Bose

Live is live, there is no better imaging than the real thing. The point of home audio is to ultimately have such a realistic sound you could picture the person singing the song in front of you. If it was a slow solo song, you should be able to picture the person sitting in front of you singing it with your eyes closed. If you use an equalizer you will not get a pure image. Equalizers should never be used in the playback of any audio.

Yes but live audio uses EQ too! All instruments , mics , etc are EQed . They are used to compensate for the flaws inherit in the playback process. I know a little about audio recording and good bit about live audio. Its all uses EQ and lots of it. It has to be used because synthetic materials give it an impure tone. Which goes back to why paper can be better as they give it a more natural sound. EQ also compensates for the listening environment. Ive done several live concerts..youre not gonna win on this one. Listen to experience. Without EQ all reproductions sound like crap. While yes the direct sound may be the best sound , it will never be reproduced completely accurately, however with EQ it can be reproduced to the extent that the human ears can manage. I am a musician. I know more about audio than most people will ever know. there is no such thing as a recording with no EQ whatsoever , and therefore i believe it is necessary in accurate reproduction.

Equalizers have to be used especially for older bands that are performing again after say 10-20 years of having not performed. Their voices aren't exactly the same. Equalizers in the sense you're talking about is fine but in the home audio field it isn't. You can look in all the rich homes out in the fancy part of town or in the audio setups at a local speaker store - none of them have or even sell equalizers. It is seen by most as a low quality means to make other low quality components sound better. It may sound better but because those components lack what it takes to make the good sound they'll never be like the real thing.

Perhaps I shouldn't have said vinyl is "bad". Sorry, slipped on that one. I only meant to say they are not the ultimate. I think records have an acceptable sound, and not too bad if you recognize their faults and choose to accept them for what they are. To me, it's a miracle that the mechanical pick-up system even functions. One has to be impressed by how close they can get to the real thing. Have fun and enjoy your records. I like to once in a while. I have Metallica's "Ride The Lightning" still in the plastic; only been played once.

No one's saying you can't listen to music in your home. I'm just defending the car environment by showing that in many ways it's superior, imo. I like flat bass that extends into the subterranean depths of 10-15Hz, the kind of frequency that can shake a record player's tone arm right off its grooves. I've found the car to be the best place to reproduce these sounds at generous levels. If you understand my reasoning for it, you might agree that extended bass response adds to sound quality in a big way. Booming bass in the 40-80Hz range is one thing (what you hear from typical loud cars), but to get impact and great transients from drums, organs, cannons, etc. you have to get those fundamentals down below 30Hz, and they are really hard to produce in the home. There are home subs out there that can do it, but they cost literally thousands of dollars. I've found that there is no substitute for true impact, which is basically pressurization of the space you are in. It is why well-produced concert halls use walls of 18" woofers and tens of thousands of Watts to create these massive pressure waves.

I don't think VHS was better than Beta. I think they were basically the same thing in different size cases. And if I remember (I was young) the Beta format was supposed to be the higher quality of the two. Sony was the creator, and it lost because no one else supported it, and the tapes cost more and had shorter run time. Same thing happened 10 years later when Sony introduced the MiniDisc. I do remember this clearly failing in the market, as I worked in music sales at the time. I also remember not long ago when Sony introduced their own flash memory format called "Memory Stick". Who does Sony think they are?

About this stance on equalizers, you need to understand that it's the way they're used that's the problem, not the equipment or the principle. There's so much EQing going on inside audio equipment that we aren't even aware of. If done correctly, it can make up for faults in the system. Loudness is a good example. Because the human ear isn't linear in the way it hears, you need loudness EQ at lower levels for the music to sound "correct". This is not a bad thing. Otherwise, we wouldn't enjoy listening at soft levels. BTW, true loudness EQ is smarter than the average user. It's programed to lessen the effect the higher the volume level is turned. So, when output is low, the loudness is 100%, but as the volume is increased, the EQ effect is gradually decreased until the signal is flat (no EQ, so no damage to speakers). If your loudness button doesn't function this way, it's either too old, broken, or it wasn't well-designed to begin with.

I use a 5-band parametric EQ in my car. The image is smack in the middle, sitting right on the dash, and it's all thanks to the EQ. If I push the disable button, the image is pushed down to the floor and sounds muddy. I could sell EQs all day just by pushing this button with people sitting in the car. I've gotten many comments on it so far. But tweaking it took a long time, and I couldn't even do it all by ear. I had to use a dB meter and wave generator disk (and my ears) to get it right, followed by a music listening session the next day to note the improvements. Sometimes the technically correct adjustments didn't sound good to me, so I set them back. But most of the time, trusting the dB levels on the meter made the sound improve, and not surprisingly the amount of adjustment wasn't more than a couple dB in each band. Usually the bad things happen when you start cranking EQ 5dB hear or there to "customize the sound to your taste". That's what a lot of people do, but it's not the right way to use EQ, imo.

The reason I think Cerwin Vegas aren't your favorite is likely the fact that they're so sensitive. They put out near 100dB with one Watt of power. That's impressive from an efficiency standpoint, but many listeners prefer the sound of a sealed box, which lowers the efficiency of the system. You need extra power to compensate, but it often sounds better in the end. Paper is a good choice for very efficient subwoofers because it is so light, but other materials can be used. Infinity's Reference series are a good example of this, not using paper to get loud. Even so, some drivers use treated paper, paper blends, or just thicker pulp that makes the cone heavier and not so efficient at all. These are the types of paper cones that come to mind when I think of quality sound.

Looking at what rich people have, or what a store wants you to buy isn't my idea of good strategy when buying audio stuff. Just because someone is rich doesn't mean they hear or appreciate music any better than a poor person. Their system could sound like total shit. And what a stereo shop wants to sell you is very expensive speakers and amps that are so good they don't need EQ. Interesting that EQs are some of the simplest audio devices, and they don't cost much, either. Maybe that's why you don't see them in those expensive audio retailers.

But look at the pro audio industry. They use equalizers, and it's not for making Bob Dylan sound like he used to. It's to compensate for room acoustics, so they don't have to move speakers around to odd locations, and to flatten out driver response to sound good. Before an event, sound engineers use pink noise and spectrum analyzers to detect frequency flaws in the room, then fix them with EQ. That's how it's done, and it's the reason why live shows sound so good. Why shouldn't this idea be applied in a high-end home system? There's no reason why it shouldn't. Many top-end car audio heads use this method to improve the sound inside the car. It can get you into the ballpark, making it easier to further tweak by ear.

When thinking of an EQ being used properly, think of a corrective lense for your eye. If you are in need of it, that means that your vision isn't close enough to perfect. As soon as you take any kind of sound and move it from one medium to another, or one electromagnetic signal to another, or through a mechanical interface to a digital or vice versa, you inevitably alter it. Like our eyes, we do know how to effectively correct these changes. Contrary to your belief than an EQ disturbs the trueness of the sound, it is in fact, the only way we have to preserve it by compensating for the limits of the reproduction. In fairness, you are correct in that you can brutally worsen the sound with an EQ also.

All I know is, my dad has many friends who're also into audio. They're all of varying degree's. Some have a collection of audio equipment laying around, others by esoteric stuff only. Of all of them, none of them have an equalizer. I am certain one of them would, but none of them do. Since you place the stereo in one room, you only need to set it once via positioning and you don't need to do it again. It's not like you have to tilt the speakers every time you get in the room for the perfect sound.

And as I said, I dislike CV because of all their bass. They make everything boomy, even people's voices on TV and whatnot. They're totally inappropriate as imaging speakers and they couldn't double too well as home theater speakers either.

Some of the best speakers I've heard are my dad's. He has a pair of DCM Time Frame 1000's I believe. They have such a great sound to them, but then again they're in a different league than my much smaller Polk R50s. I almost bought a pair of Magnepan speakers as my first pair of speakers but my dad remembered they're the speakers that take no bass at all - if they do they make a horrible clipping sound. A subwoofer would be an absolute necessity with those. At current, my speakers are multi-purpose: Audio listening, Movies and Video Games (Yes, I got sick of no bass with the tiny built-in speakers on my flat panel).

Shintsu wrote:

Equalizers have to be used especially for older bands that are performing again after say 10-20 years of having not performed.

Quote :

Since you place the stereo in one room, you only need to set it once via positioning and you don't need to do it again.

This applies to an EQ also. It's called "set it and forget it". If you could get past the thought that your equipment is so good that it can't be aided by EQ, you could see that EQ is a tool, not a band aid.

It would appear that some people don't want to admit their equipment can benefit from EQ, so they put up with less than ideal sound. In most cases, if you're moving your speakers around to affect the response, it means you could be using EQ instead to do the same thing. EQ doesn't solve path length differences, but there are phase shifting processors for that, should you not want your listening spot to be in the exact center.

man....I bought a pair of those Bose "in ear" head phones......they sucked ass....

I think I'll buy another pair of Vimoda Vibes.....they were pretty decent for the price....

Shintsu wrote:

THX doesn't just stamp their name on anything. Home audio equipment that's been THX certified is very rare. I did once see a JVC receiver at a pawn shop that was THX certified and it was a beast. Weighed a ton and I think they were asking $200. Wasn't a bad price but at the time I had no speakers or anything, I was looking to buy something to start me off.

These speakers are THX certfied, they pass the THX test correctly. Then again, for computer speakers these are almost the most expensive ones (I paid around $300 on sale for these). Home audio THX certification is the same but since components are all manufactured by different companies, getting it exactly set up requires lots of careful positioning and purchasing lots of expensive equipment that has passed THX certifications.

Still, paper is not good quality sound. Most speakers that aren't cheap low quality are made of some kind of fiber material. Nice speakers like B&Ws use high quality materials and none of that cheap paper crap. Here's a link to their gallery on their top end speaker (Note specifically the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th pictures) which if I may say so myself is beautiful. Here's another link to their cheaper line - again they all use kevlar. DCM also uses kevlar (Link).

All I'm saying, paper is the lowest quality of speaker cone material. It's cheap and easy to make. Yes, paper cones now are much better than they once were but the newer materials are higher quality. Have you actually pushed on a paper cone vs a fiber or kevlar cone? The kevlars have a much more quality feel to them. You could go a totally different route like Martin Logan with their electrostatic speakers. Really there is so much out there, it's all a matter of what company you look at. I have no brand preference when it comes to speakers but I despise Cerwin Vegas - they don't image well at all, they're just boomy. I just can't see how people like speakers that don't image at all.

First of all, I'm an audiophile, and my actual car speakers sound like garbage to me, except the higher quality sub. Bose is not very good in the extreme high fidelity regard for home audio. I'll get back to bose later.

as for this guy I quoted, he's talking out of his ass, for no reason.


By c0reyl at 2012-01-07

See these subs? THEY"RE MADE OUT OF PAPER. they may be treated with kevlar, but they are mainly PULP CONE WOOFERS. they are only 250 watts RMS each. with that little 400 watt alpine amp, there's so much damn bass in my car that it rattles like an 89 beat up honda hatchback. the amp gain is set to halfway, crossover at about 55Hz.

another example:


By c0reyl at 2012-01-13

See this 105 pound subwoofer next to my advent towers? it's made out of PAPER.

To give you a better idea of how big this sub is, here's a pic of it next to my medium sized rotweiller mix dog.


By c0reyl at 2012-01-13

It's freaking huge.


By c0reyl at 2012-01-13

Now, I may not be rich, and super wealthy and have the ability to afford $20,000 legacy speakers, or JMlab Utopia's... but that Velodyne ULD 18 sub I got for $200, which was mad in 1989, can push out 104db@ 20Hz with 0.5% THD, or even up to 120db @ 20Hz with well under 3% distortion. and fills rooms larger than 2,000 sq ft with ease.it would probably rattle my buick apart if I got it to operate in the car. Guess what? that servo controller right there basically monitors woofer movement 3,000 times every second and actually corrects the woofer position, greatly reducing distortion as well as improoves woofer stiffness. guess what the diaphragm is made out of? PULP PAPER, treated with tar. that's right, they had poly cones back then, as well as mylar. they had stronger materials they couldv'e used in a $4,000 subwoofer. This subwoofer was the first home audio subwoofer to EVER get a class A steriophile review, look it up. and it uses PAPER CONES. and it achieves all that amazing clean bass with only 400 watts, and a QUARTER INCH OF EXCURSION. Velodyne still uses the same EXACT servo circuits today, only smaller, and slightly more sophisticted, but it's basically the same exact thing.

You really wanna tell me that paper is a bad woofer material? Focal audio makes some of the most expensive and best speakers known to man. my friend has a set of JM Lab micro utopia's in his basement. They have a $2,000 set of berylium diaphragm tweeters installed in them, nowhere near the full price of these monster bookshelves. guess what the drivers are made out of? FOCAL PAPER CONE DRIVERS. you've probably never heard real amazing sound. to my ears, bose is garbage. their 301 speakers are alright, but most of their speakers are complete garbage. they stick small drivers that bottom out before 80hz in their home theater systems, then use a dual 6 inch driver bandpass garbage subwoofer which does NOTHING to actually properly reproduce sounds I'd rather have just those m audio BX5a's sitting in my room than a multi thousand dollar bose sound system, and they cost me $180, and sound better for sound reproduction than anything bose has ever made, period. bose will stick small woofers and sometimes even lack a tweeter in a little plastic box that acoustically reeks of plastic resonation and throw a sales pitch at you that they are too good for releasing their specs so you must buy it, and just because they sound better than the average boombox, people love them and worship them.

honestly, I like my BX5a's so damn much because they were designed to be studio monitors. they were designed specifically to reproduce exactly what went into the mic. they were designed for exact noise reproduction. they aren't harsh, boomy, bright, or ANYTHING. the best speakers in my opinion have NO SOUND CHARICTARISTIC. I have definitely heard better than my bx5a's, but not for close to a grand for a pair or more, unless it was a studio monitor. basically studio monitors are some of the best price to performance ratio speakers money can buy, for a reason.

yeah, that dude had no idea what he was talking about. paper is an AMAZING woofer diaphragm material when treated with other materials because of how light the material is, how stiff it can be made, low cost, and the fact it doesn't distort the sound at all. my rant is done, I invite ANYONE To try to tear this reply a new one, and make me look like a fool, because I'd love to learn anything I don't know about sound <3

EDIT:

one thing I'd liek to add, is that the Velodyne you see there, pumps out all that bass, with a QUARTER INCH OF EXCURSION. didn't see that coming, did you?

also, THX is nothing to squeel at. Logitech Z5500's are THX certified, are they good speakers? HELL NO. why? not because of the driver materials. actually Tang Band makes decent drivers. the enclosure materials are garbage plastic materials, they didn't even include tweeters ( this says A LOT), and the amplification is over 10% THD, making it distorted as all hell, while adding plastic housing distortion. you sir are completely talking out of your ass, and don't really know what you're talking about. THX will stamp their logo on to anythign willing to pay them enough money now.

damnit, one more thing: Iv'e seen some of the best electrostatic speakers ever made, by MCinTosh, with PAPER WOOFERS ON THE BOTTOM DAMNIT. electrostatic speakers don't have the midbass required for great sound reproduction, which is why most of them have woofers on the bottom. gahh, why do I even have to explain that?

no mean to flame, but I really had to defend the use of paper as a woofer diaphragm material; sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings :3

Agreed. Most of the better speakers made are using some type of paper cone. That being said some of the worst speakers made are also using paper. There are many more factors than just the cone material that determine the quality of a driver.

sqrivi wrote:

Agreed. Most of the better speakers made are using some type of paper cone. That being said some of the worst speakers made are also using paper. There are many more factors than just the cone material that determine the quality of a driver.

Thanks, sqrivi honestly a speaker is as good as its weakest link, like anything else. I really focus more on the quality of the voice coil, surround material, spider material than the cone personally. I like my drivers to move efficiently, but i love the strong rubber surrounds, a lot more than foam or cloth. Honestly I'm in love with the Kevlar m audio drivers. They have so much bass for a 5 inch driver its insane but sound so clear with them silk domes. If i ever make a custom dash like yours, ill rip them out of my studio monitors :p they wouldn't fit in my doors :3

By the way, I wanna buy them flushed bumpers some day before I repaint my car. If i ever get the monies.

I'm a fan of paper cones, as I posted earlier in this thread, but I see their value more for mid-range duties, where tambre reproduction is more important to the character of the sound. For a subwoofer, I'm of the opinion that the motor's brute force, accuracy of the stroke, and minimal cone flex are really all that is needed to reproduce good low bass. The cone material doesn't lend anything to the signature of the sound - it's all about creating air pressure. For subwoofer cones, paper can do the job more efficiently, but some other materials can remain more rigid, albeit needing more power to be as loud. However these other materials tend to be more durable than paper, so sometimes it makes sense to consider PP, Kevlar, CF, even aluminum. Sonically, I believe each of these cone materials would produce the same result when mated with identical coil, magnet, basket and surround parts, adjusting power to compensate for efficiency, of course.

AA is right, because sound under 80hz is non directional, meaning its impossible to even exhibit any sound characteristic, other than distortion. Bass under 80hz can't sound bright, or boomy, muddy without the amplification or some other part of the speaker making the sound distorted like a voice coil rubbing.

however, driver efficiency does help a great deal in providing clean, tight, acurate bass. the less excursion required to make the same note is ALWAYS a good thing. people think that just because a sub moves a lot that it's good. this is not always the case. think of it this way, my alpine 12 inch subs have to move over an inch of excursion to provide real, deep low, hard hitting tymphany drums in the song Path - Apoctalyptica, my Velodyne ULD 18 can do the same in a quater inch of excursion.

Why is this a good thing? because our audio processing in our brains is actually much faster than our visual. our brains actually have to process the two seperately, then stitch them together, making us think that the two happen at the same time. people think that just because we can see fluid motion in only 30 frames a second that our ears are the same. this is not the case. In the time the woofer has to move, providing SPL with excursion, the time delay can be affected by the song in real time, meaning it's possible for the subs to actually be off sync slightly with the music, making it not sound nearly as good, whether you realize it or not, making driver efficiency when dealing with true, accurate sound, actually a big deal. most people never realize this.

Then again, what do I know? I'm some 20 year old kid with no college, who couldn't even be hired by the BOSE store when he applied, when he desperately needed a job. Lawl.