the same volume at different frequencies than
what the diaphragm could do without.
Far more than you ever will know, no doubt.
I meant to add more to this comment. For example, my Sansui SPX9000
speakers, on the floor brings out more of the bass. Anything that can
vibrate well at low frequencies will only bring out the bass more (aka
floor). Another thing about bass, is that it can be focused just about
anywhere. As it travels well in all directions regardless where the
actual sound is coming from. That is why most modern sound systems only
use one bass speaker regardless how many channels you have.
Sure that idea works pretty well. And since it is the low frequencies
that are the hardest to hear where it is coming from, it passes the
mustard by saving money by only having one bass speaker for all channels
(bass speakers cost more than others). But I don't know about other
people, but when I am playing my 70's quad, I still can tell which
speaker the bass is coming from. So I feel cheated when I hear it from
one source alone.
And at the totally other end of the frequency, the super tweeters are
super directional. Meaning on the floor, high in the air and whatever.
they sound best pointed directly at you. If not, the volume drops off
drastically. It is possible to bounce it off of a wall to diffuse it a
bit. Actually the further it has to travel, the more diffused it will
get. So the wall only lengthens the travel pretty much.
The midrange and the tweeter fall between the two extremes. Meaning
something like a floor doesn't help much. Nor having to be directly
pointed at you does either. Neither hurts either, just not that
important.
Somebody who sells replacement parts for Bose speakers I believe would
know what Bose speakers rip through the most.
Yes it did and hot and heavy.
Oh I got the part with the amp. They were saying that the volume control
or something else lost the ground connection. What this means is the
control of the volume was lost and you ended up with full volume
regardless where you place the volume control at. And at max power of
the amp, it had taken out the Bose 901 speakers.
My Marantz 4400 is one of the most powerful quad receiver ever made (I
don't think there was one more powerful). Even still, if the Marantz
lost the ground to the pot to control the volume, it still wouldn't blow
out the Sansui speakers. Even if the worst of the worst say would happen
and the supply DC voltage fed straight into the Sansui speakers, the
Sansui speakers still won't blow. And thanks to crossovers, no speaker
would take the hit except the bass speaker. And that could handle it
anyway.
No you said 901s doesn't use a crossover, and won't blow if overloaded.
And I was adding that non-crossover systems like Bose have lots of
disadvantages and that isn't a good thing and it is more costly. Then
you believe Bose can't blow out. Sure they can.
It doesn't matter how to do it, the results are the same. And no I am
not wrong how it is done. As the result is the same and it is the most
inefficient way to go.
My Sansui SPX9000 will blow away 901s at 10 watts. They produce more
sound per watt than virtually anything else and especially the
inefficient Bose.
What? That makes no sense at all. It is just the opposite. High powered
amps are hard on speaker systems. And if you speaker system can't handle
the power, then kiss it goodbye.
That is what equalizers do. They make what the diaphragm is good at and
weakens it so it is just as crappy as the other frequencies it can't do
as well. So it can produce the same volume at different frequencies than
what the diaphragm could do without.
Far more than you ever will know, no doubt.
C
Char Jackson
Most speakers don't require the use of an active equalizer, nor do
they have rear-firing drivers.
I'll take your word for it.
I still say you probably didn't read that article. There was
apparently an issue with the person's amp. There's no mention of any
damage to his speakers. Read it again if you don't remember.
Like I said, most of it was wrong.
I didn't really expect you to understand that. Should I explain it, or
are you happy to remain ignorant?
That's exactly what equalizers DON'T do. They do exactly the opposite.
B
BillW50
In Char Jackson typed:
True, but most people will place speakers wherever. Without any thought
how they are placed in a room and how it will affect the sound. And
equalization is normally useful to compensate for a room's uneven
frequency acoustics. And this can be done with either passive or active
equalizers.
But that is not why Bose 901 uses an equalizer. As instead of designing
a speaker system for a flat frequency response throughout the audio
spectrum, they use cheap drivers that are only decent at producing the
midrange frequencies. Here Wikipedia explains this adequately:
An equalizer can be used to correct or "flatten" the frequency
response of speakers rather than designing the speaker itself
to be equalized. For instance, the highly regarded Bose 901
speaker system doesn't use separate woofers and tweeters to
cover the bass and treble frequencies, but includes 9 full-
range drivers more akin to what one would find in a table
radio. However this speaker system is sold with an active
equalizer designed to correct the poor frequency balance of
those drivers. That equalizer must be inserted into the
amplifier system so that the amplified signal that is finally
sent to the speakers has its response increased at the
frequencies where the response of these drivers falls off,
producing a high fidelity reproduction regardless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equalization_(audio)#Uses
Lots of cheap systems use an equalizer for the same reasons. Like this
cheap Philips AZ1505 boombox uses drivers about the same size as the
901s. And they have what they call DBB (dynamic bass boost) to
compensate for the drivers lack of bass response. Like the Bose 901s, it
is just a gimmick to make inadequate drivers sound better.
Ok, my mistake. ;-)
Feel free to elaborate.
No, please continue. I love to hear how a low powered amp can be hard on
my Sansui speakers for example.
A Bose equalizer flattens (attenuates) the midrange and boosts the highs
and lows to compensate for the drivers inability to produce a flat
frequency response. Well designed speaker systems on the other hand
requires no compensating since they are designed perfect from the very
beginning.
True, but most people will place speakers wherever. Without any thought
how they are placed in a room and how it will affect the sound. And
equalization is normally useful to compensate for a room's uneven
frequency acoustics. And this can be done with either passive or active
equalizers.
But that is not why Bose 901 uses an equalizer. As instead of designing
a speaker system for a flat frequency response throughout the audio
spectrum, they use cheap drivers that are only decent at producing the
midrange frequencies. Here Wikipedia explains this adequately:
An equalizer can be used to correct or "flatten" the frequency
response of speakers rather than designing the speaker itself
to be equalized. For instance, the highly regarded Bose 901
speaker system doesn't use separate woofers and tweeters to
cover the bass and treble frequencies, but includes 9 full-
range drivers more akin to what one would find in a table
radio. However this speaker system is sold with an active
equalizer designed to correct the poor frequency balance of
those drivers. That equalizer must be inserted into the
amplifier system so that the amplified signal that is finally
sent to the speakers has its response increased at the
frequencies where the response of these drivers falls off,
producing a high fidelity reproduction regardless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equalization_(audio)#Uses
Lots of cheap systems use an equalizer for the same reasons. Like this
cheap Philips AZ1505 boombox uses drivers about the same size as the
901s. And they have what they call DBB (dynamic bass boost) to
compensate for the drivers lack of bass response. Like the Bose 901s, it
is just a gimmick to make inadequate drivers sound better.
Ok, my mistake. ;-)
Feel free to elaborate.
No, please continue. I love to hear how a low powered amp can be hard on
my Sansui speakers for example.
A Bose equalizer flattens (attenuates) the midrange and boosts the highs
and lows to compensate for the drivers inability to produce a flat
frequency response. Well designed speaker systems on the other hand
requires no compensating since they are designed perfect from the very
beginning.
Q
Question Quigley
Well, what do you know? I installed Thunderbird and now I can do what I
need to.
Thanks for all the info!
Quigley
B
BillW50
In Question Quigley typed:
I wish Thunderbird would do what I needed it to do. It can't even view
watched read threads. And after 5 years after using Thunderbird, I then
noticed that isn't it isn't seeing like 1% of the posts. They just don't
show up. :-(
I wish Thunderbird would do what I needed it to do. It can't even view
watched read threads. And after 5 years after using Thunderbird, I then
noticed that isn't it isn't seeing like 1% of the posts. They just don't
show up. :-(
K
Ken Springer
There's a number of posts in the Thunderbird newsgroup about TB's
lacking features as a newsgroup reader.
--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 12.0
Thunderbird 12.0.1
LibreOffice 3.5.2.2
S
Stephen Wolstenholme
I had a go at getting Thunderbird to handle some of the newsgroups I
read. It was not very successful so I went back to Agent.
Steve
W
Wolf K
The main ones are inability to auto-stitch multi-part posts, and
inability to decode all versions of yEnc. Neither of these matter much
anymore, except perhaps to people who use "posting software", which
automatically breaks up files and encodes yEnc. IME, these folks tend to
invade a newsgroup briefly, and disappear once they have "contributed"
their collections of trucks and cats and clip-art and whatnot.
IMO, TB is just fine for most people, and a lot easier to use than Agent
(about whose interface design I could rant at length, but I'll spare
your shell-likes.).
Best,
Wolf K.
C
Char Jackson
Who has a harder time with computers than you do? Valerie, that's who.
B
BillW50
In Char Jackson typed:
I don't have any more problems than most power users. As most software
are designed for the average user in mind and are generally not meant
for power users. And most of the ones that are built for power users.
Are poorly laid out and requires far too many clicks than it has too to
get a simple task done.
But it isn't that way with everything for me. For example, I almost
never mess around with editing graphic images. So I never got into
Photoshop or anything. So even a real cheesy graphic editor is
generrally good enough for me.
Although things like readers, which I have been using since the 80's, I
am super picky about. As I know what they should be doing and how it
should be done. Most modern developers just doesn't get it and don't
have enough experience in this field to get it right. And that is my
story and I am sticking to it!
I don't have any more problems than most power users. As most software
are designed for the average user in mind and are generally not meant
for power users. And most of the ones that are built for power users.
Are poorly laid out and requires far too many clicks than it has too to
get a simple task done.
But it isn't that way with everything for me. For example, I almost
never mess around with editing graphic images. So I never got into
Photoshop or anything. So even a real cheesy graphic editor is
generrally good enough for me.
Although things like readers, which I have been using since the 80's, I
am super picky about. As I know what they should be doing and how it
should be done. Most modern developers just doesn't get it and don't
have enough experience in this field to get it right. And that is my
story and I am sticking to it!
K
KCB
Char Jackson said:
I think Valerie is Oreally. Just a gut feeling.
P
Polk Salad
Although things like readers, which I have been using since the 80's, I
am super picky about. As I know what they should be doing and how it
should be done. Most modern developers just doesn't get it and don't
have enough experience in this field to get it right. And that is my
story and I am sticking to it!
I'm sticking with the best there is!
S
Stephen Wolstenholme
For how long?
Steve
B
BillW50
In BillW50 typed:
We are still waiting for you to elaborate and to continue. So if you
can, please!
We are still waiting for you to elaborate and to continue. So if you
can, please!
C
Char Jackson
I gave up because I felt like I was talking to a wall. By the way, who
is "we" and how did you find this thread? Ctrl-H?
B
BillW50
In Char Jackson typed:
What do you mean talking to a wall? Sure I admit that cheap drivers
using an equalizer sounds better than not. But does it sound better than
a full spectrum speaker system? It isn't even close! As I can still hear
a huge difference between the two. Even Wikipedia missed that one.
For the bass for example, sure taking cheap drivers and boosting up more
makes it sound better. I don't disagree a minute. But it is missing the
feeling. And without it, it just sounds and feels fake. On the other
hand, my Sansui SPX9000 speakers with a 16 inch bass. there is no fake
sound from it at all. It is so sharp and clear. And the windows, floor,
walls, and everything else shakes with it.
And the highs from the equalizer through cheap drivers sound so muffed
to me. Many may buy this sound as very good, but not people like me. As
we can hear the huge difference.
So I need a speaker system that can produce the full audio spectrum, or
it sounds fake to me. And I never heard a system like the 901's for
example to sound real. I already admitted that you can take inadequate
drivers and make them sound better through an equalizer. Sure it sounds
better. But it still isn't as good. As all it is a cheap trick and
nothing more. Some are fooled, but not all of us.
And I am still waiting for you to answer how a low powered amp can harm
my Sansui SPX9000 speakers. As I can't think of a single reason why that
could happen. But I am open minded and if you want to educated me, then
go for it.
And no, I didn't find this with CTRL-H, although that would have been
way too easy.
What do you mean talking to a wall? Sure I admit that cheap drivers
using an equalizer sounds better than not. But does it sound better than
a full spectrum speaker system? It isn't even close! As I can still hear
a huge difference between the two. Even Wikipedia missed that one.
For the bass for example, sure taking cheap drivers and boosting up more
makes it sound better. I don't disagree a minute. But it is missing the
feeling. And without it, it just sounds and feels fake. On the other
hand, my Sansui SPX9000 speakers with a 16 inch bass. there is no fake
sound from it at all. It is so sharp and clear. And the windows, floor,
walls, and everything else shakes with it.
And the highs from the equalizer through cheap drivers sound so muffed
to me. Many may buy this sound as very good, but not people like me. As
we can hear the huge difference.
So I need a speaker system that can produce the full audio spectrum, or
it sounds fake to me. And I never heard a system like the 901's for
example to sound real. I already admitted that you can take inadequate
drivers and make them sound better through an equalizer. Sure it sounds
better. But it still isn't as good. As all it is a cheap trick and
nothing more. Some are fooled, but not all of us.
And I am still waiting for you to answer how a low powered amp can harm
my Sansui SPX9000 speakers. As I can't think of a single reason why that
could happen. But I am open minded and if you want to educated me, then
go for it.
And no, I didn't find this with CTRL-H, although that would have been
way too easy.