I've been looking at OBs and also a relative has a set of Bose 901s that I've not heard , but it got me thinking, wouldn't the direct/reflecting nature of Bose 901 been far simply achieved with an OB? Or is there something in the nature of the speaker design (delay/phasing) that meant a straight dipole speaker would not have been able to achieve the same effect?
This may not be a direct answer to your question.. However if there were a 'default' method of providing a wide and varied range of room reflections to which to make comparisons, it would more likely be an omnidirectional speaker than an open baffle/dipole. In any case an open baffle has considerable losses and to use this configuration presumably you'd be wanting to take advantage of the directivity it brings as a result. The 901 could probably be considered some sort of subset of omnidirectional.
Not even remotely close, sound waves emanating from OB dipole and 901 direct/reflective are very different.
Everyone should hear the Bose 901 speakers. Once.
And you living room is not a concert hall, so there's a slight error in reasoning.
And you living room is not a concert hall, so there's a slight error in reasoning.
Last edited:
No because Amar had an insight that a person in an audience was hit by 10% direct sound and 90 reflected sitting in a concert hall - hence one speaker facing the listener and 8 doing reflection...
//
//
Back in the 60's and 70's the "spatial effect" was emerging with numerous manufacturers bringing out those types of products.
Magnavox's console stereos had side-firing speakers.
Zenith came out with their omnidirectional "Circle of Sound" speakers.
Harman Kardon and Ohm made omni speakers too.
And so, the trend was started.
Magnavox's console stereos had side-firing speakers.
Zenith came out with their omnidirectional "Circle of Sound" speakers.
Harman Kardon and Ohm made omni speakers too.
And so, the trend was started.
I built 901 knock offs in high school. I had them set up in the basement against a concrete wall.
Wall of sound is the description I would give to the spatial effect. Contrived maybe, but rock music sounded awesome on them.
Placement is crucial, or else the speakers will never do what they're intended to do. Bose 301s are similar, with a rear firing midrange/tweeter. 301s can sound terrible or pretty decent. It all depends on the placement.
Wall of sound is the description I would give to the spatial effect. Contrived maybe, but rock music sounded awesome on them.
Placement is crucial, or else the speakers will never do what they're intended to do. Bose 301s are similar, with a rear firing midrange/tweeter. 301s can sound terrible or pretty decent. It all depends on the placement.
I had to listen more than once.
The most interetsing was when delivering a new Lin to a client i turned his 901s around so that 8 faced forward, 1 backwards, things got a lot better.
901 is an attempt (a poor one) of an ,maniple, an OB is mostly considred a dipole (many are dipole at low frequencies and monopole at higher frequencies). Quite different radiation characteristics and room loading.
dave
Yeah, the Bose 2201 corner speaker was a bit more rational design, and the later 901 was a cheaper. passive version of that,
but turned around to face the wall. Go figure.
but turned around to face the wall. Go figure.
So I guess this was a misunderstanding on my part about how the 901 works. The energy pattern is hugely biased to the rear, and one side is wired out of phase to the other so it acts like an (imperfect) omni. In which case a dipole can't reproduce its effects because it will always be closer to equal front and rear dispersion, with the back radiated energy out of phase. Is that a fair summation?
Nobody answered that directly the first time around and I'm not sure they're about to start. (Edit: Talking about whether you'd hear that phase explicitly in the presentation, and so whether that can be reasonably considered a factor when choosing.)
Does dipole make any sense to you (regarding room integration), does it seem arbitrary to you? Are you just curious at this stage because then I'd say you're overthinking it. Besides, real dipole is not simple to do.
Why not just try it, tweak it, see what you like about it...
Last edited:
All the drivers in a 901 are in phase. In a dipole the front & rear radiation are out of phase.
dave
dave
Interesting in the Bose 800 series, they just got rid of the one lone driver, flipped it around so the driver array faces forward and called it a PA speaker. Would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when that marketing decision was made in some conference room... "Doh! We can make a PA speaker out of this and get into the sound reinforcement market!"
That's very important.
In dipole, you get side cancelation. Which is beneficial, as less energy is projected towards the side walls, thus minimizing early reflection.
Back energy of the dipole is no problem, as it moves back, its significantly delayed and difracted, giving spaciousnes to sound. Not a problem.
Early reflection are a problem, smearing the first arriving signal.
Bose 901 has almost nothing in common with good dipole.
Edit: my post was meant to follow dave
In dipole, you get side cancelation. Which is beneficial, as less energy is projected towards the side walls, thus minimizing early reflection.
Back energy of the dipole is no problem, as it moves back, its significantly delayed and difracted, giving spaciousnes to sound. Not a problem.
Early reflection are a problem, smearing the first arriving signal.
Bose 901 has almost nothing in common with good dipole.
Edit: my post was meant to follow dave
These questions, comment, concerning dipole, reflections, etc., and attempting to corrrect and/or manipulate the resulting sound to somehow achieve some sort of 'perfection' or 'accuracy' due to design is at best futile, and an over-think to nut a person's brains.
When in the studio or concert hall, recordings are in different venues, different arenas.
That results in sound reverberation, the original spatial effects being different as well - fact.
Trying to re-create the perfect effect is meaningless, because you were not there, you didn't have your tape measure to measure the distance of the wall behind the drummer or violinist, or the side walls of the studio.
Or for that matter, the studio's ceiling height.
Yeah, a spatial effect is pleasing, but keep in mind a sense of reasoning, without obsessing over things that you cannot control.
When in the studio or concert hall, recordings are in different venues, different arenas.
That results in sound reverberation, the original spatial effects being different as well - fact.
Trying to re-create the perfect effect is meaningless, because you were not there, you didn't have your tape measure to measure the distance of the wall behind the drummer or violinist, or the side walls of the studio.
Or for that matter, the studio's ceiling height.
Yeah, a spatial effect is pleasing, but keep in mind a sense of reasoning, without obsessing over things that you cannot control.
Well at the same time it's kinda fun! Try something radically different, like an upwards firing driver on a MLTL. They say that can give a good show. Or try an SDA arrangement; OB (with only the main drivers open), or on the baffle of a box speaker.
They also developed the plastic cabinet. Which worked a lot better than expected. It didn't take over the world, but I knew a guy, a bassist, who toured the world with a pair of those until he proved that eight Fours can't handle raw bass forever.
Zenith and Electrohome made many versions of that and we see the idea poppig up again from time-to-time.
To quite GM:
dave