Re: Hold on a minute!
Yeah, umm....the other Steve, but hey, if someone's already tried it then the question has been answered. I would rather this thread join the other one here.
http://www.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/1/3200.html
Timn8ter said:
Yeah, umm....the other Steve, but hey, if someone's already tried it then the question has been answered. I would rather this thread join the other one here.
http://www.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/1/3200.html
Hi,
Really now?
Where did anyone express any preference other than a more truthful speaker than the Bose?
Oh, and I take elitist as a compliment any time of the day...too bad it came from a person not even knowing the meanng of the word.
Seems you got "carte blanche" on spouting populistic nonsense lately??
I don't even wonder on who gave you a license to crap here?
"Dunno" just about describes it.
Cheers,😀
Really now?
Where did anyone express any preference other than a more truthful speaker than the Bose?
Oh, and I take elitist as a compliment any time of the day...too bad it came from a person not even knowing the meanng of the word.
Seems you got "carte blanche" on spouting populistic nonsense lately??
I don't even wonder on who gave you a license to crap here?
"Dunno" just about describes it.
Cheers,😀
i dont like that definition becuase it implies that by definition, no speaker can inherently be bad, which i believe is the case. i believe in, at the very least, a concrete, yet undeniably abstract definition for all things.
maybe in our definition of a good speaker, we need to define these two things, good and speaker. speaker could be something which replicates sound. i cant believe that a speaker is simply something that makes sound. and i dont want to think that is should alter the sound.
wintermute stated that different people hear differently. well this is the case, however, i will put that in the music preference bin instead. to some people maybe country music has tones that sound like vomit, whereas classical sounds beautiful. now, if a speaker reproduces everything perfectly (where do i get one!), then country will still be vomit, and classical will still be beautiful.
are we getting somewhere?
maybe in our definition of a good speaker, we need to define these two things, good and speaker. speaker could be something which replicates sound. i cant believe that a speaker is simply something that makes sound. and i dont want to think that is should alter the sound.
wintermute stated that different people hear differently. well this is the case, however, i will put that in the music preference bin instead. to some people maybe country music has tones that sound like vomit, whereas classical sounds beautiful. now, if a speaker reproduces everything perfectly (where do i get one!), then country will still be vomit, and classical will still be beautiful.
are we getting somewhere?
Steve Eddy said:
regarding the "bad listener" comment, i have to agree with fdegrove. sorry steve.
think of it this way... (using theoreticals, so you may have to just give in to certain assumptions...) assume bose is a bad speaker (not TOO hard...). someone listens to my maggies and then to a pair of bose jewel cubes. they think the bose are better. they would be wrong 🙂
of course thats kinda stretching it for a logical arguement, but what about my analogy of tapping on a cardboard box. SURELY we can assume that mine will be more accurate than that (geez, i HOPE!). therefore, we can classify the the cardboard box with me tapping in rythym to music as a bad speaker, and my speakers as not bad speakers.
think of it this way... (using theoreticals, so you may have to just give in to certain assumptions...) assume bose is a bad speaker (not TOO hard...). someone listens to my maggies and then to a pair of bose jewel cubes. they think the bose are better. they would be wrong 🙂
of course thats kinda stretching it for a logical arguement, but what about my analogy of tapping on a cardboard box. SURELY we can assume that mine will be more accurate than that (geez, i HOPE!). therefore, we can classify the the cardboard box with me tapping in rythym to music as a bad speaker, and my speakers as not bad speakers.
Re: Re: Hold on a minute!
Yeah, I just realized that a bit ago. My apologies. I typically cue in on what people use as their moniker. 🙂
se
Timn8ter said:
Yeah, I just realized that a bit ago. My apologies. I typically cue in on what people use as their moniker. 🙂
se
wintermute said:
Yes. And the way I see it, their opinion is the only one that counts. Which means that no one individual's opinion has any greater inherent validity than any other individual's opinion.
Interfere with what exactly? Subjective factors are involved throughout the entire process, starting with the making of the instruments themselves.
If a speaker doesn't satisfy one at the subjective level, what good are any objective factors?
The way I see it, the equipment ultimately serves us, not the other way around. And if it does not please us, it's not serving us.
And that's not even scratching the surface.
I say keep it simple. If it pleases you, it's a good speaker. Period.
se
cowanrg said:
But I don't see how any concrete definition can necessarily be had when it comes to individual tastes and preferences.
But some may well prefer alterations to the sound. And even if you leave out the subjective aspect (even though I believe that's the only one that counts at the end of the day), you have to consider the fact that speakers must function in vastly different acoustic environments. Large rooms, small rooms, stud frame walls, brick walls, joisted floors, slab floors, and on and on.
Hehehe.
But why SHOULD a speaker necessarily reproduce everything perfectly? This would imply that there are such things as perfect recordings. But what's a perfect recording?
Some would argue that a perfect recording would perfectly capture some live musical event. Ok. But where is the perfect listening position (where one would make the recording) at this live musical event? Does every practical listening position sound the same as every other listening position? No. Would every individual prefer the same listening position? No.
As I pointed out above, the entire process from making the instruments on is a subjective process. Why should that long chain of subjectivity necessarily come to a dead stop at the reproduction stage?
This isn't to say that such a notion is an invalid one. Only that I don't see it as being inherently more valid than a more subjective approach.
I'm not sure. But you're being civil so the trip has been a pleasant one so far. 🙂
se
cowanrg said:
No need to be sorry. I don't expect everyone agree with me.
Well, anyone who likes Maggies needs to have their head examined, but as long as we're being theoretical here... 😀
Anyway, I fail to see how they could be wrong, unless the gauge of a "good" speaker were some purely objective measure, but such a measure would mean that a speaker is good or bad even if no one ever listened to it.
But it's only when we listen to speakers that they have any meaningful value, and as such, I feel that only the individual can give any meaningful judgement of good or bad.
But your tapping on a cardboard box is making music, not reproducing it. Slap a motor on that box (i.e. voicecoil and magnet) and then we'll talk. 🙂
se
cowanrg said:i try to be civil, and you keep bashing my maggies!
Oh, one of those fair weather Maggie fans, eh? Turn in your panels, pal. You ain't got the GUTS to own Maggies! No REAL Maggie fan wouldn't beat such a hasty retreat. 😀
se
Steve Eddy said:
I'm guessing he feels the sound.........
No actually it was audio excellence (the guy retired and didn't sell the business, as he didn't think anyone who bought it, would have the same passion as he did (or something like that, it's a while ago, and I could have got that wrong).
I guess that's a good example of how subjective, good is. Something can sound good, until you hear something better. Bit like scotch. You might think that Johny Walker Red label is good scotch until you taste Black label, Chivas Regal or some other better scotch, after which you might think Johny Walker Red is sh*t 🙂....... of course if you can't afford the better scotch it will only be a matter of time before the Red label won't seem so bad afterall.
Regards,
Tony.
Hmmmmmmm I think I might wander down to the bottle shop and buy a bottle of Lagavulin........
The problem with the "good if it sounds good to so-and-so" argument is that it doesn't qualify the good. How good is good? That the grey area that isn't being defined here and the use of the word "good" doesn't help the situation.
It would be helpful to start thinking of the situation as "X is better than Y" since the ranking is inherently subjective. Enough subjective opinions that correlate will give a pattern that can be used as an objective assessment. They call this polling and it's always stated as "4 out of 5 dentists" or "+/- 3 percentage points 19 times out of 20."
In our case, the general consensus seems to be that white van speakers (WVS) are crappy and that is about 19 times out of 20 (Steve Eddy seems to always be the one).
It would also be fair to say that in general Bose is not rated well, but probably higher than WVS. Now if we get into higher end stuff, then maybe we start to have differences of opinion. It is important to remember that these differences are very slight and most non-audio listeners couldn't even be part of the conversation.
Confused enough. Now add the cost of the speakers into your assessment. The moment value becomes part of it, all bets seem to be off, unless we apply the same rules to the ranking by price/performance ratio. In that sense, your 200 WVS may be rank higher than your 1500 Infinity. That still doesn't make them better, not in the first sense, but it does make them a better bargain.
🙂ensen.
It would be helpful to start thinking of the situation as "X is better than Y" since the ranking is inherently subjective. Enough subjective opinions that correlate will give a pattern that can be used as an objective assessment. They call this polling and it's always stated as "4 out of 5 dentists" or "+/- 3 percentage points 19 times out of 20."
In our case, the general consensus seems to be that white van speakers (WVS) are crappy and that is about 19 times out of 20 (Steve Eddy seems to always be the one).
It would also be fair to say that in general Bose is not rated well, but probably higher than WVS. Now if we get into higher end stuff, then maybe we start to have differences of opinion. It is important to remember that these differences are very slight and most non-audio listeners couldn't even be part of the conversation.
Confused enough. Now add the cost of the speakers into your assessment. The moment value becomes part of it, all bets seem to be off, unless we apply the same rules to the ranking by price/performance ratio. In that sense, your 200 WVS may be rank higher than your 1500 Infinity. That still doesn't make them better, not in the first sense, but it does make them a better bargain.
🙂ensen.
purplepeople said:
Yep I'd have to agree. Was thinking something similar, but didn't quite no how to put it.
Once again couldn't agree more. Unless price isn't an object, you could argue that a particular speaker wasn't good if you couldn't afford it (after all what good is it if you can't listen to it). As you said the real problem here is what is the definition of good, it's a very generic subjective word.
Regards,
Tony.
Having not heard the Bose 901's for very long, I can't comment on their quality. But I will say this-they are trying to address a problem in sound reproduction-directionality that does not vary with frequency-in their design. Clearly, Bose thinks this outweighs flat frequency response, etc.
Bipole speakers get high rankings from many people. The Bose idea is to take the Bipole concept to new levels.
Whether it works or not, compared to other speakers in it's price range, is another question. Bose is clearly trying to address a problem that few speaker manufacturers had dealt with.
The White Van speakers, as the testimonials from people who have taken them apart show, are not trying to address any audio problems whatsoever except how to make something that resembles better speakers as cheaply as possible. 1/2" chipboard for speakers 36" high? A little flexing going on there during bass notes, wouldn't you say?
While quality of speaker is subjective, you can get a good idea of the speaker by asking what problems the designer was trying to solve. Bose was trying to solve directionality issues. What issues are these thrown-together White Van speakers trying to solve?
Bipole speakers get high rankings from many people. The Bose idea is to take the Bipole concept to new levels.
Whether it works or not, compared to other speakers in it's price range, is another question. Bose is clearly trying to address a problem that few speaker manufacturers had dealt with.
The White Van speakers, as the testimonials from people who have taken them apart show, are not trying to address any audio problems whatsoever except how to make something that resembles better speakers as cheaply as possible. 1/2" chipboard for speakers 36" high? A little flexing going on there during bass notes, wouldn't you say?
While quality of speaker is subjective, you can get a good idea of the speaker by asking what problems the designer was trying to solve. Bose was trying to solve directionality issues. What issues are these thrown-together White Van speakers trying to solve?
As soon as you decide that a complex three-dimensional soundfield should be broken into two channels, made from sampling at a very few discrete points in space, you've made such a huge approximation that, in the opinions of many, all's fair in trying to create a 'willing suspension of disbelief' in the listener. The 901s didn't do it for me (I'm more of a Quad guy), but they sure did it for many others.
Re: Re: Hold on a minute!
While what you say makes some sense, there is at least one
quirk to it. Living in a flat, I have to involuntarily experience
my neighbours speakers etc. Maybe they like their speakers,
but despite the sound being filtered through the walls I can
hear how awful it sounds and it is a real pain to experience,
even if ignoring that I also cannot stand their taste in music.
Are they still good speakers if they cause me so much pain?
BTW, can somebody please enlighten me about this white van
thing. Are you saying there are guys driving around and selling
speakers from their van? If so, is one particular type of speaker
or are you talking about a general phenomenon.
Steve Eddy said:
While what you say makes some sense, there is at least one
quirk to it. Living in a flat, I have to involuntarily experience
my neighbours speakers etc. Maybe they like their speakers,
but despite the sound being filtered through the walls I can
hear how awful it sounds and it is a real pain to experience,
even if ignoring that I also cannot stand their taste in music.
Are they still good speakers if they cause me so much pain?
BTW, can somebody please enlighten me about this white van
thing. Are you saying there are guys driving around and selling
speakers from their van? If so, is one particular type of speaker
or are you talking about a general phenomenon.
wintermute said:
Good guess. His favorite "listening position" is sitting atop the speakers. 🙂
No actually it was audio excellence (the guy retired and didn't sell the business, as he didn't think anyone who bought it, would have the same passion as he did (or something like that, it's a while ago, and I could have got that wrong).
Hehehe. Quite so.
It can get quite schizophrenic at times. I've known a few people who have gone from what they had to something new which they felt was "better" but some time later went back to what they had before, said they were surprised at how good they did sound and in some cases ended up preferring what they had originally.
se
purplepeople said:
Well, if what sounds good and what sounds bad is purely an individual assessment, I don't see that it needs any qualification.
That's just a popularity contest. What good is that except for those who just want to follow the crowd? Just because more people prefer X, does that necessarily mean YOU will prefer X? Not that I can see.
I try to stay away from the opinion poll stuff as it tends to create prejudices and a lot of people will simply dismiss things out of hand without ever trying them for themselves.
Hey, wait a minute! I haven't even listened to any of the white van speakers so I've no personal opinion of them one way or the other.
I've only said that the only meaningful assessment of good or bad is the assessment of the individual and that if someone buys a pair of white van speakers and likes them, then they are, to that individual, a "good speaker."
se
Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute!
Clearly if they don't give you pleasure, then to you, they are not good speakers.
My whole point has been that the only meaningful assessment of what is a "good speaker" is that of the individual. That a speaker may be good or bad depending on the individual doing the listening. And finally that no one individual's assessment has any inherent superiority over the assessment of another individual.
se
Christer said:
Clearly if they don't give you pleasure, then to you, they are not good speakers.
My whole point has been that the only meaningful assessment of what is a "good speaker" is that of the individual. That a speaker may be good or bad depending on the individual doing the listening. And finally that no one individual's assessment has any inherent superiority over the assessment of another individual.
se
- Status
- Not open for further replies.