New Subaru radios weaker than old?

absolute accuracy is neither sought nor desired by either the speaker maker or the listener in non critical situations

Yes…frequency absolute accuracy is not sought after. But reproduction of the live/original sound IS. The whole idea is to reproduce the sound as it was recorded. No speaker does it perfectly…And many have different design approaches to achieving that sound. Some are good some are not so good. What some companies have done is to color the sound so much that…while it may be pleasing…it’s NOT what the sound engineers were hearing when they recorded it. I believe the BEST speakers are ones that are very accurate AND very sound pleasing. They are NOT mutually exclusive.

“The whole idea is to reproduce sound exactly as recorded”

I feel that speaker companies, have lines of speakers whose specific purpose is “attenuate” some frequencies and NOT necessarily reproduce the sounds as they are recorded. I guess I wasn’t 't clear, but in my experience, acurate sound over long term cannot be tolerated depending upon the sound source. That means that some speakers should not be used, long term for every source and every environment.

I know that for a fact in performances of bands as the sound engineer will attenuate the volume of certain frequencies that will fatique the audience. Now, if it’s done on purpose by sound engineers for live performances, it’s done by speaker manufacturers in some of their lines, and it’s purposely done by the manufactures of PA monitors I have used…speaker accuracy and reproducing sounds exactly as recorder is NOT the primary goal in cases i am familiar with. It’s relative accuracy within the confines of other variables and listening fatique is one of them.

Years ago, Polk for example, made a monitor line that had a goal for higher accuracy. It sold well for a while…just a while.

Making listenable speakers is the goal of some speaker makes, regardless of opinions of audiophyles who insist that accuracy be the primary goal. It is not for many speakers…What is intolerable to the traditional audiophile, is that Bose does this successfully. So, they are definitely the “not so good”… But they sell ! Imho, They are inoffensive on more sound sources and in more environments then most. And, they bounce sounds all over the place, plenty different then the way it was recorded…and they still sell.

Btw, Bradley is batting .536 !

I guess I wasn't 't clear, but acurate sound over long term cannot be tolerated depending upon the sound source.

I disagree with that…and I can show you example after example of highly accurate speakers that are highly sought after for their pleasing sound. You can listen to them over very long periods without fatigue. JBL’s 4341 speaker is one very accurate speaker I will agree with you. They can be grading on you over the long term. But not all accurate speakers grade on you.

Polk for example, made a monitor line that had a goal for higher accuracy. It sold well for a while...just a while.

I’ve never been a fan of ANY of the Polk speakers. They spend more money on advertising then they do on engineering.

You can show me example examples of highly accurate speakers that are sought after ? I can show you numbers… the biggest selling speakers on Amazon that aren’t 'that accurate , whose design is to deliver pleasing sound in a small space…Sound bars are selling…lots.!

http://www.tonepublications.com/review/we-review-the-bose-901/
This is typical of Bose speakers…little talk about accuracy, lots of talk about the experience…and could they be one of the biggest selling speakers ever ?

You can show me example examples of highly accurate speakers that are sought after ? I can show you numbers..... the biggest selling speakers on Amazon that aren't 'that accurate , whose design is to deliver pleasing sound in a small space..Sound bars are selling......lots.

And that mainly has to do with COST…Nothing else. Good high quality accurate and sound appeasing speakers are expensive. Far more expensive then the average buyer can buy. It’s like saying and original VB Bug is a BETTER car then a Lamborghini because they sold more.

Speaker Reviews??? Really???

Here’s one from a highly regarded stereo magazine.

Conclusion on the last page…

If we were to judge the 901 in terms of the best sound available, then, we would say that it produces a more realistic semblance of natural ambience than any other speaker system, but we would characterize it as unexceptional in all other respects. It is ideal for rock enthusiasts to whom sheer sonic impact is of paramount importance, and for classical listeners who want the next best thing to ambient stereo without the cost and the bother of rear-channel add-ons. However, we doubt that the 901 will appeal to perfectionists who have developed a taste for subtleties of detail and timbre.

You want a few very harsh reviews…

Want more…

IMO as a self described audio nut , a perfectly accurate FR curve is not what one looks for or even would enjoy in a loudspeaker. The research council in Ottawa tested speakers in an anechoic chamber with very near perfectly flat frequency response curves. The verdict from human listeners was the speakers were lifeless. Different listeners enjoy different sound signatures. Some enjoy the more laid back easy coast or British sound, while others will stack a set of JBL’s for a wall of sound effect. No one sound is correct, it’s all listener preference. As one ages those preferences are likely to change as well. Much of the cost of a speaker is inherent in the build quality (ProAc or Totem for example) and the brands cache value. Just enjoy the music.

Mike

@Mike
"And that mainly has to do with COST…Nothing else. Good high quality accurate and sound appeasing speakers are expensive. Far more expensive then the average buyer can buy."

Two things…first, if you read all my post, I continue to take the view that speaker manufacturers make speakers that are NOT the most accurate by design because they have other design factors in mind. And here, you make my point ! These speakers (sound bars) aren’t even made to be accurate within their price point. One speaker has much less stereo separation for example… They are made to be convenient first, make appealing sound which means as far as accuracy is concerned, no dramatics peaks but definitely no surprises in the say 8k range.

I will bet, that these speakers and others like most products are test marketed for long term listening NOT to audiophiles alone but to average consumers, which is going to be the majority (only) market. They are not as interested in the nuances of some self proclaimed audio buff who says he misses the oboe in the third row. They want the bubble form filled like. hey sounds great, wide, open and yes I would buy one of these.

As far as Bose 901s are concerned…again you are missing my point, frustrating…901s are not particularly accurate…BUT THEY SELL a heck of a lot more then your 604s which you steadfastly proclaim is a much better speaker…Why, I suspect ones answer might be “marketing”…
The Corolla is the leading selling name plate of all time, not because it’s the best car, not because, It’s the cheapest…and NOT because of marketing alone. It actually fills peoples needs and the 901, Polk and you name it sell speakers that do as well…Toyota has no intention of building the “best” car in a Corolla. They want the right answers on the bubble form and if it means money in a standard feature instead of better handling, in it goes and down goes it’s rating by car buffs who think a Corolla should be a “better” car.

I did all the math earlier on what makes speakers relatively accurate and neither you nor I need some one else telling us what we should like. But neither should we tell a bunch of other people out there as well…those at discos etc. You did get that the 901 by the review was a great party speaker. That’s because it had POOR stereo separation, a quality revered by audiophiles, not so much by the actual buyers and not so much by Bose.

"However, we doubt that the 901 will appeal to perfectionists who have developed a taste for subtleties of detail and timbre. " “It is ideal for rock enthusiasts to whom sheer sonic impact is of paramount importance, and for classical listeners who want the next best thing to ambient stereo without the cost and the bother of rear-channel add-ons.”

They aren’t selling to perfectionists…the sellers of not so perfect speakers are taking into account that there are more party goers, rock music lovers and concert goers then perfectionists…Cerwin Vega made a living on the West Coast selling party speakers…too as well. Infinity makes party speakers in some of their line with accentuated mid bass response etc etc etc etc There are a bunch major speaker makers, Harman International(sp) now, who also cater to the masses and not the perfectionists in many of their lines, STILL makes( has made in China ) excellent professional audio monitors and entertainment PA speakers. Many are very expensive and not particularly accurate, but great for their intended job. BTW, you can buy quite accurate, inexpensive speakers…you can make them too.

@kieth -" David, you have to understand how sound radiates from a string. Sound does not radiate off the ends of a string but perpendicular to the string. In an upright piano, the string is vertical, more or less, so the sound radiates horizontally. In a grand piano, the stings are horizontal so they will radiate in a doughnut shaped vertical pattern that is perpendicular to the length of the piano."

I do understand how sound radiates from a string, but the sound in a piano radiates from the soundboard, which is excited by the strings. Strings themselves make very little sound (ever listened to an electric guitar while it’s unplugged?). The soundboard in an upright faces the front and back, hence more sound is projected frontwards and backwards. The soundboard in a grand projects up and down.

“To help mellow the sound of a piano, all the strings are not parallel. I do not have a deep understanding of all this, just a basic intro type understanding, it was not my field of study but the criss cross pattern of the strings do something to help smooth out the harmonics and make the piano sound better.”

The criss cross pattern is used mostly to save space. It may affect the tone, but other factors have much more impact.

As far as Bose 901s are concerned...again you are missing my point, frustrating....901s are not particularly accurate....BUT THEY SELL a heck of a lot more then your 604s which you steadfastly proclaim is a much better speaker..

No…I got your point…but your point is MEANINGLESS. You’re assuming that because more people are buying the Bose 901’s is because they think it’s a better sounding speaker. Not true at all…

It’s COST (and or marketing)…The 604’s in their hayday was selling for 2-3 times the cost of Bose. Almost ALL mid-fidelity sound equipment outsells high-fidelity sound equipment…Doesn’t mean they are better.

BTW, you can buy quite accurate, inexpensive speakers...you can make them too.

I know…I’ve done that. And my next project (when my youngest goes off to college) is to build a pair of 604’s. I can buy the drivers and crossover for less then the cost of the Bose 901’s. Then the cabinet materials is probably another $200…Then just my time. There are currently 5 different speaker companies selling a 604 version right now. I could buy one of these…but the cost is well over $5000 (one selling for $10,000). They don’t advertise much…and you’ll NEVER find them in Best Buy.

Again…let me restate what I’ve said many times already…I do like the 901’s in the right setup…I’ve heard them in a room that was PERFECT for them…and they sounded EXCELLENT. I’ve just been able to find speakers to my liking from other manufacturers in the same price range.

BTW…since you live near the NH/ME border…ever go to State Street Discount?? They are (or were) an authorized Bose Dealer. I think they only cater to Home Theater now. But a few years ago I was looking for some speakers with my oldest to take to college…we auditioned the Bose and several other speakers there…We ended up buying a set of EPI’s from Tweeter.

Mikey, Mikey Mikey

" You assume that because more people are buying 901s…because they think it’s a better sounding speaker. Not true at all."

I have and will never call one speaker better then another and minimizing the choices of others who do think one is better for them. That would be pretty pretentious of me. I believe it is pretentious for me to use the old “marketing reason”. I don’t suppose that is the only reason Corolla has sold more then any other name plate in cars. It it were, fine Corinthian leather and " the plane boss, the plane" would have saved Chysler.

But NO two speakers are the same, no two environments are the same and no two people perceive sound the same way. I do not dis people who buy Wave radios and think it’s the greatest since sliced bread…it is for them. People know what pleases them like they know one painting pleases them over another. And, what pleases them may just be how small and cheap and decent sounding, all taken together, a system just might be.

I have several center channels. One, your “favorite” a Polk, sounds best in HT mode listening to movies. Surprisingly, my Klipsch, with it’s horn is quite mild and matches my AR towers very well…they seem made for each other listening to music. Both in the same environment and I cannot decide which is better.

The best vocal center channel was…ready, an inexpensive Yamaha that I gave away as the power handling was too low for movies. Yamaha makes good bang for the buck…their cabinets look crappy to me though.

EPI’s of old that my freind has, are an absolute no brainer…in HIS living room. Like every car I ever owned, I never met a speaker I didn’t like…including, my wife’s Bose 48 system and one of the greatest party speakers i every had from years ago…Radio Shack Mack Ones in my basement . 15 inch woofer and dual horns…make your ears bleed…huh ? But, traded them because I didn’t think they were good enough for me…too cheap. I was a snob back then. ;=( if you ever get a chance, listen to a pair of Burhoe floor speakers. Lovely funiture that will knock your sox off. Am still an old speaker fan…cause the older I get, the better I was.


Sound wave tech…from Burhoe…sounds like Bose robbed someone.

I wish I had bought a set of those Radio Shack Mach One speakers when I had a chance. Turned out that they were on of the most underrated speakers on the market, but as soon as the word got out, Radio shack discontinued them and replaced them with the far less capable Mach Two.

I hear you @keith
My feeling is this. There were a lot of great speakers i didn’t know we’re great because one, I didn’t know the math or cared to find out in speaker design and two, the darn signal source, records , was so poor. The best speaker back then didn’t sound as good playing 331/3 as the mediocre speaker today does, playing CDs. I am really amazed how well the renovated old speakers sound that we now use for CDs. It seems, speaker makers knew what they were doing, given their other restrictions.

Hold the fort here. I’ll take the sound of a 33 1/3 on my Miracord turntable with a Shure V15 type III cartridge over any CD on equal speakers.

I have and will never call one speaker better then another and minimizing the choices of others who do think one is better for them.

dag, dag, dag…

You’re sending mixed messages…YOU say one thing…then you make this statement…


BUT THEY SELL a heck of a lot more then your 604s which you steadfastly proclaim is a much better speaker

Yes you didn’t say one speaker is better then the other…but you are surely implying that the Bose ARE better because they sell more…and more then one person came to that conclusion after your statement.

I’m waiting for the quote that says, I said they were a better speaker. They definitly do some things better, like disperse sound, they definitely do some things worse, like reproduce the full range of frequencies at a high enough volume to be heard as well.
That stuff is all measurable…

If you don’t know what I said or ment, I will say it directly then so there is no mistake…I believe people who bought speakers feel it was best for them and gave them the sound they wanted and for them, it was the better purchase. Some will say who bought the 901s…they sound better. They also say a wave radio sounds very good…I will repeat…I do not question their opinion because it’s how they feel and listening is a personal experience…
Mikey, Mikey Mikey<\b> if you want to put in there 901 and 604 that’s fine.

Gotto go to dance class…

They definitly do some things better, like disperse sound, they definitely do some things worse, like reproduce the full range of frequencies at a high enough volume to be heard as well. That stuff is all measurable....

You are one of the ONLY people I ever knew who thought that recreating the music as it was recorded is BAD. While you think reproducing the full range of frequencies is BAD…most people I know and many musicians and sound engineers want to hear ALL the music as it was meant to be heard.

believe people who bought speakers feel it was best for them and gave them the sound they wanted and for them, it was the better purchase. Some will say who bought the 901s..they sound better.

And I never said any different. If you or anyone else thinks the 901 is a GREAT sounding speaker…fine. I don’t. And I really don’t know anyone who has. That’s fine…We both showed different reviews with completely different opinions on the 901’s.

But I wonder if the 604’s cost as little as the 901’s and they did the same amount of advertising how many people would be buying the 604’s as compared to the 901’s. People I know who’s listened to both speakers…the overwhelming opinion is the 604’s. The 901’s produce a very pleasing sound…but IMHO NOT as pleasing as the 604’s…definitely not as good for detailed accurate sound.

Please, no where did i see a quote where I said that recreating the music as it was recorded was BAD…if you have to make things up,there is no reason to continue. The closest I can think of is this statement below, which you took out of context. Please, I see no quote also where I said reproducing full range frequencies is BAD !

I said that “recreating sound exactly can be intolerable depending on the sound source”…do you know hat I meant ? If the sound source is intolerable, the recreation will be as well.

You can quote me on this with respect to your last statement. Bose 901 s are NOT intended to “deliver detailed accurate sound” do you under stand what I just said. Neither were many Cerwin Vega models for examples…quote me on that too. If you made speakers, you would know that the length of the port, the volume of the enclosure and the resonance frequency of the woofer were all designed to enhance some frequencies beyond what was in the recorded source in many Cerwin Vegas …quote me on that…quote me too when I say…Bose and others make similar, ((read, not necessarily exactly the same, decisions). If you actually made or reconstructed speakers, I would suspect you knew this very basic stuff already, had a frequency generator and a sound pressure meter…and did frequency sweeps on speakers yourself.

Lastly, Mike
You indicated you altered the dimensions of your speakers, I believe. You do under stand that if you had drivers for a particular speaker and it was a bass reflex design and altered the dimensions, you no long have that original speaker…it is now, a different speaker, and you say nothing about it…you think you still own the same speaker…you don’t.
You also keep using the neophyte spelling of bass as " base". There are few knowledgeble people ( read none) in audio that would make that mistake continually.
With all due respect, let’s just move on…

For me, to hear the music as it was meant to be heard means I have to be there. I have heard live recordings of concerts that I have attended and been disappointed with what the recording engineers have done. Many years ago, I worked as a student in the audio visual department at a university. I got a lot of work in the evenings recording recitals of graduate music students. The recordings were made in monaural as opposed to stereophonic sound, so it was easier to place one microphone instead of two. The institution had a what was the state of the art recorder–I believe it was an Ampex, but after 55 years, I may be mistaken about the make. At any rate, I would monitor what was being recorded by listening on the headphones and then remove the headphones and listen to the recital live. I was never completely satisfied with the recordings that I did, although I never received any complaints. I am certain that today’s recording equipment is much better, but for me there is nothing like attending a live performance.
I particularly enjoy listening to chamber music, and since my instrument is French horn, I am partial to woodwind quintet works (flute, oboe, clarinet, horn and bassoon). I judge a system by how accurately it reproduces the sound of these instruments.
Sometime back in the mid 1960s, there was a company that I believe was called KLH that produced a portable record player that had really accurate reproduction. The system was not very large. The secret of the company was that the amplifier was matched to the speaker so that frequencies that the speaker didn’t reproduce as well were boosted by the amplifier. At the time, the criteria was for each component (amplifier, speaker, etc) to have as flat a response as possible from 20 hz to 20,000 hz. I wonder if it still may be true today that certain speakers may sound better with certain amplifiers and that the response curve, harmonic distortion, etc. of the amplifier may be an important factor in the final accuracy of output of the speaker.
At any rate, I’ve found this discussion about speakers to be very interesting as I think about upgrading my equipment.

@triedaq
From what I have read with respect to your comment about components…yes I believe today’s equipment have better numbers but there are some who still preferred older stuff. I like older speakers but not tube amps. They seem to have lower damping qualities and the bass sounds warmer and fuzzy (if that makes sense), no worse just warmer … Transistor amps, if I am correct have damping improvements by a factor of ten. That does not make one sound better, just different and many say they like it. I see tube amps it as distorted and don’t. So yes, components matter, somewhat.

I am always changing equipment but never say I upgrade, because I am always thinking I let something better go when I got something new just for the sake of changing. I like change and get bored easily, but find it’s less expensive changing stereo gear then houses or wives.

I believe many can here differences in today’s components other then speakers, but I cannot. If I don’t hear a recording as good as a live concert performance, rather then put the onus on the sound engineer or the equipment, I remind myself that I wasn’t listening to the recording in the same concert hall as the music was originally recorded in…and head phones vs live, to me is the same difference. I would not expect to hear a reproduction through headphones the same as the original.

So, Go for it and let us know what you decide…if “Subaru speakers” isn’t still going, hijack something else.

Please, no where did i see a quote where I said that recreating the music as it was recorded was BAD.

Then what did you mean by this comment???

They definitly do some things better, like disperse sound, they definitely do some things worse, like reproduce the full range of frequencies at a high enough volume to be heard as well. That stuff is all measurable

You can’t really play the music as it was recorded if you don’t play the FULL RANGE of frequencies at a high enough volume to be heard. The whole design of a efficient flat speaker like the 604 is to reproduce the sound at as it was recorded. You can’t do that unless the speaker can produce all frequencies from around 40hz to 20khz (that’s the frequency range that 95% of all music is). If you drop frequencies off at the 14k…then you’re NOT playing the music as it was recorded. If that’s what you want…fine.