Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Why is the general public so enamored with BOSE?

This is topic Why is the general public so enamored with BOSE? in forum The Afterlife at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000611

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-17-2007, 08:35 PM:

Seriously, I hear and read people bragging about their BOSE sound systems quite often. For some applications they sound OK, like tiny computer speakers, but even then I don't find the sound extremely gratifying. They always sound extremely "boomy" and kind of "muddy" as well.

Posted by Steven J Hart (Member # 2340) on 12-17-2007, 09:10 PM:

Remember, the general public is stupid..... they don't want black bars on their TV, but they do want boomy sound from their tiny little speakers.
Steve

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-17-2007, 09:21 PM:

I guess the Bose tabletop systems sound sorta surprisingly good considering the amount of bass that comes out of them, but compared to a good full-sized system? No freakin' way. But you're right, the fans swear by 'em.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-17-2007, 09:41 PM:

The wave canon only really works at one frequency....

Mark

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 12-17-2007, 09:51 PM:

Bose marketing people are experts at hyping over-priced C-R-A-P. I mean $500 for a "clock radio"? Oh PUHLEEZE!

(Exception to CRAP = Noise Cancelling headphones...butt STILL WAY overpriced.)

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-17-2007, 10:09 PM:

Joe, most people think "boomy" sound is "awesome bass". I agree with Phil, the ONLY thing good that Bose has ever made are the noise-cancelling headphones, and even those are a bit boomy, but for trips on an airplane, they are the best out there.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-17-2007, 10:53 PM:

Remember the 901 III speakers? Man those were overpriced. Nine 4" drivers with a tube in the middle? The only time they sounded good was in a corner to accentuate the bass, and even then they were boomy.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-17-2007, 11:03 PM:

My feeling:

The general public just wants to vote for a name they've heard of before. They know "Bose." So they think it's good. Even if it's really crap.

We have the same phenomenon happening with city council members in my town. Idiot citizens keep voting in the same, old fart Neanderthal, trailer house bastards only because they know their name instead of voting for someone actually better qualified for the position.

Please note, that anecdote is all about the factor of name recognition and not about politics.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-17-2007, 11:13 PM:

Bose marketing = genius. Bose engineering ability = voodo. They brilliantly cultivated this idea that they are inovative by doing a truly stupid thing like facing a bunch of little crapola speakers at the wall at angles and claiming that was some magic scientific discovery that made them better than all the other tried and true speaker designs that have been around for ages. This "far out" idea is marketed to people who want to stand out of the pack. It attracts the same people who will actually be swayed to buy a car because the dashboard has lots of cool looking lights.

It is like the way True cigarettes were designed...not by Lorillard, the cigarette manufacturer to make a better cigarette, but by the marketing agency who created the useless "chambered filtered" -- which amounted to a little plastic insert that was divided into three parts, probably inspired by the three segemented eyes of the Martians in WAR OF THE WORLDS. What did this plastic insert do? It did NOTHING. But it was featured in all the ads with the tag line, "The True filter -- so advanced, it would take a scientist to explain it." But it was a brilliant marketing campaign and it sold a gazillion packs of True. Of course, I guess a piece of plastic that did nothing was better than Kent's "Micronite" filter which was made of...(hold onto your jockstraps boiz) ASBESTOS! And market it they did.

Same with Bose....its chambers do nothing except make the sound boomy and highly colored. Aiming it at the all just make the stereo field totally indistinct with sound bouncing all over the place. There was no localization. After half an hour of listening to this hodgpodge, your listen fatigue was painful. And the gullible, asbestos sucking public LOVED it....and evidently still does.

I was a kid when I was duped by Bose into spending all my meager savings on their 901 crapola speaker system (a system so unbalanced that it needed a "processor" to get the spikes and dips out of the waveform). I had been listening to the famed KLH 6 acoustic suspension speakers in the studio where I worked and I thought the Bose at double the price would out shine them. Wasn't I surprised to find that the Bose couldn't deliver bass if a stick of dynamite went off in its chambered inards. They were so aweful that in a fit of anger, I purposely cranked up my 350w RMS per channel amp and set the crappy little 6in speaker voice coils on fire. To this day I can truly say that those ass-wipe Bose 901s remain tied as the most disappointing equipment purchase I have ever made (the Rabco Linear Arm Turntable being the other).

Consumer Reports review of the Bose 901s was so scathing that it got Bose miffed enough to take them to court; Bose LOST. I was deposed for that trial but never had to testify.

The Rabco "unique" straight line tone arm was so designed that it would scratch across 4 or 5 groves EVERY TIME you pressed the stop button. After hours and then days of trying to adjust it, I thought I had solved the problem only to put on one of my precious Direct-to-Disc LPs and have the damn tone arm gouged out 4 groves. I opened my living room window and hurled the piece of rhino dung out the window. Stupid, immature....you bet, but damn it made me feel good. [thumbsup]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-17-2007, 11:46 PM:

I'm actually quite surprised at how KLH sounds... or at least the way they used to (if they even still exist). Granted their cheap speakers will still sound cheap, but their $100+ per speaker floor standing stuff sound great! Much MUCH better than Infinity stuff of the same size/price. Infinity seems to have little to no bass at all.

Posted by Peter David Bruce (Member # 4447) on 12-18-2007, 08:50 AM:

isnt it true that bose used to make all the fancy new designs for their speaker and hifi setups? oh no.... that was bang+ohlufsson (sp?).

but still... they do have a good image about themselves... and unfortunately that doesnt translate fully into the actual sound of the products....

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-18-2007, 10:05 AM:

I used to have a pair of Speakerlab #7 speakers. They had a 12" and a 10" woofer, plus horn midrange and tweeter. You had to build'em yourself. They weren't pretty due to my carpenter skills, but they sure sounded good.

Posted by Robert W. Jones (Member # 4228) on 12-18-2007, 10:25 AM:

Agreed. The Bose speakers I own (bookshelfs, series IV, etc.) sound ok, but not like a really nice system.

Problem is they still make a fortune selling 1950's era "sound wave" technology. I have an old popular electronics somewhere which describes the technology.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-18-2007, 11:11 AM:

Bose...oh where to begin (or end)? No-highs, No-lows, must be Bose...BOSE= Better Off Somewhere Else; or Bring Other Sound Equipment....

But all jestting aside, Amar Bose is no dumb cookie in the engineering department. His engineering designs are valid and he can make big sound out of small space. It just isn't what I or others would consider good sound.

That said...I can't tell you how many people want to believe that those silly cube speakers really can provide full sound somehow without the acoustamass subwoofer somewhere nearby. Like Ghostbusters, they are "ready to believe." It is impossible to convince them otherwise. They want either invisible speakers or at least small cute ones. Bose offers that believability. In the demos, the acoustamass is de-emphasised (because that is big and ugly).

I say, if people like em, more power to them. I don't personally care for Bose but I can appreciate the market they have cultivated.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 12-18-2007, 11:20 AM:

Bose has done two things right in recent history (I can't speak for their noise-cancelling headphones):

1. They produced a product that people wanted (small speakers)

2. They marketed them very well and convinced people that they wanted them.

They were the first manufacturer that I can recall to start selling the satellite / subwoofer combination speakers. People are willing to sacrifice audio quality for aesthetics and/or convenience. Which brings us to the second item...

Their marketing is able to have incredible influence over people's judgement, so it colors their ability to evaluate the quality of one set of speakers against another.

I've never owned any Bose equipment, but I still see their name all the time. I remember Omar Bose's (?) appearance on This Old House way back when as he described their cube speakers and the in-floor subwoofer.

They have a very recognizable name as a result of their marketing efforts. This is something that I believe movie theaters should keep in mind as they are trying to attract new customers and retain their existing ones.

Effective marketing using product differentiation and advertising is a powerful tool, but it's also a little like a black art to do well all the time. The percentage of misfires to direct hits can be high some times, but the important thing is to keep putting things out there to see what resonates.

Bose has reached a point where their brand is so recognizable, they can slap the name on just about anything and it will sell better than without.

Posted by Robert Minichino (Member # 3495) on 12-18-2007, 11:53 AM:

One of the reasons why the Bose satellite systems sound so boomy is there's a pretty big gap in frequency response from where the sub module covers to where the satellites start picking up, so you don't get much real midbass.

The Bose stuff is pretty well executed for what it is, but the packaging forces huge engineering compromises and they market it as if it's the ideal configuration.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-18-2007, 12:50 PM:

I don't think Bose was the first to the sattelite/subwoofer thing but I would give Bose credit for pushing the concept of a subwoofer to augment the main speakers as a sort of necessity if one is looking for full bandwidth, particularly from small speakers. They also are one of the firsts in the concept of designing speakers that are not acoustically flat out of the box but to use electronics to produce flat results (not like a traditional graphic EQ but more like B-6 alignment for subwoofers).

So I would think it is more of a Henry Ford to the car comparison...he didn't invent it but he sure popularized it and brought it to the masses. The difference between Bose and Ford...Ford was about bringing it to the masses cheaper (benefits of moving assembly line) where as Bose tries to get as much dough as possible out of their designs...which isn't necessarily wrong, if they can get it.

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 12-18-2007, 02:55 PM:

UA experimented with the Wave Cannon on their main THX house at Prestonwood in Dallas. Fred Fisher referred to it as "The Sewer Pipe".
I don't recall UA buying any more Bose cannons after that...

Posted by Pete Naples (Member # 761) on 12-18-2007, 04:43 PM:

Fred Fisher! There's a name I haven't heard in years!
We did a few sites over here with him, Spean Bridge Cinemas, which became part of Vue.

My experience with the bass canon was also underwhelming, to say the least. I've one site that bought it against my advice, they still have it but it's resting in a stage store, we hooked up a couple of good old fashioned JBL's in it's place.

However, the Bose 101 is a cracking wee speaker for booth monitor, or surround use in small theatres. The Bose 802 PA cabinets are fantastice in my epxerience, BUT you must use them with their associated bottom end cans and the system controller to get the best out of them. Many is the outdoor gig we did with them where they got muddy and wet. Hose 'em down gently, allow to dry naturally and they just come back for more.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-18-2007, 05:03 PM:

The base section of the 802 (pro version of the 901...looks VERY familiar) is the 302 which is a dual-port tuned sub. It could be used with either the 402 (kind of a column speaker with 4 drivers) or the 802. I never much cared for the 802 other than it is small, relatively light and can get quite loud.

Steve

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 12-18-2007, 05:13 PM:

A girlfriend I had some time ago, had Bose 201s or 301s (I don't remember which) in her bedroom. The first time she spent the night at my house, she made a comment about how much better the speakers in my bedroom sounded. When I told here they were $20 each (on sale) at Radio Shack, she was sick.

The 901s need at least 200 watts per channel, they must be put in the proper place in your room, and they need that special EQ inserted into your system, and they still sound like crap.

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 12-18-2007, 05:23 PM:

Is Altec-Lansing still around?
I recall they had a facility west of Oklahoma City on I-40 but that was 20 years ago...

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 12-18-2007, 05:31 PM:

BOSE, I personally think its more a case of consistency of not being total crap and boy have there been and still are some truely bad speakers!
Bose's use of full range speakers does have one advantage, they tend to beam the higher frequencies, which can in even the most reverberent or poor acoustic enviroments sound good. Infact often better results than quality products.
In the PA market (their 901 variation) at the time was small high power light weight and for some of the reasons above, did stand out from what was around in the PA market in the time.
There old trick is a dip in the frequency response between 1-2k tends to take the harshness out of the cheapness of the aproach.

Altec lansing is a bit too good to be discussing in a thread about bose, but they sort of exist as a badge for chinese produced computer speakers, although they are now selling a " high power" variation of their classic A7 which have been brought back from the dead. Great Plains Audio are building the drivers on the original altec machines.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-18-2007, 07:17 PM:

quote: Bruce Hansen
The 901s need at least 200 watts per channel, they must be put in the proper place in your room, and they need that special EQ inserted into your system, and they still sound like crap.

Yea but the Flame Linear Power amp that most used to drive them helped keep the house warm.

Mark

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-18-2007, 07:54 PM:

As to Altec...if you build the cabinet, Great Plains Audio will build the drivers. They currently offer the 515, 416, 399 (the evolution of the 288 but in a squatter package), 902, 909 and the 604. Audio Associates out of OK offers the MRII594 and MRII564 horns (3-bolt patterns on both. We are a GPA dealer for new and recone and have sold MANY GPA drivers...excellent stuff there.

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 12-19-2007, 02:55 PM:

Back from 1992 until 1998, I had a pair of Bose 201s as my rear surround speakers, back in Dolby Pro-Logic days before Dolby Digital became available to most people through DVD. They worked great as "back of the room surround speakers" since they both got the same signal (mono) and there wasn't much high frequency there.

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 12-19-2007, 10:25 PM:

There are many other Co's building small speakers that sound much better than Blose, for half the money. But people are hooked on the name. If Paul Harvey recommends them, it can't be bad. [Smile]

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-20-2007, 12:15 AM:

Anyone remember those upward firing, floor sitting Sonab "OA-x" series?

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 12-20-2007, 09:43 AM:

I can remember back when the Bose cube speakers got popular, I had the chance to demo them against the Polk RM series (don't remember the exact model number, but they might have been RM6). The salesman told me that before I got too serious about the Bose speakers, to give these things a try.

There was a big difference between the performance of the Polks vs. the Bose cubes, but mostly when pushed, like you would need to when watching a movie or some good music. At low volumes (like whole-house audio sorts of applications), the Bose speakers sounded fine, but they really showed their limitations when you wanted to turn the volume up. The Polks were made of some kind of heavy composite material that made each satellite weigh several pounds -- no rattling there!

While I couldn't afford the RM series, I did pick up a pair of bookshelf speakers that I'm still using today.

That said, my favorite brand for over 10 years has been Boston Acoustics. My home theater is still running the 555x THX fronts that I bought back in 1993/1994, they're running with some VRS Pro and VRX surrounds, and I have two sets of in-walls and a pair of outdoor Voyagers.

Speakers are a funny thing, though. Everyone has their own preferences, and I never tell people what they will like or what they should buy. I let them know what the differences are and how to listen for them, but ultimately, it's a matter of taste. Some people like Klipsch, but I don't like their sound at all.

If I could pick up a pair of those original RM6's in good shape, I'd pair them up with an Outlaw subwoofer, and that would make a mighty fine sub/sat system that would make a Bose salesman cry!

Posted by Robert Throop (Member # 61) on 12-21-2007, 10:33 AM:

When the National theatre on Broadway in NYC opened in the early seventies they had Bose screen speakers personally installed by Dr. Bose. The story I heard was that when he realized that a screen would hang in front of his speakers he got upset. They were subsequently removed and replaced with A-4's.
Bob

Posted by Robert Minichino (Member # 3495) on 12-21-2007, 11:29 AM:

Why'd he get upset? Couldn't see the logos with the screen in front? [Smile]

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 12-21-2007, 03:49 PM:

Dr. Bose assumed people would want to go to the theatre to hear his speakers, not see the movie.
How did he aquire the designation of Dr?

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-22-2007, 04:27 PM:

quote: Robert Throop
When the National theatre on Broadway in NYC opened in the early seventies they had Bose screen speakers personally installed by Dr. Bose. The story I heard was that when he realized that a screen would hang in front of his speakers he got upset. They were subsequently removed and replaced with A-4's.

That is precious! [Big Grin]

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 12-22-2007, 07:01 PM:

Amar Bose at wikipedia

quote:
...obtained a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His Ph.D. thesis was a highly mathematical treatise on non-linear systems

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 12-23-2007, 02:27 AM:

That would make him a Dr, all right...

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-23-2007, 04:14 PM:

Pretentious....just like his products.

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 12-23-2007, 06:52 PM:

We have a pair of “used-to-be” Bose in the rear surround channel.

They suffered the usual foam rot and the drivers were replaced with Danish Peerless types. They actually soun better than the originals. We might build some better boxes for them.

A bit like that good axe that had four new blades and six new handles.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 12-30-2007, 11:03 AM:

Bose is . . . . .a little like a Volvo in the USA. Stupid drivers buy them because they are "safe.(?)" This is to compensate for the fact that they are truly lousy drivers...and who NEVER use turn signals.

This is not to denigrate Volvo in Europe where the turn signals seem to work just fine. Louis

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 12-30-2007, 07:12 PM:

Must be a local thing. Here in Northern Virginia turn signals are an invitation for some asshole to speed up and cut you off.

On topic: I saw a demo of the wave radio at O'Hare airport. Not exactly the place to be critical of sound performance. I appreciate the real rundown on the product as I had been curious. No more!

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 01-13-2008, 12:46 PM:

Re: Volvo.

The ones out here in SF and Berkeley have turn signals that work fine.

Must be a regional thing there where drivers are only used to the location of the turn signal stalk on their Chevy pickup.

Kidding!!!

Re: Bose, to paraphrase Lonny Jennings, "No highs, no lows, it must be Bose"

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 01-15-2008, 01:08 PM:

People in the US are very gullable, and stupid. Look at how many people in the this country voted to re-elect a President that lied us into a war! Some people will believe anything, as long as it i what they want to hear. Too bad we don't teach a class in school on how to check facts. There would be far fewer scams that worked here, if people would just THINK.

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 01-17-2008, 02:27 PM:

Bose does an amazing job of selling snake oil. Their marketing budget must be orders of magnitude higher than their engineering budget.
There was a recent study that compared wines, the subjects were only told the "price" of each bottle. The wines labelled more expensive were always rated better, even when the same wine was in all bottles or expensive wine was marked cheaper than plonk.
People who bought Bose stuff routinely believe Bose sounds better than anything else even when the difference is demonstrated.
Bose pays chain stores for space to install Bose listening rooms where only Bose speakers are demonstrated, and provides higher markups to encourage sales.
The 901 is a famous example of selling hype. They sound like crap, and using cheap small speakers in a cheap cabinet they cost very little to make. The control box is just a simple equalizer to take out the midrange peak where the tiny speakers excel and remove low frequencies that would shoot the little cones into the wall. Trademarking "direct/reflecting" was brilliant... unless you're in an anechoic chamber this is how every speaker works.
SO they have $20.00 speakers and a $2.00 control box and they sell them for $500.00. Pretty sweet profit to finance the marketing campaign. Every magazine with a 18-35 male readership had a Bose ad in every issue in the 70's.
I had several acquaintances who bought these things. Most had "ampzilla" powering them, it did make a good room heater. One guy remodelled his living room into a bright front/dead rear acoustic space to try and get some imaging out of them, this was the best sounding 601s I have heard... inspect that Bose listening room at Future Crap and you'll see what he tried to do.
Anyway, in a world where prople spend $1,000.00 for a 6 foot AC cord for their DVD player, and believe it sounds better than the OEM cord (especially after "seasoning" and if supported off the floor by Brazilian ironwood cord stands...) Bose isn't much of a snake oil salesman after all.
Have a look at http://www.machinadynamica.com/index.html for the king of snake oil... I'm not really sure if this site is a joke mocking the golden ear audiophiles but if he actually sells any of this nonsense then he's a pretty smart operator! No product there is more ridiculous than the teleportation tweak room tune-up phone call, but they are all pretty funny.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 01-20-2008, 02:44 AM:

quote: Rick Raskin
turn signals are an invitation for some asshole to speed up and cut you off.

Here, too, in PA, NY, and NJ. [Big Grin]

Re: Bose Wave... Paul Harvey says it can make the deaf hear. [Eek!]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-21-2008, 02:57 PM:

quote: Tim Reed
Re: Bose Wave... Paul Harvey says it can make the deaf hear.

I guess Paul WOULD know that at his late age [Roll Eyes]

.

Mark

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 01-28-2008, 05:20 PM:

quote:
Topic: Why is the general public so enamored with BOSE?

Here is another guess: People like over-paying for CRAP. Just look at how many people have Micro-crap Windows on their computer. [puke]

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 01-28-2008, 08:09 PM:

Dave Macaulay: Fantastic post!!!

So on the money and vastly entertaining. I had so much fun reading the machinadynamica website. Seriously, wtf?!?!?

I have never understood the 'custom' AC power cord market. Electricity is electricity, and the cord either supplies your equipment with power or it doesn't. Am I missing something?

I have to go make a phone call now. Machinadynamica is going to upgrade my entire video and sound system via a long distance phone call. [Big Grin]

Posted by Damien Taylor (Member # 4255) on 01-29-2008, 02:30 AM:

Machina Dynamica is satirical genius. I can't believe how carried away some of these 'audiophile types' really get. But then again nothing bothers me more than people destroying perfectly good records on those Chinese things from target. (Which I recently learned, you (U.S) guys apparently call Super Target, which is infinitely awesome.)

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-29-2008, 03:52 AM:

Our Targets have super powers.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-29-2008, 02:18 PM:

I tried to go to Target, but I missed. -- Mitch Hedberg

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 01-29-2008, 03:59 PM:

Some years ago, when audiophiles were adding CD players to their equipment, I borrowed some magazines that had ads for these kinds of gizmos. I remember one guy was selling a set of 4 or 5 mahogany discs to place on top of the CD player in order to improve the tonality of the music. I can't remember how much he was asking for the discs, but it was at least 3 digits.

Posted by Robert W. Jones (Member # 4228) on 01-30-2008, 11:54 AM:

quote: Hillary Charles
Some years ago, when audiophiles were adding CD players to their equipment, I borrowed some magazines that had ads for these kinds of gizmos. I remember one guy was selling a set of 4 or 5 mahogany discs to place on top of the CD player in order to improve the tonality of the music. I can't remember how much he was asking for the discs, but it was at least 3 digits.

How about Monster audio/video products. The most expensive speaker wire I've seen. A wire is a wire, and gold plated leads are only good for corrosion resistance. I wonder if there is a market for "non-capacitive/low induction" AC power cords? Or, non electron limiting cables (with magnetic chokes).
[Smile]

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 01-31-2008, 10:38 AM:

I used to bring amplifiers to a local music store for repair as they did a decent job at a reasonable price. One day I noticed that they were heavily marketing the "MONSTER" cables so I asked the clerk what makes them so much better? HE told me that "If you use these cables it will improve the frequency response on your system". Well, I told him that I had a calibrated mic, and RTA, and a CD with pink noise on it, I suggested we set up a cd player, amp, and speaker and measure the frequency response on the RTA first with regular cables then switch to the monster cables so that I can see the difference. He unfortunately declined. [Wink]

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 01-31-2008, 02:37 PM:

I know it's easy to beat on Monster, as they make themselves an easy target with their overly high-priced products at the top of their lines, over-ambitious sales clerks promising everything from oxygen-free signals to the fountain of youth.

However, the lower end of the Monster line is filled with decent product at decent prices. It's up to the customer to determine where the quality tops off and the hype begins, but I've had very good luck buying reasonably-priced cables that have good connectors, which are probably the single most important part of a cable (as long as you don't screw up the electrical properties of the cable itself somehow).

Can I fault Monster for also providing a product for those people willing to spend $200 on a 3-meter cable? Not really. A fool and his money are soon parted. I do fault the jokers at the big box retailers that tell people that a $130 6-foot HDMI cable is the only way they're going to be able to see PiP and online features on a Blu-ray disc. Idiots like that should be publicly humiliated, along with whomever told them to say such stupid things.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-31-2008, 10:12 PM:

Some of those "audiophile" products are pretty funny. I think that the best one is the giant wooden volume knob (just a knob) that someone posted a link to a while ago but which I can't find now.

Other good ones include the aforementioned fancy power cords (as if the last three feet of wire is going to make a difference in sound quality), a device to demagnetize CDs (WTF?), high-end cables for carrying digital signals, and the green pens that are suppose to make CDs sound better.

I don't get why people buy this crap when they could just take the same money and get real benefits from acoustical treatment for the room and by upgrading to better speakers.

As for cables, I've been making my own for a while now. I use Belden shielded cable and Switchcraft RCA and XLR connectors. I have a difficult time believing that Monster sells anything that will sound noticeably better, regardless of price. I still use #16 stranded lamp wire for speakers and it works fine for short runs.

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 02-01-2008, 10:05 AM:

Another thing I find amusing is people who insist on using gold connectors, I realize that gold is a better conductor but the wire in between the connectors is not gold so I would think that any benefit is lost? I also remember working on an install where the theatre owner insisted that we use this solid wire he had left over for all the sound system wiring, which is a bad thing. Stranded wire is used because all the little strands together have more surface area than one thick wire and electricity likes to travel on the surface of wires (electron propigation). We all expected the systems to sound absolutely terrible (also because of the equipment used and on some of the houses the one speaker mounted below the concrete wall painted white "screen") but in the big houses with stereo and real screens the sound really wasnt that bad at all. Scary and shocking I thought! But I think it goes to show that even though you should always use the right kind of cable at the end of the day it really doesnt make as big a difference as other things.

(Please do not flame me about the details of an install I stated above, we had absolutely no choice over these things and really did our best to make this theatre decent. I can attest that my former co-worker was able to get 16-18fl out of an old vertical ORC 16k lamphouse on the painted wall through his superior skill and a lot of time spent alinging the optical bench and optics)

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-01-2008, 12:16 PM:

Sean, Sean, Sean...you can't equate some things.

As to Gold connectors...depending on the location and the type of connector, it makes a HUGE difference. Not in the sense of "WOW, That sounds so much better" but in oxidation of the connection over time. This is true not only of sound but other types of low-current connections. I've had Dolby Digital readers fail, failsafes fail and you name it due to tin-plated connections that should have been gold. Conversely, I've never had one of my gold connections oxidize like that. So for RCAs, Molex KKs, and such, I insist on gold connections for friction based removable connectors. I have not had the same problem with XLR type connectors though so I'm less fussy there.

As to solid wire versus stranded...the frequencies for audio are so low that the skin effect of solid/stranded doesn't amount to a hill of beans. You are more apt to make a good connection with stranded, you can crimp stranded, it doesn't take a set like solid...on so forth. As for frequency transmission...solid almost always wins out though. Look at any high-frequency coax cable...guess what you will find as the center conductor...solid wire every time.

There is one Sound designer in this industry that swears by using solid wire...in particular Romex and bi-wiring the system.

If you really want to scratch your head...look at the GOLD power connectors people can buy! They have gold plugs and outlets.

Wattgate 381 Audio Grade Duplex Socket

They have mating plugs too! Now this is on the absurdity of it all. How about the wire to the breaker panel...or the breaker panel, or the transformer that feeds the breaker panel....etc. At the voltages/current in this application...I don't think Gold is significantly adding to the power transfer.

Steve

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 02-01-2008, 02:13 PM:

Steve,

I appreciate the interesting information, it is always a good day if you can learn something new. Just so I can make sure I understand you correctly would you say that the added cost of having sound connections gold plated in a typical multiplex not only the amplifier and speaker connections but others such as series/parallell configs on a terminal strip is warranted? There are a lot of places that wont even spend money on the proper size amps and speakers. Doesn't it make sense though that the more surface area of wire you have that the more signal information is going to be transmitted?

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-01-2008, 06:19 PM:

Nearly $150 for an outlet? Wow. And you still have to use a crappy Edison connector. Wouldn't it be better to use a NEMA twist-lock connector? At least that would prevent the plug from being accidentally kicked or bumped out of the outlet. It would also have greater contact area.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-01-2008, 07:05 PM:

Sean,

No...I qualified my statements that the gold contacts made a difference on low-current removable or friction based connections. At the speaker level, you are not likely to realize any benefit though due to the higher currents, the connections should be made well to avoid other hazards.

As to the wire for say speakers...you need to look at its impedance/ft figure to determine resistive type losses...not just stranding. Then there are capacitive/inductive losses too associated with multi-conductor systems...the lower the frequency less of a concern you'll have with that. I believe that AWG specifications relate to Ohms/1000' such that you should find little to no difference in same awg between solid versus stranded but to make up for LESS copper in stranded, its OD will be larger in the same AWG so there is enough copper to bring it back to the same Ohms/1000'.

The NEC specs would be very strict on solid vs standed otherwise since say a 20A circuit (in wall) can use 12awg wire...there is no requirement for it to be stranded or solid...just 12awg. The specification was based on its ability to carry the current which is a direct function of its impedance, which relates to how much it will heat up (in fact, depending on the fill of the wire way, one would have to derate the wire).

In my findings, stranded wire increases the contact area at the various connection points...be they crimps, speaker posts or even solder. When solid wire flexes it has a much greater risk of breakage and at a connection of forming a poor connection.

Most electricans that prefer solid wire below 10awg do so for speed mostly. In short runs, it self fishes...it strips near instantly and they feel they can hook up outlets/switches faster by forming a hook in the wire than by keeping all those strands together under the screws (though there are tricks to negate that benefit).

So...No on gold for speaker connections
Yes on stranded wire for speaker wires
No on stranded wire for HF applications (say HDSDI video cables for DCinema...Belden 1694A is the standard and it is 18awg Solid core).
And yes on gold for friction based low current connections....particularly if you have high humidity in your area.

Steve

Posted by Robert Minichino (Member # 3495) on 02-02-2008, 12:07 AM:

Stranded wire is only for flexibility and has little or no bearing on skin effect. Skin effect also only matters when you're transmitting power (i.e. the destination is drawing a significant amount of current to induce a voltage drop in the wire), and not for interconnects with a low output impedance and a high input impedance (like your typical home stereo RCA connections). To combat skin effect for power transmission and not overpay for conductor you aren't using, you would use a large diameter hollow or plated conductor (like copper or silver plated steel or aluminum), multiple separately insulated conductors, or litz wire, which is like stranded wire but the strands are insulated from each other.

You can get coaxial cable with stranded center conductors. In fact, RG58 as used for 10Base2 Ethernet was often stranded. Oscilloscope probe cables are also usually stranded so the center conductor is less likely to break from fatigue.

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 02-02-2008, 10:22 AM:

Thank You Steve for that great information! It's very clear to me now.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-02-2008, 05:16 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
They have mating plugs too! Now this is on the absurdity of it all. How about the wire to the breaker panel...or the breaker panel, or the transformer that feeds the breaker panel....etc. At the voltages/current in this application...I don't think Gold is significantly adding to the power transfer.

Well for what its worth... the huge electromagnets used in seperating U-235 during the Manhattan project were wound from solid silver banding... literally millions of troy ounces of solid silver. This was not because Oppenheimer thought the magnets would sound better [Big Grin]

made from silver but because thats all the metal that was left in the USA to make them at the time... there was still a huge deposit of Silver in Fort Knox. All other presious metals were more or less depleted... especially copper.... Shows just how desperate we were to develop the Atom Bomb before anyone else!!

Steve is absolutely correct about Gold connectors! I normally won't use a product that doesn't have them!!! They also don't cost a ton more than the cheap stuff....

Mark

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 02-02-2008, 09:24 PM:

What Robert said about skin effect -- stranded isn't appreciable better, you need to go to Litz wire, which is out-of-this-world expensive.

Steve G. said, "No on stranded wire for HF applications (say HDSDI video cables for DCinema...Belden 1694A is the standard and it is 18awg Solid core)."

OK, I have two questions, probably both of them dumb: 1) Have you actually had problems with HDSDI with stranded wires? I would think you'd still follow the general guidelines of stranded for short patch-cords and solid for long pulls. 2) DCinema uses HDSDI? I (obviously) haven't been paying attention, but I thought DCinema was very concerned about copy protection and that there was no copy protection on SDI.

(As an aside, I had my first HDSDI experience with HDCAM-SR recently and I was rather blown away by Sony's horrible UI that involved rebooting the deck when you changed the frame rate. *cough* )

--jhawk

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-03-2008, 08:06 AM:

God John...what a dumb set of questions [Wink]

But seriously. It is all in the resistive/reactive numbers that determine a cable's suitability to an application.

It isn't that stranded wire CAN'T be used...it is that it normally has significantly higher attenuation at higher frequencies.

So, if you are going to run a cable for say a foot or 3-feet...damn near anything will work. If you want to get that 300-foot run to work with HDSDI you best have proper RG-6 cable like 1694A. Look at a cable's specs. Also to note to a previous poster's comments on RG-59...it is available in many forms, included stranded, mini...etc...but it is also available in solid form like Belden 1505A (note 1505F is one of the stranded forms from Belden). But again...look at the specs of those various cables to see how it is going to treat the signal. Get a 100' length of cable and inject a known signal...look at it with a scope on the other end (properly terminated) and see what comes out...on any given class...the solid is going to win.

Patch cables are almost always stranded cable due to their nature (short, and handled a bunch). The bigger concern in a patch bay system isn't so much the stranded cable is the quality of the connections. The impedance should match on all of the connection points. If not, you are going to get attenuation and reflections that will degrade the signal.

Yes, HD-SDI is the means of moving DCinema video. Dual-link for the current stuff in 2K. The 4K stuff needs 8 such cables! Not to worry about copy protection. At no point is the signal not encrypted outside of the projector. The DCinema projector has something called "Link Decryption". Thus the projector is the last stage of copy protection for DCinema. You can't hook up your super-duper Sony HDSDI monitor to a DCinema line and see anything. But a nice thing about ahearing to established standards is that HDSDI routers/repeaters will still work to move the signals around.

Steve

Posted by Robert Minichino (Member # 3495) on 02-03-2008, 09:57 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
It isn't that stranded wire CAN'T be used...it is that it normally has significantly higher attenuation at higher frequencies.

No argument there. But where flexibility is vital a short length of stranded core coax has a lot less attenuation than a piece of broken solid core. [Wink]

I'll second the importance of good, correct connectors. It's not fun troubleshooting high BER on a DS3 and finding out some fine technician used a 50 ohm BNC because he "ran out" of 75 ohm.