Spearker cables..fact or fiction?

mrbigbluelight

LBrize wrote: »

--Just as a side note, Bose also uses light bulbs in their crossovers in some speakers (again, not kidding). Especially in older Bose stuff, this is how they had such a HUGE power rating, and even sometimes stated that their speakers are incapable of being blown. What happens is, I'm sure many of you know, when an amplifier is clipping, the signal is no longer being sculpted by the amp. It's not a sign wave with peaks and dips, it's straight 120V, from the wall outlet to the speaker. That's why clipping an amp blows speakers more easily than overpowering a speaker.

In Bose speakers that have the light bulbs, when the amp clips the light bulb takes the 120V, dissipating the energy as heat and light so it does not reach the speaker. Not kidding! I've seen the bulb inside AM-5 subs, old 601's, and old 501's. I'm not sure if others have that in their crossovers or not.

That's interesting, Lbrize. First I had ever heard of that and, to be honest, I had to check the calendar to make sure it wasn't April 1st.

Did a little googling, though and ..... well, if you're incorrect about the bulb thing, you're not the only one.

http://www.htguide.com/forum/showthread.php4?t=30690

I'm not going to get into a Bose bashing thread here so know that up front. The 901 is one of the few speakers I've heard that doesn't show off differences in electronics that much. I think it's due in large part to the light bulbs they use internally to dissipate amplifier DC if an amp clips. They put them in for reliability but they choke the signal that gets to the drivers. If you plan on keeping the 901s, then it sounds like the RB-1080 you have would make sense. If you plan on upgrading the speakers, then look at the RB-1092 when that happens.



http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/3/197889.html

Bose's claim that they are "unrated" in terms of power handling stems from having light bulbs inside the bass cabinet that burn off excess power when needed, not because they are built tough.


Not much luck in finding a 901 wiring schematic; I'd be interested in seeing what these components actually are that are being called "bulbs".

LBrize

I have some Bose speakers in my closet. Yes, that's where I keep them. If I were brave enough to wade through the jungle of the closet, and not too lazy, I may take some apart and snap some pics of the light bulbs in the old 501 crossovers. They may also be in the new(est) 501s, so I could probably get a couple of pics posted. I honestly didn't make it up, I took apart just about everything back in the day when I was learning about speaker design, crossover design, etc., and saw the bulbs first hand.

Edit: Years ago when I bought those old 501s, I called Bose and they sent me a wiring schematic. Really great customer service back then, there was no charge. Again, while I was learning design, I called up tech support and asked them why and how the two woofers in the old AM-5 sub box, didn't cancel each other out, due the the front and the rear of the woofer firing into the same cabinet. The answer is because of the port tuning--the rear of the speakers are in a larger enclosure and are tuned deeper than the fronts of the woofers, which are in a smaller enclosure. This "kinda" acts as having four woofers. Bose didn't go into that much detail in their answer, but the tech guy didn't know the answer, and one of the engineers that designed the box actually hand wrote and mailed me a letter explaining the design of the box. I thought that was top notch for such a large company to do that.

I may not love their stuff, but if their customer service is as good now as it was then, it can't be beat (uh, except by Polk customer service).

CoolJazz

LBrize wrote: »

What happens is, I'm sure many of you know, when an amplifier is clipping, the signal is no longer being sculpted by the amp. It's not a sign wave with peaks and dips, it's straight 120V, from the wall outlet to the speaker. That's why clipping an amp blows speakers more easily than overpowering a speaker.

That nasty flat line AC!! :eek: I hate it when that happens.... :rolleyes:

I guess I have heard of bypassing. Guess thats how the leak occurs from the wall outlet, direct to the speaker.

LBrize wrote: »

Bose also uses light bulbs in their crossovers in some speakers...

This is a not uncommon technique. Many different crossovers have incorporated bulbs. Rumor has it that while it protects the drivers, it does tend to spotlight certain notes!!!

CoolJazz

Face

There is a series of vintage Polks that also have a light bulb in the crossover.

Rodney King

Knucklehead wrote: »

dont make me call Rodney king!

U rang?

LBrize

wow. I didn't know that othe speakers used those as well. I'm actually surprised that some Polks used them. I always thought that by incorporating the bulbs into the system, well I thought that's what made Bose speakers not sound so great. The 501 series V for instance. I have good equipment, but those speakers always sound extremely grainy. Sometimes there's even a "SSSS" sound on female focals and trumpets. Norah Jones "Come Away With Me" is by far one of my best sounding CDs and it sounded all hissy and distorted on those spearkers.

SKsolutions

Bose is what makes Bose sound like ****. I don't think that there is any great conspiracy there.

Knucklehead

Rodney King wrote: »

U rang?

Sup Rodney!

Hillbilly61

This thread is amazing. It has now morphed again ... into a positive and meaningful audio discussion. 'goes to show that if trolls are ignored long enough, they will go away!

slowpolky

man this is a huge thread, gizmodo done a test using martin logan speaker cables versus a copper coat hanger, no1 could tell the diff in a blind test

F1nut

....

F1nut

slowpolky wrote: »

man this is a huge thread, gizmodo done a test using martin logan speaker cables versus a copper coat hanger, no1 could tell the diff in a blind test

Fortunately, I have the decoder ring with me today, so I was able to understand your post.

Since you seem to like to believe what you read, here's something for you to ponder.

"Now back to the question of the blinded testing. Here is what the now publisher (Robert Harley) of one of the major magazines wrote a few years ago....


Quote:
Blind tests nearly universally appear to indicate that no differences exist between electronics, cables, capacitors, etc. In fact, one infamous test "revealed" that no sonic differences exist between power amplifiers. Mark Levinson, NYAL Futterman OTL tube monoblock, NAD, Hafler, and Counterpoint power amplifiers were all judged to be sonically identical to each other and to a $219 Japanese receiver (footnote 7). This very test, wielded by the objectivists as proof that all amplifiers sound alike, in fact calls into question the entire blind methodology because of the conclusion's absurdity. Who really believes that a pair of Futterman OTL tube amplifiers, a Mark Levinson, and a Japanese receiver are sonically identical? Rather than bolster the objectivist's case, the "all amplifiers sound the same" conclusion of this blind test in fact discredits the very methodology on which hangs the objectivist's entire belief structure.

If differences do exist between components, why don't blind tests conclusively establish the audibility of these differences? I believe that blind listening tests, rather than moving us toward the truth, actually lead us away from reality.

First, the preponderance of blind tests have been conducted by "objectivists" who arrange the tests in such a way that audible differences are more difficult to detect. Rapid switching between components, for example, will always make differences harder to hear. A component's subtleties are not revealed in a few seconds or minutes, but slowly over the course of days or weeks. When reviewing a product, I find that I don't really get to know it until after several weeks of daily listening. Toward the end of the review process, I am still learning aspects of the product's character. Furthermore, the stress of the situation—usually an unfamiliar environment (both music and playback system), adversarial relationship between tester and listener, and the prospect of being ridiculed—imposes an artificiality on the process that reduces one's sensitivity to musical nuances.

Going beyond the nuts and bolts of blind listening tests, I believe they are fundamentally flawed in that they seek to turn an emotional experience—listening to music—into an intellectual exercise. It is well documented that musical perception takes place in the right half of the brain and analytical reasoning in the left half. This process can be observed through PET (Positron-Emission Tomography) scans in which subjects listening to music exhibit increased right-brain metabolism. Those with musical training show activity in both halves of the brain, fluctuating constantly as the music is simultaneously experienced and analyzed. Forcing the brain into an unnatural condition (one that doesn't occur during normal music listening) during blind testing violates a sacrosanct law of science: change only one variable at a time. By introducing another variable—the way the brain processes music—blind listening tests are rendered worthless."

Face

....

disneyjoe7

If someone doesn't see it or hear it, why does this person state we are all nuts because we do?

Why why why?


God please help me understand these people.

Hillbilly61

F1nut wrote: »

Fortunately, I have the decoder ring with me today, so I was able to understand your post.

Since you seem to like to believe what you read, here's something for you to ponder.

"Now back to the question of the blinded testing. Here is what the now publisher (Robert Harley) of one of the major magazines wrote a few years ago....


Quote:
Blind tests nearly universally appear to indicate that no differences exist between electronics, cables, capacitors, etc. In fact, one infamous test "revealed" that no sonic differences exist between power amplifiers. Mark Levinson, NYAL Futterman OTL tube monoblock, NAD, Hafler, and Counterpoint power amplifiers were all judged to be sonically identical to each other and to a $219 Japanese receiver (footnote 7). This very test, wielded by the objectivists as proof that all amplifiers sound alike, in fact calls into question the entire blind methodology because of the conclusion's absurdity. Who really believes that a pair of Futterman OTL tube amplifiers, a Mark Levinson, and a Japanese receiver are sonically identical? Rather than bolster the objectivist's case, the "all amplifiers sound the same" conclusion of this blind test in fact discredits the very methodology on which hangs the objectivist's entire belief structure.

If differences do exist between components, why don't blind tests conclusively establish the audibility of these differences? I believe that blind listening tests, rather than moving us toward the truth, actually lead us away from reality.

First, the preponderance of blind tests have been conducted by "objectivists" who arrange the tests in such a way that audible differences are more difficult to detect. Rapid switching between components, for example, will always make differences harder to hear. A component's subtleties are not revealed in a few seconds or minutes, but slowly over the course of days or weeks. When reviewing a product, I find that I don't really get to know it until after several weeks of daily listening. Toward the end of the review process, I am still learning aspects of the product's character. Furthermore, the stress of the situation—usually an unfamiliar environment (both music and playback system), adversarial relationship between tester and listener, and the prospect of being ridiculed—imposes an artificiality on the process that reduces one's sensitivity to musical nuances.

Going beyond the nuts and bolts of blind listening tests, I believe they are fundamentally flawed in that they seek to turn an emotional experience—listening to music—into an intellectual exercise. It is well documented that musical perception takes place in the right half of the brain and analytical reasoning in the left half. This process can be observed through PET (Positron-Emission Tomography) scans in which subjects listening to music exhibit increased right-brain metabolism. Those with musical training show activity in both halves of the brain, fluctuating constantly as the music is simultaneously experienced and analyzed. Forcing the brain into an unnatural condition (one that doesn't occur during normal music listening) during blind testing violates a sacrosanct law of science: change only one variable at a time. By introducing another variable—the way the brain processes music—blind listening tests are rendered worthless."

Man, don't go there. Folks were getting along for change.... Let's argue about things that nobody is going to change their minds about via PM or, better yet, over beers.

slowpolky

thats a new way to think about it, i think i'l take them blind tests as blind opinions from now on . Never realy thought about the rapid switching and using tests thats gona give the same result regardless

shack

slowpolky wrote:

man this is a huge thread, gizmodo done a test using martin logan speaker cables versus a copper coat hanger, no1 could tell the diff in a blind test

What a load of crap......:rolleyes:

VR3

Hillbilly61 wrote: »

Man, don't go there. Folks were getting along for change.... Let's argue about things that nobody is going to change their minds about via PM or, better yet, over beers.

Not sure how Jesse's post could be considered... a flame war starter. Very well thought out I think.

mrbigbluelight

Face wrote: »

There is a series of vintage Polks that also have a light bulb in the crossover.

That bulb would have to be in series, correct, with the driver ?
More current, filament heats up, limits current, etc ?


With incadescent bulbs being phased out, and energy-efficient fluorescent bulbs being phased in, that'll kind of put a kink in the ol' crossover network won't it ?

CoolJazz

mrbigbluelight wrote: »

With incadescent bulbs being phased out, and energy-efficient fluorescent bulbs being phased in, that'll kind of put a kink in the ol' crossover network won't it ?

Incandescent won't be going away. Hopefully, it'll be the hazmat bulbs, if thats what you're referring to. Pretty good chance they'll be outlawed before long.

Do yourself a favor people...avoid hazmat bulbs like your life depends on it. Because it does!! Those things are such bad news! If you've got them, start trying to figure out how to dispose of them if you can. They're about like PCB laden transformers. Once you have them, the only way to dispose (properly) is to pay thru the nose...

Think about what'd be like to loose everything you own in a house fire, know the hazmat bulb may well bring you that possibility and just say NO! And tell your friends to say NO too, to the hazmat bulb. Sorry (a little) for the OT...

CoolJazz

ben62670

CoolJazz wrote: »

Incandescent won't be going away. Hopefully, it'll be the hazmat bulbs, if thats what you're referring to. Pretty good chance they'll be outlawed before long.

Do yourself a favor people...avoid hazmat bulbs like your life depends on it. Because it does!! Those things are such bad news! If you've got them, start trying to figure out how to dispose of them if you can. They're about like PCB laden transformers. Once you have them, the only way to dispose (properly) is to pay thru the nose...

Think about what'd be like to loose everything you own in a house fire, know the hazmat bulb may well bring you that possibility and just say NO! And tell your friends to say NO too, to the hazmat bulb. Sorry (a little) for the OT...

CoolJazz

Where a tin foil hat when cleaning.
http://www.hazmat.floridadisaster.org/2009/pressrelease-D4.pdf

ben62670

Keiko wrote: »

Better yet. MOPP 4-NBC. :eek:

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/mopp/mopp_s01.htm

OK topped with a tin foil hat:)

ahardy17

shack wrote: »

What a load of crap......:rolleyes:

i don't think i've ever seen a copper clothes hanger in my life. i doubt a steel hanger could provide the same quality sound as copper wire...especially over any distance...i wish i had my software handy that gives details about metal conductivity...

TECHNOKID

shack wrote: »

What a load of crap......:rolleyes:

Agreed...

F1nut wrote: »

Fortunately, I have the decoder ring with me today, so I was able to understand your post.

Since you seem to like to believe what you read, here's something for you to ponder.

"Now back to the question of the blinded testing. Here is what the now publisher (Robert Harley) of one of the major magazines wrote a few years ago....


Quote:
Blind tests nearly universally appear to indicate that no differences exist between electronics, cables, capacitors, etc. In fact, one infamous test "revealed" that no sonic differences exist between power amplifiers. Mark Levinson, NYAL Futterman OTL tube monoblock, NAD, Hafler, and Counterpoint power amplifiers were all judged to be sonically identical to each other and to a $219 Japanese receiver (footnote 7). This very test, wielded by the objectivists as proof that all amplifiers sound alike, in fact calls into question the entire blind methodology because of the conclusion's absurdity. Who really believes that a pair of Futterman OTL tube amplifiers, a Mark Levinson, and a Japanese receiver are sonically identical? Rather than bolster the objectivist's case, the "all amplifiers sound the same" conclusion of this blind test in fact discredits the very methodology on which hangs the objectivist's entire belief structure.

If differences do exist between components, why don't blind tests conclusively establish the audibility of these differences? I believe that blind listening tests, rather than moving us toward the truth, actually lead us away from reality.

First, the preponderance of blind tests have been conducted by "objectivists" who arrange the tests in such a way that audible differences are more difficult to detect. Rapid switching between components, for example, will always make differences harder to hear. A component's subtleties are not revealed in a few seconds or minutes, but slowly over the course of days or weeks. When reviewing a product, I find that I don't really get to know it until after several weeks of daily listening. Toward the end of the review process, I am still learning aspects of the product's character. Furthermore, the stress of the situation—usually an unfamiliar environment (both music and playback system), adversarial relationship between tester and listener, and the prospect of being ridiculed—imposes an artificiality on the process that reduces one's sensitivity to musical nuances.

Going beyond the nuts and bolts of blind listening tests, I believe they are fundamentally flawed in that they seek to turn an emotional experience—listening to music—into an intellectual exercise. It is well documented that musical perception takes place in the right half of the brain and analytical reasoning in the left half. This process can be observed through PET (Positron-Emission Tomography) scans in which subjects listening to music exhibit increased right-brain metabolism. Those with musical training show activity in both halves of the brain, fluctuating constantly as the music is simultaneously experienced and analyzed. Forcing the brain into an unnatural condition (one that doesn't occur during normal music listening) during blind testing violates a sacrosanct law of science: change only one variable at a time. By introducing another variable—the way the brain processes music—blind listening tests are rendered worthless."

...and so is this!

I find very odd people trying to discredit science to prove their point when in fact it is science, engeneering and technical logic that brought about ALL of those fine systems we are all listening to... NOT magic or faith. Blind testing is FACT. If the brain is actually fully working, the more reason for one to be able to detect changes. Is A & B equal or are they different? Blind testing is an accurate way to prove ya or na, you can not simply turn around and deny facts because they do not match your beliefs! The stove is hot! The fact that you have FAITH will not change the fact that you will get burned, this is a FACT!!! Blind tests results are FACTUAL and you can not deny the FACT!!

Cheers

hearingimpared

TECHNOKID wrote: »

Agreed...

...and so is this!

Blind tests results are FACTUAL and you can not deny the FACT!!

Cheers

The fact is they are not factual.:p

Let's' not take the emotional factor of music out of the equation.

heiney9

TECHNOKID wrote: »

Agreed...

...and so is this!

I find very odd people trying to discredit science to prove their point when in fact it is science, engeneering and technical logic that brought about ALL of those fine systems we are all listening to... NOT magic or faith. Blind testing is FACT. If the brain is actually fully working, the more reason for one to be able to detect changes. Is A & B equal or are they different? Blind testing is an accurate way to prove ya or na, you can not simply turn around and deny facts because they do not match your beliefs! The stove is hot! The fact that you have FAITH will not change the fact that you will get burned, this is a FACT!!! Blind tests results are FACTUAL and you can not deny the FACT!!

Cheers

Acutely oversimplified! It's crap!

F1nut

The stove is hot! The fact that you have FAITH will not change the fact that you will get burned, this is a FACT!!!

Care to explain how some folks can walk across a bed of red hot coals in their bare feet and not suffer any burns?

Blind tests results are FACTUAL and you can not deny the FACT!!

Really? What's factual about Mark Levinson, NYAL Futterman OTL tube monoblock, NAD, Hafler, and Counterpoint power amplifiers being judged to be sonically identical to each other and to a $219 Japanese receiver?

ben62670

No tech kid has a lot to learn...

CRESCENDOPOWER

ben62670 wrote: »

No tech kid has a lot to learn...

You are wrong one time in a thousand shots.

bikezappa

F1nut wrote: »

Care to explain how some folks can walk across a bed of red hot coals in their bare feet and not suffer any burns?QUOTE]

I can explain the physics of this experiment. You could also ask your father who as I understand from your older posts is a physicist.

The ablity to walk on hot stones in based on the low thermal conductivity and heat capacity of the rocks. The rocks used during these experiments are volcanic and they have a very low heat capacity and thermal conductivity. Not all rocks have the same properties.

Let me explain it another way if you bake an angle food cake at 350 degrees in a metal pan everything is at the same temperature, correct. However, if you touch the cake you will not get burned. If you touch the metal pan you will get burned. The difference that allows you to touch the cake or walk on rocks without getting burned is based on the thermal properties of cake and metal and rocks.