pc speakers - to burst ear drums and shake walls... - Page 2

Zirax · 21-02-2008, 10:37

What about heading down the seperate route, ie have a hi-fi receiver and then some surround speakers. I'm considering this for my next pc surround upgrade

Mark · 21-02-2008, 10:50

Personally I believe purists/audiophiles (and I have reason to believe DRZ is one of these) dislike Bose because they use scientific trickery to achieve their sound, rather than the pure, unadulterated sound these people demand. Not that there's anything wrong with making such demands, but it's a different market segment from what the average man-in-the-street is likely to want.

The point about Bose being well-known for lacking midrange does have some base in fact - or at least did. I've seen plenty of Bose marketing guys blowing out candles with waveguides, but that's only a demonstration of Bass response, and not the rest of the spectrum.

Having said that, I heard a bloody good demonstration in a US shop of a Bose system. At circa $4,000 it jolly well should be good.

The biggest criticism I have with Bose is that they're expensive. For example, you can pick up cheap noise-cancelling headphones for probably £20-£30, if not less. Yet Bose charge £250+ for theirs. Having said that, they're bloody good compared to the cheap versions. I should know - I own both.

Jasper · 21-02-2008, 11:34

my problem with this whole situation is that I just don't like the idea of listening to music through PC speakers like that. Whenever I listen to music, my laptop/ipod gets plugged into my separates amp to a decent set of speakers and I personally think he'd be better off with a setup like this in the long run.

He's also an EXPERT consumer. He's wanted a camera for YEARS, but he hasn't bought one because there isn't one that fits every single criteria he thinks a camera should have! He does it with everything - when I got my D200, he knew more about it than I did (actually asked if I'd got a battery grip with it because it drinks batteries!).

I think what we'll have to do ultimately is covertly initiate a conversation with him on the subject to find out what he knows about it and what he thinks is the best at the time of going to print, so to speak! This whole thing is really irritating because, as I said, he knows everything about all the products already! grr

PvtPyle · 21-02-2008, 14:18

For quality sound gear, you could also try Klipsch. They do some nice 2.1 iPod/computer speaker setups, I looked at this one - the ProMedia GMX for a while but I couldn't find anywhere to see one demonstrated and I was never going to part with my money without hearing what I was investing in.

Dr. Z · 21-02-2008, 14:46

OK, my apologies for not being in depth enough.

Bose have an acoustically terrible reputation. What you hear is a very clever way of tricking your brain into thinking you are hearing things that you are not, which allows them to build very, very poor speakers and charge an awful lot of money for them.

Every single reputable sound manufacturer will post specifications about frequency response and how linear that frequency response is between a set range of frequencies. Your average JVC boom-box will have a frequency response (1/3rd octave rounded) of something like 40Hz-18kHz +/- 3dB, that isnt bad but its not good either. Your top of the range speakers like the £70,000 B&W Model Nautilus has a frequency range of (IIRC) 20Hz-20kHz +/- 0.5dB. That means that between any two frequencies that the speaker can reproduce, there will never be a difference of more than 1dB (6dB for the JVC system). My hifi here will do 20Hz-20kHz +/- ~3dB which is a lot better than the JVC system but many, many magnitudes worse than the B&Ws.

So what about the BOSE systems? Take their then range-topping Acoustimass system into an anechoic chamber and test them and you see results that are difficult to believe - I cant remember the exact figures but you are looking at a 24dB variation between frequencies. From an acousticians point of view, that is simply inexcusable.

Their demo suites have hidden equalisation electronics that make things sound vastly better than they really would be when you get them home (as well as the fact they will position everything in exactly the right place for their demo suite which is designed to mask the problems).

Then there is the cost of them. They are UNBELIEVABLY expensive compared to what you can buy from other manufacturers, especially when you factor in the performance!

People think they sound good for 2 reasons:

1. The Marketing Placebo - their marketing is spot on. Better than anyone else. They beat Bang and Olufsen hands down, which is saying something. People are conditioned into believing that what they are about to hear is better than it is because the marketing has convinced anyone and everyone into thinking they are the best.

Someone in work who is also "into their hifi" genuinely believed that their Bose Wave Radio was better than a B&W Model Nautilus / Mark Levinson / Wadia setup. Which is quite frankly ridiculous.

2. Psychoacoustics.

You can quite easily make the listener think that they are hearing something that they are not. MP3 has this as its fundamental cornerstone (except Fraunhoffer et al are better at it than BOSE are). Listen to a track back to back on a Bose system and then on something that costs the same, but has been well researched and put together and the difference is night and day. Genuine hifi manufacturers and retailers will let you take your existing hifi stuff into a dem room and trial what you are researching in a fair environment. Will Bose let you do that? Hells no.

What they have got down to an art is taking the crappy boom-box "style" of presentation that the vast majority of people take to be good and have refined it enough so that your average listener can come along and hear that its "the same but different" rather than having their ears mashed by all the extra detail that comes with a good system (which a lot of people initially dislike because they aren't used to it). They then proceed to charge an awful lot of money for something that is actually demonstrably "worse" for reproduction than an Alba midi system.

Mark · 21-02-2008, 15:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasper

my problem with this whole situation is that I just don't like the idea of listening to music through PC speakers like that. Whenever I listen to music, my laptop/ipod gets plugged into my separates amp to a decent set of speakers and I personally think he'd be better off with a setup like this in the long run.

T'is what I do. 10yo (and still going) Denon mini system driving a pair of similarly old Kef Q15s. Shame about the soundcard that drives it all though (something I keep meaning to do something about but fall flat trying to find decent cards with at least two and preferably three external line-level inputs like my old SB Live! has).

PvtPyle · 21-02-2008, 18:26

Your post makes for really interesting reading DRZ. You certainly illustrate a significantly superior knowledge and understanding of such things to the average consumer (that being me). You have, in some respects, got me thinking about my Companions again... I don't regret the purchase, because they still sounds great to me. But that's the important bit, TO ME. I haven't compared them to anything else in a similar price range. Foolhardy? Maybe, I called a friend who works in a recording studio in London and he reckoned anything by Bose was reliable, and that if I went into the store for a demo then I'd see for myself.

21-02-2008, 10:50	#12
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	Personally I believe purists/audiophiles (and I have reason to believe DRZ is one of these) dislike Bose because they use scientific trickery to achieve their sound, rather than the pure, unadulterated sound these people demand. Not that there's anything wrong with making such demands, but it's a different market segment from what the average man-in-the-street is likely to want. The point about Bose being well-known for lacking midrange does have some base in fact - or at least did. I've seen plenty of Bose marketing guys blowing out candles with waveguides, but that's only a demonstration of Bass response, and not the rest of the spectrum. Having said that, I heard a bloody good demonstration in a US shop of a Bose system. At circa $4,000 it jolly well should be good. The biggest criticism I have with Bose is that they're expensive. For example, you can pick up cheap noise-cancelling headphones for probably £20-£30, if not less. Yet Bose charge £250+ for theirs. Having said that, they're bloody good compared to the cheap versions. I should know - I own both. Last edited by Mark; 21-02-2008 at 10:54.

21-02-2008, 14:46	#15
Dr. Z I'm going for a scuttle... Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 2,021	OK, my apologies for not being in depth enough. Bose have an acoustically terrible reputation. What you hear is a very clever way of tricking your brain into thinking you are hearing things that you are not, which allows them to build very, very poor speakers and charge an awful lot of money for them. Every single reputable sound manufacturer will post specifications about frequency response and how linear that frequency response is between a set range of frequencies. Your average JVC boom-box will have a frequency response (1/3rd octave rounded) of something like 40Hz-18kHz +/- 3dB, that isnt bad but its not good either. Your top of the range speakers like the £70,000 B&W Model Nautilus has a frequency range of (IIRC) 20Hz-20kHz +/- 0.5dB. That means that between any two frequencies that the speaker can reproduce, there will never be a difference of more than 1dB (6dB for the JVC system). My hifi here will do 20Hz-20kHz +/- ~3dB which is a lot better than the JVC system but many, many magnitudes worse than the B&Ws. So what about the BOSE systems? Take their then range-topping Acoustimass system into an anechoic chamber and test them and you see results that are difficult to believe - I cant remember the exact figures but you are looking at a 24dB variation between frequencies. From an acousticians point of view, that is simply inexcusable. Their demo suites have hidden equalisation electronics that make things sound vastly better than they really would be when you get them home (as well as the fact they will position everything in exactly the right place for their demo suite which is designed to mask the problems). Then there is the cost of them. They are UNBELIEVABLY expensive compared to what you can buy from other manufacturers, especially when you factor in the performance! People think they sound good for 2 reasons: 1. The Marketing Placebo - their marketing is spot on. Better than anyone else. They beat Bang and Olufsen hands down, which is saying something. People are conditioned into believing that what they are about to hear is better than it is because the marketing has convinced anyone and everyone into thinking they are the best. Someone in work who is also "into their hifi" genuinely believed that their Bose Wave Radio was better than a B&W Model Nautilus / Mark Levinson / Wadia setup. Which is quite frankly ridiculous. 2. Psychoacoustics. You can quite easily make the listener think that they are hearing something that they are not. MP3 has this as its fundamental cornerstone (except Fraunhoffer et al are better at it than BOSE are). Listen to a track back to back on a Bose system and then on something that costs the same, but has been well researched and put together and the difference is night and day. Genuine hifi manufacturers and retailers will let you take your existing hifi stuff into a dem room and trial what you are researching in a fair environment. Will Bose let you do that? Hells no. What they have got down to an art is taking the crappy boom-box "style" of presentation that the vast majority of people take to be good and have refined it enough so that your average listener can come along and hear that its "the same but different" rather than having their ears mashed by all the extra detail that comes with a good system (which a lot of people initially dislike because they aren't used to it). They then proceed to charge an awful lot of money for something that is actually demonstrably "worse" for reproduction than an Alba midi system. __________________ Last edited by Dr. Z; 21-02-2008 at 14:57.

21-02-2008, 10:37	#11
Zirax Goes up to 11! Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,577	What about heading down the seperate route, ie have a hi-fi receiver and then some surround speakers. I'm considering this for my next pc surround upgrade

21-02-2008, 11:34	#13
Jasper Simple & Red Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 535	my problem with this whole situation is that I just don't like the idea of listening to music through PC speakers like that. Whenever I listen to music, my laptop/ipod gets plugged into my separates amp to a decent set of speakers and I personally think he'd be better off with a setup like this in the long run. He's also an EXPERT consumer. He's wanted a camera for YEARS, but he hasn't bought one because there isn't one that fits every single criteria he thinks a camera should have! He does it with everything - when I got my D200, he knew more about it than I did (actually asked if I'd got a battery grip with it because it drinks batteries!). I think what we'll have to do ultimately is covertly initiate a conversation with him on the subject to find out what he knows about it and what he thinks is the best at the time of going to print, so to speak! This whole thing is really irritating because, as I said, he knows everything about all the products already! grr

21-02-2008, 14:18	#14
PvtPyle Sofa Boy Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Wield of the Shire Posts: 701	For quality sound gear, you could also try Klipsch. They do some nice 2.1 iPod/computer speaker setups, I looked at this one - the ProMedia GMX for a while but I couldn't find anywhere to see one demonstrated and I was never going to part with my money without hearing what I was investing in.

21-02-2008, 18:26	#17
PvtPyle Sofa Boy Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Wield of the Shire Posts: 701	Your post makes for really interesting reading DRZ. You certainly illustrate a significantly superior knowledge and understanding of such things to the average consumer (that being me). You have, in some respects, got me thinking about my Companions again... I don't regret the purchase, because they still sounds great to me. But that's the important bit, TO ME. I haven't compared them to anything else in a similar price range. Foolhardy? Maybe, I called a friend who works in a recording studio in London and he reckoned anything by Bose was reliable, and that if I went into the store for a demo then I'd see for myself.