Facts about 901's

 

Silver Member
Username: Shane24

TorontoCanada

Post Number: 223
Registered: Mar-07
Traditional speaker designs split the amplified signal frequencies via an internal electronic crossover network between different speaker sizes within a roughly cubical speaker enclosure, adding electronic and dynamic harmonic distortion to the sound being reproduced. Indeed, this design concept intentionally attenuates bands of frequencies, feeding different frequency bands to different driver designs, the side affect of which is harmonic distortion- and significant amounts of it. This design then depends on the airspace between the drivers and listener to recombine (called acoustic coupling) what the speaker's electronics have split up in the hope of reproducing what the subjective listener perceives as a 'good' sound.

Instead, the Bose design is based upon on each enclosure using nine identical, 4½ inch full-range drivers using no electronic crossovers, eliminating the modern sound system's single greatest potential source of distortion. Eight of the nine drivers face away from the listener. The overall effect is that sound envelops the listening space, generating a spacious, fluid, and natural sound for which this design has been renowned for nearly a half century. Using proper equalization compensation at the amplifier stage from the included Bose equalizer (0.002% THD) helps create low distortion sound from the speakers. There really is nothing else that delivers this kind of listening pleasure at this price point.

I have heard some critics say that using an array of single-sized drivers is quite incapable of reproducing satisfying lows and/or highs. My response to this notion is that the human eardrum seems to have little difficulty with this audio physics problem. If size were critical to high-quality frequency transmission, then each of us would have the equivalent of woofer, midrange, and tweeter eardrums in each ear


The eighteen total drivers in the system are able to move a tremendous amount of air, more than enough to generate tight, crisp lows when properly placed in the listening room. Using an array of mid-sized drivers having a relative short throw as compared with, say, a 12" driver gives them an advantage with low-latency travel times (i.e., accuracy), delivering high resolution lows at moderate SPL's the typical listener is likely to use. Doing the math, two 12" woofers in a traditional system design have 904 in2 of surface area. Eighteen 4½" drivers in the Bose 901 design have 1,145 in2 of speaker area, an upside of about 27% in a similarly sized enclosure, giving credence to some owners reporting structural damage to their buildings from low frequencies at high SPL's.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13490
Registered: May-04
.

I'm not at all certain what your point is. You're defending 901's, is that it?




Let's start by saying "traditional" speaker design was a single full range driver and multi-way speakers are about as "traditional" as Western pharmaceuticals. They are both relatively new ideas in the overall scheme of things. The most recent rise in accpetance of single driver, full range systems is part of the return to simple ideas that were at the heart of how audio come into being.


The passive components in a speaker's crossover add negligible distortion components. Active circuits are inevitably going to generate noise - not found in a passive circuit - and intermodulation distortion - also not found in a passive circuit.

Bose chose an active eq for the 901 - an active circuit with all of its attendant issues intact, a poor choice if your intent is to minize system artifacts.

The predominant distortion component of a loudspeaker driver is harmonic in nature and is made up of mostly second and third order additions which the ear easily accepts as "musical" in nature. Solid state devices such as the Bose 901 eq are prone to higher order distortion components which the ear rejects as unnatural, another poor choice if you are striving for "accuracy".

The distortion from the driver does rise rapidly and to the point of being unacceptably irritating when the smaller driver is driven to the physical limits of it motor system which is more likely to happen when excessive eq is introduced to the signal in an attempt to extend frequency repsonse.



"Recombining" on the listener's part - as you say it - has nothing to do with "acoustic coupling". "Recombining", if I understand how you intend to use the term, done well is a function of driver placement and the sophistication of the system design. No doubt a single driver running full range is easier for the ear to accept as "coherent" than would be a multi-way system. Not so once more than one full range driver is in place. Phase issues arise whenever another driver is added to the mix. Amar added eight more and faced them in the opposite direction.


"Instead, the Bose design is based upon on each enclosure using nine identical, 4½ inch full-range drivers using no electronic crossovers, eliminating the modern sound system's single greatest potential source of distortion."


As I've said above, you simply have this wrong. The driver (or drivers in the case of the 901) will produce far more distortion than any passive crossover could ever achieve. An active circuit produces more distortion and different (less "musical") distortions than a passive circuit can manage - just look at the high end's acceptance of passive pre amps as a "better" solution to line only sources. This is due primarily to an understanding of the downsides associated with an active circuit.


You need to understand what is happening more fully than you have managed so far.


"If size were critical to high-quality frequency transmission, then each of us would have the equivalent of woofer, midrange, and tweeter eardrums in each ear"


This is your worst overreach for rationalizing what Amar did. "Hearing", or more accurately perception, is a function of our brain, not our ears only. Your thinking falls apart quickly when you understand this most basic phenomenon.

A microphone diaphragm of no more than 1/2" also picks up virtually all frequencies. It, however, like our ear does not have to overcome the effects of acoustic coupling to drive the air space within a room.



I do agree that a single driver can reproduce a very wide range of frequencies, however, the limtiations are in SPL output and dispersion when compared to a multi-way system. Most single driver fans also realize such a system can have serious problems as the music material becomes increasingly complex. Here is another point you need to understand before you attack it. The reason for muilti-way systems is not for the most part due to inherent frequency limitations on single drivers but in other areas that most listeners deem important. The speaker industry has good reason to press for wider bandwidth from each driver and no single driver can possibly achieve the 25-50kHz response of the best multi-way systems. To denounce one techonlogy while touting another is short sighted. I know of nothing in audio that is not a matter of accepting trade offs and bowing to priorities.


"Using an array of mid-sized drivers having a relative short throw ... "


This is once again where your thinking fails. The shorter the throw of the voice coil, the higher the THD when the vc approaches its limitations. Dynamic range is constricted when the short throw of the driver's vc cannot follow the input of the signal. The thinking in driver design over the last several decades has trended toward long magnet structures which maintain proper placement of the voice coil within the magnetic field even at frequency and SPL extremes. This approach has drastically reduced driver induced THD and IMD in a well designed system at all SPL's and all frequencies.



"Using an array of mid-sized drivers having a relative short throw as compared with, say, a 12" driver gives them an advantage with low-latency travel times (i.e., accuracy), delivering high resolution lows at moderate SPL's the typical listener is likely to use."


Let's look at this statement with some degree of critical thinking and knowledge of how speaker systems actually operate. "Time" in a speaker system has nothing to do with low frequency reproduction. "Time", given a very broad definition, would be considered a very minor player in the "accuracy" of a speaker system. "Time" as perceived at the listening position is seldom correct. It is relatively simple to build a speaker system with correct "time" when measured one meter from the system's front baffle.

Recognizing how speakers actually work within a listening environment many speaker designers have moved beyond simple time alignment in a speaker and now consider accurate phase relationships to be more important overall, this is reflected in the increased concern over "phase accurate" crossover networks that have come into play in the last two decades - thank you Mr. Linkwitz! Few designers emphasize the "time alignment" of the system as seen in the slant front cabinets of the 1990's.


The 8/9 rear/front array of the 901 actually destroys the correct timing of the system. Even if the placement of the 901's drivers did have correct timing - something more easily achieved in a single line array of multiple drivers than in the 8/9 rear/front placement of the 901 - the correct "timing" of the 901 would only occur at a single distance away from the enclosure, a distance that not surprisingly has been shown to be not the average distance required to make the 8/9 array "recombine" at the listening position.


Amar Bose started with an incorrect assumption and unfortunately built the 901 to emphasize that inaccuracy. There are more things in the 901's design that go against acknowledged physical and electrical theories than actually work with those rules. It is unusual, to say the least for a design with so many wrongs, to have such acceptance. Undoubtedly, the 901 has managed to remain in the market due to its relatively compact size and therefore a high WAF. Adding to the "mystique" of the 901 would be the fact most buyers have no idea what a live music performance sounds like in an acoustic setting. If you doubt that claim, just start asking people how to get to the symphony hall in your city. The correct answer is not, "Practice, practice, parctice."


If you like the sound of the 901, I have no problem with that. But what you posted above is not a true representation of how the 901 operates, how other speakers operate or how the human ear/brain perceives sound.



"Eighteen 4½" drivers in the Bose 901 design have 1,145 in2 of speaker area, an upside of about 27% in a similarly sized enclosure ... "


Two things here; first, increasing the amount of radiation in a same size cabinet will genrally result in a decrease in bass extension not an increase. This is especially true of a sealed enclosure system. The world moved beyond the simple concept of "the bigger the driver the better" long ago. You would do well to study speaker design and understand TS parameters.

Second, if the radiating area were the only thing that mattered, you would think the 901 wouldn't require an active eq of approximately +20dB at the highest and lowest frequencies.


" ... the Bose design is based upon on each enclosure using nine identical, 4½ inch full-range drivers using no electronic crossovers, eliminating the modern sound system's single greatest potential source of distortion. Eight of the nine drivers face away from the listener. The overall effect is that sound envelops the listening space, generating a spacious, fluid, and natural sound ... "


This is the most egregious fault of the 901's original concept. Bose reasoned the nine driver array by using flawed interpretations of what happens in an acoustic environment and then building in mistakes that make the flaw even more evident. Amar's initial thinking was based on an early study of classic symphony halls which indicated 8/9's of what the average listener perceives in a hall setting is ambient, reflected or delayed information and only 1/9 is direct sound from the performers. He then faced eight of his nine drivers away from the listener and toward the rear wall with only one driver facing directly at the listener though in a stereo placement that one driver is always off axis to the listener.

Off axis listening to any driver will result in the highest degree of frequency response deviations due to dispersion characterisitcs - this is most especially true when a cone type driver such as you will fine in the 901 is employed. Therefore, what the listener hears as direct sound from the 901 is the least similar to the input signal of the original source.


The sound heard in a live hall is not predominantly taken from the rear wall, only a small portion of the sound reaching the listener is bounced first off the rear wall. Most of the sound arriving at a listener's ears in a hall will be from first, second and third reflections in the front portion of the hall space coming from the walls, the floor, the ceiling and the people and furniture sitting around the listener. These timed reflections give the listener perceptual cues as to the placement, size and inter-relationships within the space of each individual performer. The 8/9 bounce off the rear wall skews these perceptual cues and eliminates the brain's ability to accurately locate sounds in a natural perspective.

Finally, the worst mistake Bose made with the 901 was to ignore the simple and obvious fact that his speaker would also have to work into a room with its own set of reflections. Once these unavoidable listening room reflections have added their own flavor to the "spaciousness" of the 901's 8/9 rear facing drivers the result is anything but natural when compared to the real thing. "Spacious" it is, accurate it is not.


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 12030
Registered: Dec-04
I am kinda glad that:
A; JV had time today
B; types fast

I will get an end of week beer in hand and read those posts again before commenting.

Welcome back sm. Should be fun here again.
 

Silver Member
Username: Shane24

TorontoCanada

Post Number: 224
Registered: Mar-07
Does that look like a defense to u vigne?... Jeez... and nuck point B:types fast, more like copy and paste dont u think...
 

Platinum Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 12033
Registered: Dec-04
Uhh no.

Although your provocative OP is surely a click copy, Wiley.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13494
Registered: May-04
.

No need to get huffy. You opened a thread and titled it "Facts about 901's ... " You presented your "facts", some of which are true. The 901 does use nine small drivers, I can't dispute that fact. I can however explain why using nine small drivers in such an array can present obvious trade offs.

I presented the rest of the story that goes along with your choice of what to believe as "facts". As far as "copy/paste" goes, two things; 1) that would imply it's not very difficult to find the information I "copied and pasted" particularly in response to a "rahrah!" for 901's, and 2) in truth I would have been hard pressed to "copy/paste" such a thing since I haven't seen anyone try to defend 901's in over thirty years - other than the Bose rep that is.

As I said, if you like 901's I don't care and will never try to stop you from listening, you actually could have chosen a worse speaker to like.


Rather than make snarky comments about my response you would have gained more stature by simply refuting any inaccuracies as you saw them in my post. Your skiffling off into your hole and shouting to those of us on the outside, "more like copy and paste dont u think... " doesn't solidify your position as an authority on the subject.

I meant no insult and I certainly could have done so with the speaker in question but I thought your less than well educated and less then well thought out post neeeded a response. There is nothing I know in audio that is not a trade off of sorts. I simply presented the other side of your tale. I could have been equally as elucidating about multi-way speaker systems which also have inherent flaws. It's just that your "facts" concerning multi-way systems are incorrect.

If you'd care to proceed with this discussion, I have no problem providing further information. If you are just going to be childish in your remarks, have a nice day and don't hurry back.

.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 12036
Registered: Dec-04
Shane, how long have you had the 901 speaker setup and equalizer?
 

Bronze Member
Username: Cenobite

Post Number: 12
Registered: Dec-08
http://www.epinions.com/review/505382_Bose_901_Series_VI_Direct_Reflecting_Speak er_System/content_439268511364

It's all in there...
 

Gold Member
Username: My_rantz

Australia

Post Number: 2166
Registered: Nov-05
Ha! Ha!

SPRUNG!
 

Platinum Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 12162
Registered: Dec-04
Exposed like a hooker's high heel!
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13536
Registered: May-04
.

WOW! OH, WOW!!!!! I MEAN LIKE REALLY WOW!!!!!!!!!

Shane just copy/pasted that write up and put his name on it. And didn't even have the courtesy to use quotation marks!!!


There's a special place in he11 for people like you shane monteath!


And "artplow" has always been one of my favorite audio reviewers too!



.
 

Silver Member
Username: Shane24

TorontoCanada

Post Number: 227
Registered: Mar-07
Well I get quite a response here, especially from kunts like yall..

Well guess what why don't yall all suck my dick instead by that way im sure I am getting my point across.

And Jan, wtf are u talking about courtesy
to use quotation marks, u bas ta rd yall r the ones who pick on ppl here to start fights and sht, all yall muthafckers think yall know it all but got jack sht..

And no, no one goes to hell just for that, im no serial killer..

But im sure the devil's got his eye on a rude and vile ba st ard like urself...

And Nuck, I don't own the 901's and never will, so stfu..

Yeah like how I exposed ur mommmy when I was fcking that whore... worthless btch..

And Joe, do kindly take some time next time to check if the page exists or not, coz its not there, get ur sht together if u want to post ur comments...(lowlife btch)

And lastly to all yall muthafckers who offcourse will starting posting more sht here I dont give a fck what yall think or say so don't waste ur time posting here..

Suck my dick now fckers....

(Jan should be shot in the head, that ba st ard, he's the one who is uneducated, he thinks he's god here, knows everything, but he's just full of it..

If he did know so much why the fck he is here posting all his sht, he would have had his own company or sht in this line of work.. so jan do be a favor and stfu)

Fcken Losers...
 

Gold Member
Username: My_rantz

Australia

Post Number: 2169
Registered: Nov-05
There you go Shane, you really can put a couple of words together all by yourself. Maybe you're smarter than we thought: what's your IQ - about 8 or 9?

You are the perfect example why euthanasia should be legal.
 

Silver Member
Username: Wattsssup

Barrie, ON Canada

Post Number: 305
Registered: Aug-06
Wow Shane, you're an idiot.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 12163
Registered: Dec-04
LOL!
I think he blew a gasket!
hehehehehe
 

Gold Member
Username: Dmitchell

Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Post Number: 2483
Registered: Feb-07
Give Shane some credit. It must have been a lot of work getting all those swear words past the spellchecker.
 

Gold Member
Username: Nickelbut10

Post Number: 2447
Registered: Jun-07
LOL!!! Yikes. I would be pissed off if I lived in Toronto too. What a sh!t whole. lol
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13538
Registered: May-04
.

THAT'S HYYYYYYYYYYSTERICAL!!!!!!


Print that out and show that to your mom, shaney. She'll be so proud of her little boy.





.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 12165
Registered: Dec-04
An instant classic!
Gotta mark this thread!
 

Silver Member
Username: Sem

NY/CA USA

Post Number: 875
Registered: Mar-04
Wow
 

Gold Member
Username: Plymouth

Canada

Post Number: 8874
Registered: Jan-08
Usualy I post on satellite forum but I founded this threads in Message Board Feedback & Announcements:

Shane is right on 90/100 on what he says, I used bose 901 in 70's and work with help of Bose engineer, we used four 901 box with a Bose Amplifier, the sound was very good if it is well used, for use in Disco room, but in house the problem is the phasing with reflection on wall and the driver on front, which you lost the depth effect.

Jan Vigne

8 small drivers are much much better than a 12", you have much less distortion from the transducer(membrane).
A passif crossover is very hard for a low quality amplifier and create a difficulty with impedance which vary with frequencies.

So both guys had good points on "for" and "against".

My opinion for Bose 901 is:

Very good for high gain which is use in large room, correct in big house room.
Majority of new speakers can beat Bose 901 today but in 70's where the enclosure was very bad Bose surely was one of best for the price.

My only regret is that Bose lose the innovation and not try to put 8 drivers in front speaker and work with same rigour as for the little audio chain see on tv plubicity.

901 are speakers of pass but can again kick a/s/s to JBL plastic enclosure and many other use today in commercial middle room.

Peace Guys
 

Gold Member
Username: My_rantz

Australia

Post Number: 2171
Registered: Nov-05
The thing is Plymouth, Shane did not say anything - he copied it from someone else's post on a review site. Then he accused Jan of copy and pasting. And after he was found out, the rest is obvious.

Thanks for your opinion on the 901's.
 

Gold Member
Username: Plymouth

Canada

Post Number: 8876
Registered: Jan-08
M.R.

You are Welcome!

Sorry but I had never read on this forum and I don't know these 2 guys, but if it is a C/P usualy we put the source.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13542
Registered: May-04
.

"8 small drivers are much much better than a 12", you have much less distortion from the transducer(membrane).
A passif crossover is very hard for a low quality amplifier and create a difficulty with impedance which vary with frequencies."



"Better" is always the catch word that excuses all sins. If you think it's "better" and I think it's worse, we cannot really disagree with the other's perception as we are all entitled to hear what we alone hear. As I posted above, "If you like the sound of the 901, I have no problem with that." That is true, I don't care if someone likes the 901's, the 501's or blown out Cerwin Vegas. As I told all of my clients, unless you invite me over to listen and then ask for my opinion you get to listen to anything you want and I won't care.



However, we can argue many of the technical the merits of small drivers vs. large drivers. In that regard I've laid out my case above.

I use small drivers, I find them to be more to my liking than most large drivers. I use speakers without a crossover. Someone else, however, might prefer the other way around. For decades my point has been there are always trade offs to everything in audio and I no more have the secret to perfect audio than does the next person. I just know what I prefer.

Small drivers have their benefits and certainly so when they are used in multiples. Unfortunately, using multiple drivers of any size also has its disadavantages.

In the end I tend to have a difficult time with anyone who wants to tell me what they like is "better" and what I like is cr@p. I have no problem with you liking what you like. I have a problem when you insist I must not like what I prefer just because you don't like it.




As to low quality amplifiers the answer IMO is not to add an active equalizer that demands more of a low quality amplifier. Building your system around a low quality amplifier and then insisting you have put together a high quality system is counter-intuitive.

If you have read the post that was copied to this thread, you will have seen what specific benefits were attributed to the 901's crossoverless design. And then you'll see how I responded to those specific assertions. Give me another assertion of advantage and I'll give you another set of disadvantages for that same design. Everything has trade offs.


The "better" solution IMO is to make the job of any amplifier easier to manage by not demanding either high current delivery (extreme crossover design) or large voltage swings (high boost from an active eq). Using the excuse of what works "better" with a low quality amplifier is hardly my idea of how to gain the best sound quality from the system as a whole.

If you feel differently, you are entitled to your opinion but I've not heard bad amplifiers produce good sound.


.
 

Gold Member
Username: T_bomb25

Dayton, Ohio United States

Post Number: 2008
Registered: Jun-05
Wow! i had no idea Bose owners had more passion than Ascend owners.Hey Shane maybe if all you Bose Zombies would have tried to get to know their speakers technically all their home products would'nt suck so bad,they would'nt be so rich off of all you herds of cattle they are the only speaker company i know of with mainstream comercials about clock radio's being the all ends of speakers and audio,Hilarious.On the + side you do have impressive cursing skills,certaintly better than Bose's listenability,try The Vintage speaker forums or Audio Karma you mighttttt...get praise for those vibration box's there.lol
 

Gold Member
Username: Dmitchell

Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Post Number: 2484
Registered: Feb-07
Hey T, "passionate" is one way to put it about Ascend owners ;-)

I like mine, but I'm no fanboy.
 

Gold Member
Username: Plymouth

Canada

Post Number: 8886
Registered: Jan-08
Jan Vigne

Yes 8 small full range speakers is "better" than a big woofer but you need a tweeter because any full range can give you a high frequency as good as tweeter.

I don't need a agressive answer from you!

I can understand Shane now, so I'm not a newbie as you could thought, I don't post on this forum because you still have your answers run in ciment. I have made many speaker which maybe you can't buy and many Hi-fi amplifiers.

You talk with a 39 years experience guy.

I hope that you next time don't take all members for idiot.

Note I hate Bose now and think this is a crap brand.
 

Gold Member
Username: Plymouth

Canada

Post Number: 8887
Registered: Jan-08
Here is a very good full range speaker with low cost:

http://www.diyaudioprojects.com/Drivers/RS100S-8/

Good site for made your speakers and amplfiers yourself:
http://www.diyaudioprojects.com
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 13547
Registered: May-04
.

Well, at least Plymouth didn't cuss at me.



"Better"?





No discussion, eh, guy? You're right and I'm wrong?









39 years?!



Ouch, an argument from authority! Those are always tough.




OK, Plymouth, I have 42 years experience with this stuff.





























Elvis has left the building.



.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 12171
Registered: Dec-04
P...8 small full range drivers are not better than a large woofer for bass.
 

Gold Member
Username: Plymouth

Canada

Post Number: 8895
Registered: Jan-08
Nuck
I want to say sound better.

If you don't want new members on this forum, I think you are on good way.
 

Gold Member
Username: T_bomb25

Dayton, Ohio United States

Post Number: 2009
Registered: Jun-05
Nuck i guess its Bose's 20-20 rating that held weight in the 70's my Dads friend owned some 901's and that was his favorite audio line "they go 20-20 do yours" he was part of the Bose herd of fools to,i remember being small all the listening raves was done on my Dads system wih DQ-10's and Ohms Walsh 2's and his other 3 friends who had Quad Esl 57's,the other Maggie Typhonies,and the other DCM TimeWindow,wow talk about great selections,Bose what?.lol
 

Gold Member
Username: T_bomb25

Dayton, Ohio United States

Post Number: 2010
Registered: Jun-05
We did listen to the 901's at cookouts outside,no doubt they played loud as a frieght train,so everyone enjoyed them being played outside,where they were at their best,being mini Pevey's for parties and such,my dads friend Dave never got on to that,he was still thinking audiophile while everyone else was thinking PARTY DUDE!!!!
 

Gold Member
Username: T_bomb25

Dayton, Ohio United States

Post Number: 2011
Registered: Jun-05
I hear you David,but i have to admit,i love seeing other speakers put the hammer down on any Ascend,sorry David its a shame you have his name i dont like their owner or their gangstyle following.As soon as find a Sierra owner in Denver im gonna let the Swan M1's &D2.1SE,and Evo2 8 put the smack down on them,but im glad your enjoying them,thats all that matters.
 

Gold Member
Username: Exerciseguy

Brooklyn, NY United States

Post Number: 2541
Registered: Oct-04
Those Ohms don't get enough respect. The Ohm Walsh 5-S3, even under the horrid conditions I auditioned them under (average electronics in gigantic cluttered warehouse), are still some of the most memorable speakers I've heard, with perhaps the best soundstaging characteristics I've ever layed my ears on.

I really should try to listen to a pair of those under better conditions?
 

Gold Member
Username: T_bomb25

Dayton, Ohio United States

Post Number: 2012
Registered: Jun-05
Yes Chris the Ohms throw 1 of the better soundstages around,its more focosed with image solidity than givin credit for,certainlly the best of its breed along with MBL,it could have a better tweeter,but their so realistic everywhere else,knowone really complains about it.
 

Gold Member
Username: T_bomb25

Dayton, Ohio United States

Post Number: 2013
Registered: Jun-05
Chris,You'll love the Micro Tall's at a grand i still cant believe they cost that i thouht would have went with the economy and all,but anyway they just may be the best all around speaker at their pricepoint,they have musical stangering great bass,that sounds out of place at their price.
 

Gold Member
Username: Exerciseguy

Brooklyn, NY United States

Post Number: 2542
Registered: Oct-04
They must have a loyal following, because I don't know how a company like this stays in business? Minimal advertising, what looks to be a do-it-yourself webpage, no dealer network, no showroom, and very few people talking-up their products.
 

Gold Member
Username: Exerciseguy

Brooklyn, NY United States

Post Number: 2543
Registered: Oct-04
I've heard the Microwalsh, they are exceptional. I almost bought a pair for $600, but I had too many speakers at the time.

I still do.
 

Gold Member
Username: T_bomb25

Dayton, Ohio United States

Post Number: 2014
Registered: Jun-05
$600 a pair for broken in pair they take forever to break in,thats good,do you regret it? it seems that they would be the best out of your lot by good ways.
 

Gold Member
Username: Exerciseguy

Brooklyn, NY United States

Post Number: 2544
Registered: Oct-04
I didn't like the color.
 

Gold Member
Username: T_bomb25

Dayton, Ohio United States

Post Number: 2027
Registered: Jun-05
oh ok...
« Previous Thread Next Thread »



Main Forums

Today's Posts

Forum Help

Follow Us