Tiny 6.1 Receiver?

[blade]

Originally Posted by PGPfan

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.

I never said increasing the bass would cause a Bose to reproduce frequencies it isn't capable of. As a matter of fact I don't believe I mentioned Bose at all in my post. As you said yourself accuracy isn't just about reproducing a certain range of frequencies. It is also about reproducing each frequency at the same levels as the original recording. That is the part that I think that people harp over way too much.

Even the old 'transistor radios' make great midrange (since that's all they can do, anyhow).

You must have had some really good transistor radios because all of mine sounded like garbage.

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.

This is what I'm talking about when I say accuracy and what you enjoy listening to are sometimes different things. If I like my music a little bass heavy why should I care if some egg head measures it with a meter and tells me my speakers are junk because they reproduce low frequencies at slightly higher levels than they should? Should I listen to him and trash them for a set of "accurate" high dollar speakers that to me won't sound any better?

Believe what you want, but I've heard audio reviewers say what is considered accurate isn't normally how they like their personal systems setup.

However, with Bose (and other poor quality speakers) there are frequently whole entire octaves of sound that don't get reproduced. Not good.

Once again I never mentioned Bose and I never said all speakers were equal. There is obviously a huge difference between garbage and decent speakers; however, once you reach a certain level you see huge diminishing returns when you compare cost to quality.

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.

I agree and at the same time people don't need to get so caught up in which speakers some lab says is the most accurate because in the end it depends on the listeners to determine if they sound good or not.

Also room acoustics play a huge role. Why spend thousands of dollars for the sake of accuracy if you're not going to place them in a professionally built sound room or have them professionally calibrated once they're placed in your home. Then recalibrated each time you buy new furniture, equipment, or move one of them.

I totally agree there is a difference in quality among speakers. My point is when people get too caught up in "accuracy" they sometimes lose sight of the actual goal which is to have a setup that sounds good to the user.

We haven't even mentioned people without "perfect hearing". To them "accurate" speakers are going to sound very lousy.

[popechild]

Bose = Radio Shack. Meaning, they're not good speakers, no matter how expensive or cheap they are. The comment to the effect of "people only dislike Bose because they're overpriced" is just uninformed. And the M3 comparisons are insane. Bose is not an M3. Bose is not a WRX. Bose is an El Camino. Sure, there are Yugos out there that are even worse. That doesn't make Bose good.

It's choosing between buying an El Camino or buying an M3, but the M3 costs $50k and the El Camino costs $100k. And no, Bose is NOT the M3 in this example.

That said, if anyone feels like spending $100k on an El Camino, who am I to stop them. Ignorance is bliss.

[samgreco]

A phrase comes to mind.... Weakest link in the chain. The best speakers you can afford is always a good idea.

As to accuracy, I happen to like to hear the closest representation of the music that the engineer heard when he/she recorded it. And I am a recording engineer, although not much anymore. It doesn't matter how bad the room is, if the speaker is missing the lower octave, or lacking somewhere, you can't MAKE IT reproduce it.

I sell pro audio gear, and we have a saying about Bose (actually many), Better Sound Through Marketing. Or my favorite, No Highs, No Lows, it must be Bose.

[blade]

Originally Posted by samgreco

A phrase comes to mind.... Weakest link in the chain. The best speakers you can afford is always a good idea.

I agree up to a point, but just because you can affoard a $15-20k set of speakers doesn't necessarily mean that is what you need. Of course that is just my opinion.

As to accuracy, I happen to like to hear the closest representation of the music that the engineer heard when he/she recorded it. And I am a recording engineer, although not much anymore.

Kind of proves my point. It is important to you, but to the majority of people who aren't enthusiast or audiophiles it doesn't really matter.

It doesn't matter how bad the room is, if the speaker is missing the lower octave, or lacking somewhere, you can't MAKE IT reproduce it.

I agree, maybe you guys are misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying you should have garbage for speakers. I'm talking about good vs excellent. Once you reach that certain point in quality paying thousands of extra dollars to get slightly more accurate sound when your room isn't perfect anyway seems a little senseless.

I sell pro audio gear, and we have a saying about Bose (actually many), Better Sound Through Marketing. Or my favorite, No Highs, No Lows, it must be Bose.

I totally agree and I don't think Bose sound all that great and I'm not defending the quality; however, they have done a great job of marketing their product. They understand what it takes to satisfy the majority of people and design products that will impress them. Why should they spend more time and money developing better speakers? If the goal was to actually produce the best speakers possible I could see it, but in reality their goal is to make money.

Bose knows the average joe doesn't care that the response on his speakers is only 38hz-18khz nor would he understand it if you told him. They create a product that will impress the majority of consumers then do a great job of marketing the product. It is no different than countless other subpar products that the masses believe are top notch due to their marketing campaign.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by blade

Once you reach that certain point in quality paying thousands of extra dollars to get slightly more accurate sound when your room isn't perfect anyway seems a little senseless.

Bose is not that point. In fact, you can get much, much better quality for the same price as Bose.

they have done a great job of marketing their product.

Agreed, that's really the only thing they've done a great job with recently.

They understand what it takes to satisfy the majority of people and design products that will impress them.

They understand that most people have never heard good audio, nor do most people know what it sounds like, nor do many people care. They understand that many people would rather buy a name than a quality product.

Hence they can get away with selling a product that can't compete with anything else in it's pricerange, and that they don't need to publish specs.

Why should they spend more time and money developing better speakers? If the goal was to actually produce the best speakers possible I could see it, but in reality their goal is to make money.

I don't think anybody faults Bose for their business decisions. What many of us try to do is educate otherwise uninformed purchasers that for the money they spend on a Bose system, they can get a system that will significantly outperform it in every way.

Bose knows the average joe doesn't care that the response on his speakers is only 38hz-18khz nor would he understand it if you told him.

If they were that good, I don't think there would near the "hatred" of Bose.

They create a product that will impress the majority of consumers then do a great job of marketing the product. It is no different than countless other subpar products that the masses believe are top notch due to their marketing campaign.

And we can't fault them for that, but does that mean it's a good thing? Does that mean that people should buy them?

IMO, no, if somebody is happy with Bose sound, they can get it for much, much less, and should. If somebody is in the market for a Bose system, and cares about quality, they can get much, much better for the same money, and should.

[PGPfan]

Blade,

I guess I didn't phrase my post correctly, I didn't mean your comment was toward Bose. I just disagreed with it in general. Not attacking you or anything.

I just believe that anyone should start out at least trying to find the best speaker for the money they can from the start. If they wish to alter the sound afterwards, then of course they should. BUT, start out with something that can at least play all octaves first. They aren't THAT hard to find, nor are they THAT expensive. After all, no matter how much you polish a turd, it's still a turd. Same thing with setting 'tone' controls or EQ settings.

The bottom line is that nobody's ear is calibrated - therefore you should get what sounds best to you. However, there are brands that are known to be lacking from the get go, Bose being one of them. If somebody really wants Sears, or JC Penney, or Radio Shack quality sound that's fine, but a little research will go a LONG way.

I can play a Krell amp through Rat Shack speakers and my $12,000 amp (like I could afford one anyhow) sound like...well, Radio Shack hi-fi. Play a $250 amp through good speakers...Now you have something listenable.

FWIW, most of this post is me rambling - not directed at anyone in particular.

-PGPfan

[samgreco]

Originally Posted by blade

I agree up to a point, but just because you can affoard a $15-20k set of speakers doesn't necessarily mean that is what you need.

I'm not saying you should have garbage for speakers. I'm talking about good vs excellent. Once you reach that certain point in quality paying thousands of extra dollars to get slightly more accurate sound when your room isn't perfect anyway seems a little senseless.

The assumption that the "best" costs thousands is part of the problem. There are a plethora of good, accurate speaker systems that are in the hundreds of dollars category, less than most Bose systems, that are accurate. So in that I agree. There is absolutely no need to spend many thousands

As an audio person, the phrases that makes my skin crawl the most, are "Bose is the best, isn't it?" or "Well, it's not Bose".

So I feel it is my responsibilty, as an audio professional, to the buying public to educate them

And don't get me started on Monster Cables.....

[blade]

Originally Posted by stanger89

Bose is not that point. In fact, you can get much, much better quality for the same price as Bose.

I totally agree. I was never trying to say Bose was.

They understand that most people have never heard good audio, nor do most people know what it sounds like, nor do many people care. They understand that many people would rather buy a name than a quality product.

Hence they can get away with selling a product that can't compete with anything else in it's pricerange, and that they don't need to publish specs.

That is what I was trying to say, you just explained it much better. They design and market their products to meet the expectations of the majority of consumers. I haven't followed audio in years. The last time I heard anything about Bose they were pushing the big sound from small packages idea. They knew designing a very small enclosure that could delivery a decent amount of sound would mean more to the masses than a larger enclosure delivering a fuller more accurate frequency range.

They know exactly what it takes to impress the average consumer and run with it.

I don't think anybody faults Bose for their business decisions. What many of us try to do is educate otherwise uninformed purchasers that for the money they spend on a Bose system, they can get a system that will significantly outperform it in every way.

I completely agree with that. I used to do the same thing back when I was into audio. My comments were never directed at anyone or anything in this thread. I was talking in general about the true audiophile nuts that expect everyone else to share their obsession.

For example my dad used to work with a guy who turned his basement into a sound proof listening room. Now I like a nice sounding system, but that is a little overboard. If you have the money and enjoy it great, but then to think others should share your level of enthusiasim..... According to him anything less was so horrible sounding it wasn't worth listening to.

If they were that good, I don't think there would near the "hatred" of Bose.

I have no idea what their range is, I was just making up a random example.

And we can't fault them for that, but does that mean it's a good thing? Does that mean that people should buy them?

IMO, no, if somebody is happy with Bose sound, they can get it for much, much less, and should. If somebody is in the market for a Bose system, and cares about quality, they can get much, much better for the same money, and should.

I agree, and I never said they should purchase a set of Bose. Just like any other product consumers should shop wisely and get the most bang for their buck. Truth is the majority won't do any research and will purchase based on brand recognition.

[blade]

Originally Posted by samgreco

The assumption that the "best" costs thousands is part of the problem.

Well the "best" do.

There are a plethora of good, accurate speaker systems that are in the hundreds of dollars category, less than most Bose systems, that are accurate. So in that I agree. There is absolutely no need to spend many thousands

I totally agree. Good speakers can be had fairly reasonable. I just hate to see "audiophiles" trash good reasonably priced speakers because they don't live up to the "best" ones.

As I said before I wasn't talking about anyone or anything in this thread. I haven't followed audio in years, but I remember reading reviews of speakers in sound proof listening rooms with classical music and the reviewer bashings the speakers because of seemingly insignificant things that most people would never be able to notice and were only detectable with a meter.

I agree with getting the best speakers for the money, but sometimes they can take things to the extreme.

[blade]

Originally Posted by PGPfan

I just believe that anyone should start out at least trying to find the best speaker for the money they can from the start. If they wish to alter the sound afterwards, then of course they should. BUT, start out with something that can at least play all octaves first. They aren't THAT hard to find, nor are they THAT expensive. After all, no matter how much you polish a turd, it's still a turd. Same thing with setting 'tone' controls or EQ settings.

The bottom line is that nobody's ear is calibrated - therefore you should get what sounds best to you. However, there are brands that are known to be lacking from the get go, Bose being one of them. If somebody really wants Sears, or JC Penney, or Radio Shack quality sound that's fine, but a little research will go a LONG way.

I totally agree with starting out with the best possible and I agree with trying to educate people.

I think we both agree that sound is subjective and most people are going to go by ear (no pun intended) and brand recognition when making a purchase. My point is between consumers owning cheap amps, hearing loss, the acoustics of their room, just not caring, etc... accuracy for most people is not going to matter all that much in the end. It should, but it simply doesn't.

I can play a Krell amp through Rat Shack speakers and my $12,000 amp (like I could afford one anyhow) sound like...well, Radio Shack hi-fi. Play a $250 amp through good speakers...Now you have something listenable.

I agree speakers make a bigger difference, but a good amp can have a huge impact as well. At least they used to. I haven't been into audio in years so I don't know the current state of audio amps.

My dad had an old amp he purchased in the 70's and it had far superior sound quality than most of the amps I compared it to in early to mid 90's that were supposed to be "good" amps. His wasn't anywhere near as powerful, but had a much warmer richer sound. Everything sounded more alive and less processed. I'm sure there were truely good amps during that time, but most of what passed for good was junk.

Also albums had hisses and pops, but also had a much warmer richer sound than CDs. This was back in the day and I don't even have a record player anymore so I haven't compared the quality of the two in many years. Albums always sounded more "live" than CDs back then.

[GbrNole]

i also have to agree that a great amp can make bad speakers sound decent. i used to have an old set of infinity minuettes that i used for a bedroom system - fine for a bedroom but a P.O.S. otherwise.

anyway they were normally connected to a random but serviceable yamaha HT receiver. the damn thing died so i hooked up an old luxman stereo amp of my dad's (circa 1989) and man those pieces of crap came alive, relatively speaking.

i think by nature everyone in this forum likes to tinker and dabble with things and look beyond the marketing to find what we really need.
we look beyond the face of bose and see incredibly overpriced mediocrity.

[phenixdragon]

Originally Posted by blade

I think your figure is extremely high.

Uhh no. Not this area at all. Pretty much everyone has a luxury car here.

Originally Posted by blade

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.

But a WRX STi has what I can call the same build quality, inside and out. Actually, failure rate of the motor of an ///M3 is high.

But my point was that both are good car, just like Bose is good. or like how I judge a Corvette. It's a good car, but not worth the price at all. WAAAAYYYYYYY over priced.

[phenixdragon]

Originally Posted by 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.

Well the feeling inside this past week of not having a luxury type car lead me to purchase an 04 RSX. Actually too someone locally has an imported 02 Honda Integra Type-R (RSX is an Integra, just the name changed in 02 and the Type-R is not sold int he US) and I want it but getting a loan for something like that can be difficult since their isn't a blue book. So the dealer had an Type-S that I saw online and wanted but they sold it so I picked up an 04 base model. All in all the Type-S would have been a waste since I will have the motor pulled and built. So really the whole speaker thing is out of the question now. now I have freaking car apyaments again!And after years of not having them and just paying cash for cars.

Anywho, my buddy bought a newer ///M3 with the SMG-II tranny but he won't let me drive it. Says that the SMG-II is complicated where even if he goes out to dinner he won't even let valet take it cuz they will screw it up.