Tiny 6.1 Receiver?

[phenixdragon]

Originally Posted by SHS

It may suprize you phenixdragon but joint venture would lead to the acquisition of Cambridge SoundWorks in 1997 by Creative and Cambridge SoundWorks was after Battery Portable and PC powered loudspeaker market long before Creative Lab joint venture with them.

Well what I mean by that is the Creative labeled speakers (not the Cambridge only labeled) are geared towards computer systems.

[phenixdragon]

So actually I think I'm going to hold off on the speakers just a bit and am looking at headphones. Does anyone have any suggestions on good "5.1" headphones? Personally I love the Bose noise cancelling headphones but they aren't 5.1 and for gaming, I'd like to have 5.1.

However, I saw this on NewEgg:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16826231005

[SHS]

For Realistic 5.1 headphones they should have min of 4 spk per side not 3 like min other do which combine the Front/Subwoofer on one speaker.
Here are real deal 5.1
Some have Self Power AMPs
1. Avia HP2000 5.1
2. Kinyo KY-100 5.1
3. Medusa SL-8790, SL-8793, SL-8796 5.1
4. Turtle Beach EarForce X-51 5.1
5. Turtle Beach Ear Force HPA 5.1
6. Gainward SoundXplosion 5.1

[PGPfan]

Originally Posted by phenixdragon

So actually I think I'm going to hold off on the speakers just a bit and am looking at headphones. Does anyone have any suggestions on good "5.1" headphones? Personally I love the Bose noise cancelling headphones but they aren't 5.1 and for gaming, I'd like to have 5.1.

However, I saw this on NewEgg:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16826231005

Phenixdragon,

No offense meant here, but are you some kind of Bose enthusiast? It's a common thing, but most people that are or become hi-fi enthusiasts come to the realization of the Bose marketing departments incredible skill at manipulating the perception of the general public. Just as an example (there are MANY) Bose makes a "noise cancelling" set of headphones for general avaition. I LOVED these (though I never owned them) until I started investigating the competition hard. I learned that although good, they (the Bose) certainly didn't warrant the $950 cost of ownership. The competition provided slightly better performance, not quite as cool looking idustrial design, all for approx. $375 per headphone set. Quite a difference.

If you do enough investigation, I believe you will inevitably come to the same conclusions.

-PGPfan

[phenixdragon]

Um who said that I was? I actually don't think Bose is the best out there and I said I have known this for a long time now. But their cube speakers are good, not the best but tiny speakers can't be the best.

But as far as noise cancelling headphones goes I haven't put on a set that has ever matched Bose. and reading around one else says they are "garbage" but pretty much everyone compares to them on how they are flawed in comparision. Like that URL above, I beleive their flaw was the lack of bass. Miught have been another highend set I was looking at but basically they are either considered the same or something isn't right. Or the other brand that is used for comparision is Sennheiser. I knwo they have some good stuff.

But all in all, the only beef that people have with Bose is the price. Quality is good and people like it and what happens is because of price people go overboard and say how they are "garbage". Its like saying a 2003 ///M3 is garbage because it costs about $30,000 more then a WRX STi. Both are good quality and the STi price for price is a better buy.

is up to Bose in the over all picture. Some have good noise cancelling, some have good sound, some have good base, but none seem to have it all. My only issue with Bose headphones is that they aren't 5.1. Other then Bose I'd say Sennheiser is on par with them.

But all in all Bose is good and for lets say speakers, I mean really they are in a league of their own for the small cube style speakers. Even though I will go with PC 7.1 sound their isn't anyone else that really sells to the public tiny speakers.

[phenixdragon]

Originally Posted by SHS

For Realistic 5.1 headphones they should have min of 4 spk per side not 3 like min other do which combine the Front/Subwoofer on one speaker.
Here are real deal 5.1
Some have Self Power AMPs
1. Avia HP2000 5.1
2. Kinyo KY-100 5.1
3. Medusa SL-8790, SL-8793, SL-8796 5.1
4. Turtle Beach EarForce X-51 5.1
5. Turtle Beach Ear Force HPA 5.1
6. Gainward SoundXplosion 5.1

Like 2 or 3 I have heard of and the other I haven't yet. I may just hold off until I do get the 7.1. I think I will go with the Creative S750 once there is another $100 rebate up. I thought it was until the 31st with ZipZoomFly.com but now it's not listed, and they are out of stock again. But I can wait.

[SHS]

1 and 3 base on 2 I have 2 set of Kinyo KY-100 5.1 and love them.

[src666]

One of the best sounding small speaker packages I have ever heard is the Anthony Gallo Nucleus Micro system http://www.roundsound.com/nucleus-micro-speakers.htm. I ended up going with these for my home theater, and they are more than up to the job.

And the WAF is out of this world due to the small size and choice of colors.

[src666]

Originally Posted by phenixdragon

But all in all Bose is good and for lets say speakers, I mean really they are in a league of their own for the small cube style speakers. Even though I will go with PC 7.1 sound their isn't anyone else that really sells to the public tiny speakers.

Actually, this is the statement that will get the most opposition. Yes, they broke tremendous ground when they introduced their small "cube" speakers, but they have been far surpassed since then. "No highs, no lows, must be Bose" is the well-known phrase in the audio industry.

Yes, their larger speakers are still of good (although not top) quality - very respectable choices. But their small HT speakers blow chunks, especially in a real listening environment. Muddy bass, harsh and distorted highs, and very "point sourcey" - which is why they have to be aimed at walls to try to hide them by confusing the soundstage.

There are MANY much better choices at lower cost, and vastly superior choices in their price range.

EDIT: Just for fun, I ran a google search. Had to go through 2 pages of results before the phrase was attached to anything else: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...22&btnG=Search

[PGPfan]

Originally Posted by src666

Actually, this is the statement that will get the most opposition. Yes, they broke tremendous ground when they introduced their small "cube" speakers, but they have been far surpassed since then. "No highs, no lows, must be Bose" is the well-known phrase in the audio industry.

Yes, their larger speakers are still of good (although not top) quality - very respectable choices. But their small HT speakers blow chunks, especially in a real listening environment. Muddy bass, harsh and distorted highs, and very "point sourcey" - which is why they have to be aimed at walls to try to hide them by confusing the soundstage.

There are MANY much better choices at lower cost, and vastly superior choices in their price range.

EDIT: Just for fun, I ran a google search. Had to go through 2 pages of results before the phrase was attached to anything else: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...22&btnG=Search

"Point sourcey" Don't you mean the great "Direct Reflecting" technology of the infamous Bose 901's? Man, for all the advancements this company makes - they can sure find ways to sell people crap! Funny thing is that Bose didn't even invent the 'subwoofer/satellite' combo as they are correctly referred, they merely re-popularized them.

It still amazes me the level of mass hypnosis Bose is able to pull off. Some say that Carver Corp. had a similar marketing hype department, but at least that guy (Bob Carver) has true genius skill when it comes to audio equipment design.

-PGPfan

[GbrNole]

lets just remember that you will NEVER find a bad published bose review because the sued the pants off consumer reports many moons ago for daring to do such a thing and actually won.

how dare someone give a bad opinion based review!

yes bose sucks and so does apple - same player, different game.

[phenixdragon]

Originally Posted by GbrNole

lets just remember that you will NEVER find a bad published bose review because the sued the pants off consumer reports many moons ago for daring to do such a thing and actually won.

how dare someone give a bad opinion based review!

yes bose sucks and so does apple - same player, different game.

Now see, comments like that make everything you just said nulled. Apple doesn't suck, they just charge too much in some cases for me.

And uh no one says Bose sucks, they only say they are overly priced which no one has debated that. But really, the point of the thread isn;t abotu how great or not Bose is so I really don't understand why anyone is bring that issue up.

[PGPfan]

Phenix,

The reason people keep bringing up that Bose ain't so good is so that you wouldn't waste hard earned money on them. That is how the thread ties in to the Bose sux posts. Unlike a lot of debates, (ie, which is better - Sage or BTV? for example) you will find the 'Bose VS. everyone else' a much more polarized arguement.

Fact is, they make cheap products and sell them at a HUGE profit to a public that has been conditioned to believe that they are quality. Almost universally this is percieved to be a bad thing. One of the nice things about quality speakers is that, should you choose to you can replace components (drivers, etc.) using parts made by hi-fi parts makers. For speakers there are companies like Scan-Speak, Hi-Vi Research, Peerless, Morel, etc. The Bose speakers are so inferior you can't even find replacements due to their use of 'proprietary' (read: Cheap and disposable) sizes and designs.

I won't post on this anymore, my feelings are already known on this issue.

-PGPfan

[GbrNole]

apple rides on the same success as bose. for years apple tried to market how their wonderful G series processors were just the bees knees, how they could just flatten anything but now we hear about how great the marriage is between apple and intel core 2 duo and how intel takes apple to a new level of performance.

apple doesn't bluescreen but apple sure will blackscreen and shut down but it's ok because it's not a bluescreen

apple doesn't get virus attacks - yeah sure they don't... keep up the ad campaign boys, get a larger market share and enjoy the influx of attacks. anyone notice how that particular ad stopped really quickly when apple pc's started getting pinged and hit more frequently after it?

my father-in-law's power book has been back now 3 times for repairs and he's also in the process of getting a new battery. the battery isn't apples fault but the marketing dept will find a way to spin it against pc's at some point.

that same power book is also riddled with adware and i have no clue how he did it and no desire to help him get rid of it. it's just not worth the learning curve to me.

when an apple computer provides me with the same flexibility as a PC and a similar price / performance ratio then i'll believe in them but i just don't condone false advertisement and apple much like bose prefer the regular consumer to believe that their product really is superior.

i'll give you that an apple product is constructed well and is generally aesthetically pleasing to the eye but there are plenty of good notebook manufacturers out there who sell a better built product for less.

besides in a perfect world we'd all just be able to use some form of linux that will load and have the expandability of windows and the eye candy of os X.

[phenixdragon]

Originally Posted by PGPfan

Phenix,

The reason people keep bringing up that Bose ain't so good is so that you wouldn't waste hard earned money on them. That is how the thread ties in to the Bose sux posts. Unlike a lot of debates, (ie, which is better - Sage or BTV? for example) you will find the 'Bose VS. everyone else' a much more polarized arguement.

Fact is, they make cheap products and sell them at a HUGE profit to a public that has been conditioned to believe that they are quality. Almost universally this is percieved to be a bad thing. One of the nice things about quality speakers is that, should you choose to you can replace components (drivers, etc.) using parts made by hi-fi parts makers. For speakers there are companies like Scan-Speak, Hi-Vi Research, Peerless, Morel, etc. The Bose speakers are so inferior you can't even find replacements due to their use of 'proprietary' (read: Cheap and disposable) sizes and designs.

I won't post on this anymore, my feelings are already known on this issue.

-PGPfan

Actually the reason isn't that Bose makes cheap products, it's that they charge a lot because they can and it's not the best you can buy. THe fact is they do make great products, I mean if they weren't they wouldn't sell at all. It's just like my surround sound in my livingroom that was bought 10 years ago. At the time I liked the Bose but the problem, which is the same with all small speakers, is they aren;t very good for the highs and lows that you really want with surround sound but they have awesome mids.

Which this goes back to my example. Bose is like an ///M3 while another company can be liek the WRX STi. The STi will beat the ///M3 in and out while being $20,000 cheaper.

And I'm not saying I'm defending Bose but I am saying that they aren't crap and the only people who say they are, at least it appers, are just people who don't agree with what they are charging. I garentee if they charged 60% less then aht they do now no one would say they are crap.

[GbrNole]

actually bose really do use cheap drivers in their cube speakers and they overcome their massive shortcomings by using very enabled active mixing circuitry.

there was quite an in depth discussion that used to exist in the partsexpress.com speaker builder forums to see if:

a) parts could be sourced to build a DIY bose system
b) speaker drivers could be replaced in a current bose system to improve sound

turned out to be pretty much a negative on both counts for many of the reasons that PGP noted and then the discussion mysteriously disappeared.
like you say though phenix, bose don't make a bad product but they do make a lousy product for what it costs. recreating the lows with a small subsat system is never going to be an easy task but there's no excuse for not being able to provide clear and concise highs - check out the canton's they have no issue in this regard.

the only other thing of note is your with your car analogy, while a rally proven, tuned to the balls wrx is able to beat an M3, if you were to tune that same M3 it might be a different race but at the end of the day it really doesn't matter because you drive that M3 down the street and people look - you drive the WRX dwn the street and the only people who give a damn are car enthusiasts.

speaker enthusiasts don't give a damn about bose and quite frankly not to many people are ever going to be impressed because someone owns a bose system. the M3 doesn't suffer that complex.

i don't know man but doesn't it seem absurd that the lifestyle 4800 system costs $4,000 - 4 freakin' grand??? you can get some mighty nice equipment for 4 grand that suffers no problems with highs and lows and a HD-DVD player to boot.

[phenixdragon]

I dunno, the only people who looked my ///M3 where just the ones who knew about cars while no one else even had a clue what it was. Just to annoying me. And because I had an ///M3, not just some cheapo BMW like everyone else. And when I mean everyone else, I mean something like 60-70 percent of the cars on the road are BMW, Benz, or Lexus.

But what I'm jus getting at about the car is you have some really exspensive cars that can only do so much where as you have cheaper cars that can wipe some major butt.

But I'd rather have an ///M6 instead. However, I will have a V-10 Mustang in the next year or two. I am debating if I should sell my 88 GT that I was making a project of or gonig out and getting a McLaren edition Mustang since I finally saw on in person and I liked it a lot. Photos of them do not do them justice at all. I didn't like the rear slooping as it shows in photos, but in person it didn't look bad at all.

[blade]

Originally Posted by phenixdragon

And when I mean everyone else, I mean something like 60-70 percent of the cars on the road are BMW, Benz, or Lexus.

I think your figure is extremely high.

But what I'm jus getting at about the car is you have some really exspensive cars that can only do so much where as you have cheaper cars that can wipe some major butt.

I hope you mean kick and not wipe.

An expensive car is much more than simple performance. The majority of motorist actually care very little if their car can outrun the one next to them at the redlight. Elegance, luxury, reliability, safety, resell value, etc.... are part of what people purchase when buying an expensive automobile. Saying that a cheaper car is better than a more expensive one because it's faster is only true for people who are purchasing the car based on that factor alone. For the rest of us the statement is false.


As for the audio debate I will say reproducing sound with "accuracy" and playing music or movies in a way you enjoy listening to are often two entirely different things. Who here hasn't bumped the bass up a little to give rock songs more kick or jacked up the voices so that you can actually hear what the actors are saying over the explosions and gunfire.

I totally agree there is a huge difference between garbage and decent quality speakers and more expensive doesn't always mean better. If you listen to true audiophiles they harp on accuracy over and over and this is what truely high end systems are judged on. For the majority of people accuracy just isn't as important as the enthusiast would like to think.

[GbrNole]

man you have some nice cars!

my dad has an M3 convertible with the paddle shifters which is fun to tool around in. i have a pair of trucks (crew cab pickup and an SUV) so, for me at least, the M3 is a nice changeup when i get a chance to drive it.

[PGPfan]

Blade,

I don't necessarily agree with your comment regarding accuracy and the 'way' you enjoy them as being sometimes 2 different things. For example, to pick-on/use Bose again: If they were accurate to begin with they would be capable of playing ALL frequencies considered audible to the human ear (usually considered 20hz-20khz, especially in children and women). No amount of "bumping" the bass or whatever will cause the Bose to reproduce a frequency that is just plain isn't capable of.

Phenixdragon mentioned Bose being good a midrange. Well, that's the easiest thing for ANY speaker to do. Even the old 'transistor radios' make great midrange (since that's all they can do, anyhow). Real 'hi-fi' speakers (hi-fi meaning High Fidelity) will reproduce most of the audible sound we can hear, with the better ones able to reproduce all of it from 20-20k. The accuracy part is how "flat" the frequency response is. If a signal of a specific strength is fed into the speaker sweeping the frequency from 20-20k it 'should' recreate that same soundwave, at the same consistent volume for the speaker to be considered accurate. This is an EXTREMELY hard thing to do for a speaker, and almost none are capable of it without some sort of equalization. However, with Bose (and other poor quality speakers) there are frequently whole entire octaves of sound that don't get reproduced. Not good.

This is why Bose is about on par with Radio Shack speakers, etc. Good audio IS a measurable science, people just shouldn't let snake oil salesmen convince them otherwise - no matter how much or little they cost.

-PGPfan