New Loudspeaker Eliminates Distortive Influence 310
fejrskov writes "The Danish audio/video company 'Bang & Olufsen' announced a new loudspeaker which promises to eliminate the bad influence from walls, floors and ceilings on the sound. This is achieved by using two technologies: ALT (Acoustic Lens Technology) uses sound dispersing lenses to make sound travel equally in all directions. ABC (Adaptive Bass Control) involves sliding a tiny microphone out at the base of the speaker, playing a series of test sounds, and adapting the bass according to the measured acoustic response. Each active loudspeaker contains amplifiers for a total of 2500W (!) output using B&O's patented ICEPower concept. The price? Approximately 55.000 Danish kroner (8.000 Euro) each."
Quite the look (Score:4, Interesting)
Additional note: the first B&O page linked has some display issues on Safari.
Re:Quite the look aka Em is dumb American. (Score:3, Informative)
What about 'Sony'? (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, though. I listened to some very, very expensive B&O speakers in their showroom, and I was astonished at how awful they sounded. No midrange and bass everywhere. Maybe it's just my ears, but it would take a vast improvement for me to ever consider spending that much money on their speakers.
Re:What about 'Sony'? (Score:3, Interesting)
If your hifi is in a room that's acoustically bad then wear headphones or fix the room.
B&O make fantastic TVs though, the picture quality of their avant widescreen is superb and has to be the best I've seen.
Re:What about 'Sony'? (Score:4, Funny)
-dk
Re:What about 'Sony'? (Score:2)
Like I said, it may be me -- I have a strange ear for sound, but I can definitely identify what just isn't satisfactory.
Re:What about 'Sony'? (Score:2)
I'd have to say that the Bose actually sounds better than the B&O.
Re:What about 'Sony'? (Score:5, Informative)
However, I also listened to their speakers and was utterly blown away by how awful they sounded.
In general, the rule for speakers is the sleeker/fancier they look, the crappier they sound. Nobody has really improved on the rectangular sealed box. Add ports (or "bass labyrinth" as bose calls it) and you get a bandpass boost that makes small speakers sound louder, but totally fucks the frequency response and distorts everything at higher volume levels. A driver needs a sealed chamber behind it to stabilize it for clean mids - channel that air around to the front of the box and it just starts to slop. Sealed box == clean sound but you need a lot more power and bigger drivers.
In the end I went with the BEO9000 wall-mount changer, but there was no way I'd have their speakers even if they were 1/10th the price. I just picked up a pair of Infinity studio monitors and a seaparate amp, and the sound is just phenomenal. I would love to take these speakers into the B&O show room and listen to them double-blind in the same room... I'll bet this pair of big rectangular speakers sound better than their "sleek and elegant" speakers for 1/4 the price.
I'm definitely going to head down there and listen to the new ones though. It doesn't look like they've made compromises on sound quality to get more power from a smaller box... they're just huge. Too bad I can't afford 'em.
BTW, B&O is big on using funky proprietary connectors for everything. The analog connections use 5-pin DIN connectors (???). However, they will sell you the necessary adaptors if you want to use your own choice of amp/speakers.
Re:What about 'Sony'? (Score:3, Informative)
You can make adaptors yourself, there is not much of a secret how sound is transmitted through it.
Re:What about 'Sony'? (Score:3, Informative)
Most european audio gear I've seen used DIN [hardwarebook.net] connectors. It would seem to be the european (or at least German) standard for connecting audio gear.
No Highs, No Lows, Must be Bose (Score:5, Informative)
B&O's spiel on audio lenses, etc. really is a bit of a smokescreen. There's no new technology here, and probably not a particularily good implementation of existing tech. However, it has great packaging, glossy magazine ads, and you can bet your arse those B&O store salespeople are smoooooooth!
Bose is sort of a low end version of B&O. Bose has the most effective and innovative marketing department of any speaker company out there. High margins for dealers, salesperson training, you name it. Watching a bose demo is as entertaining as watching a carnival sideshow. They'll play those little plywood boxes with paper cones through PVC tubing, inside other much larger "Speaker boxes", and a plethora of other gimmichs while gushing about how great they sound. You'd be surprised at what people will believe if they're told to. White Van speaker companies like Dogg Digital or Nuance are but pale imitators of the origional master, Dr.Bose. Truly a master.
While I respect them as highly profitable and effective companies, would I buy B&O or Bose myself? Probably not. When you want better sound for your dollar it is best to go elsewhere.
The little company that could: Linn! (Score:4, Informative)
linn.co.uk
For their 'low end' all in one home theatre CD, DVD, Tuner, 5.1 channel preamp/amplifier, multi-room capable receiver, see Linn's Classik Movie System (CMS) and CMS Di[gital] at:
classik.com
You'll also find their entry level Classik Music (two channel amp, tuner, preamp, multi-room capable) System. The newer, more complete Classik Movie includes CD/DVD/Tuner with 5 channel amplifier and component video out. The brand new CMS Di includes all the features of the Classik Movie but adds an even better CD/DVD processor and source input for both video (component video in) and audio (toslink optical 5.1 channel). The advanced CD/DVD sound processing is trickle down technology from Linn's brand new, state of the art Unidisk CD/DVD/DVD-A/SACD disc player.
All three Classiks have the same tiny form factor, except the new 5.1 channel Movie units have more controls and therefore a different face (same diminutive size though).
Despite their diminutive size, these units are better than most separates. Needless to say, Linn is very popular in Japan where tiny, powerful, state of the art electronics are a sign of excellence.
The pricing is under $2k ($1500?) for the Classik Music (CD, Tuner, et al.), $3k for the Classik Movie all-in-one (DVD, et al.), and $5k for the no-compromise movie Di (Unidisk processing trickle down, and component video and toslink inputs). The Di is not exactly cheap but packs amazing capabilities and superior quality into unbelievably compact package.
The units even include multi-room capabilities using multiple Classik units (Linn's "Connect" system), or connecting to Linn's versatile "Knekt" system to connect a variety of Linn components throughout the home/office into one system. Both Connect and Knekt offer keypad controls (e.g., wall-mount units to control the Linn Classik or other (Linn and non-Linn (by IR) components)).
Linn technology is unique in its blend of high technology and no-compromise emphasis on audio quality. For example, Linn uses surface mount technology and switch-mode power supplies which are rare in audiophile products (due to complications Linn has innovated beyond). In contrast, Bose has a reputation for taking cheap components and equalizing the hell out of them to get the semblance of accurate sound (but delivering an essentially synthesized sound on any music). B&O offers a genuine value in style, design, and compactness, but with some significant (but not necessarily critical) sonic compromises. Linn does not take the sonic shortcuts.
Instead, Linn innovates in a variety of ways (the first audiophile quality CD/DVD/DVD-A/SACD transport, innovative FM tuner technology, active speaker amplification, multi-room capabilities, etc.) and trickles the technologies throughout their product line. Few if any other companies even have the capability to pack everything into a single compact box with top flight musical and video quality as in the Classik product line. For Linn, the Classik just takes advantage of a host of their more advanced power supply, amplifier, tuner, multi-room, CD/DVD, and video technology all in one unit.
IOW, what Bose and B&O market in appearance, Linn delivers in performance. Anecdotally, Linn delivers the soul of music, musicians often choose Linn over other audiophile systems, and Linn deliver foot tapping sonic excellence. Linn's byline is "pitch accurate" sound. Let your ears be the judge.
Bose FAQ (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What about 'Sony'? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What about 'Sony'? (Score:3, Insightful)
>achieve better sound won't improve things if
>you don't have the right kind of room, and
>don't have the speakers in the right places.
That's not entirely true. In theory, you could use signal processing to not only overcome the limitations of the speakers themselves (say, a frequency response that's non-linear relative to the wattage driving the unit, or certain phase issues), but also the environment they've been placed in (room reflections or can
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What about 'Sony'? (Score:2)
>come up with a 'sensing' microphone that
>assured good quality from a listening location.
One possibility might be to let people make a deposit on their credit card for a high-quality, $2,000+ studio microphone. They'd use it to balance their system, then FedEx it back to the manufacturer. If they failed to return the mic, the manufacturer would simply go ahead and charge the cost of the mic to their card.
Re:What about 'Sony'? (Score:3, Informative)
8.000 Euro vs 8,000 Euro (Score:5, Funny)
Then I remembered that European countries have the odd habit of using decimal points to seperate thousands rather than commas... blah.
Re:8.000 Euro vs 8,000 Euro (Score:2)
2500 watts each? Now consider a three phase 480 volt power for the living room with a 14,400 oil cooled substation transformer feeding the circuit breaker panel and I'll believe these specifications.
Re:8.000 Euro vs 8,000 Euro (Score:2)
Also, any well defined amplifier is capable of outputing nearly full power continously. Having a much higher peak output than average output is a sign of weak filter capacitors on the power supply, which will
Re:8.000 Euro vs 8,000 Euro (Score:4, Interesting)
As I understand it, SI recognizes the ambiguity of the decimal vs. the place value separator. I believe that the encouraged convention is to use a nonbreaking space every three digits to mark place values--this way, either a comma or a period marks a decimal. No ambiguity.
As an aside, the European system makes more sense from a design standpoint. You use the smallest possible symbol (period) to mark groups of three digits. The most important place value you tag with a larger symbol (comma), so it stands out. For the record, I grew up in Canada, and we use the 'American' convention for decimals.
Of course, real /.ers should use scientific notation for everything.
Re:8.000 Euro vs 8,000 Euro (Score:2)
I grew up in Quebec (which is still part of Canada, last time I checked), and when I was in elementary school (late eighties) they taught us to use the comma to mark the decimal point. By the time I reached high school, they had given up on that.
Re:odd habit? (Score:2, Funny)
Dear brainwashed hostage,
Please tell me what country you are living in that promotes this viewpoint, so that I may send the United States armed forces to liberate it.
Sincerely,
President George W. Bush
Re:odd habit? (Score:2)
Re:odd habit? (Score:2)
All the major English-speaking countries (England, US, Canada, Australia, and some others) use the comma as the thousands separator. Last I knew, France and Sweden used spaces as a separator, and Switzerland used apostrophes. So just which countries, aside from a few in Europe, use the period, and
Re:Fahrenheit (Score:5, Informative)
What relevant thing happens at 0 F...? Or at 100 F, for that matter?
The centigrade scale is based on water, which is "just" one of the most common (and arguably the most important) substances on Earth. Do you know what the Farenheit scale is based on? Let me quote from a History site:
"For seven years Fahrenheit worked out an alcohol thermometer scale based on three points. He chose the freezing point of a certain salt-water mixture for zero. He used the freezing point of water for 32 degrees. And body temperature he called 96 degrees.
Why the funny numbers? He originally used a twelve-point scale with zero, four, and twelve for those three benchmarks. Then he put eight gradations in each large division. That's how he got that strange 96 number - it was eight times twelve. Body temperature is actually a tad higher than 96, but it was close. Later, Fahrenheit made mercury thermometers that let him use the boiling point of water instead of human body temperature for the high mark."
But of course, by then the "standard" had been defined, so water now had to boil at the lovely temperature of "212 degrees".
In other words, Farenheit is the way it is because of legacy support (what does that remind me of?). Its "design" was shaped by the equipment's limitations and by totally arbitrary things such as "the freezing point of a certain salt-water mixture".
Just because you're used to something doesn't mean it's "better" and it certainly doesn't mean that whoever invented it spent much time thinking about it. Look at some modern "standards" and you'll see things haven't changed much since 1700.
RMN
~~~
P.S. - If centigrade is "stupid" but Kelvin is "smart", then why did Kelvin adopt the same "size" for the degrees? The only difference between Celsius (centigrade) and Kelvin is that Celsius' zero is based on water and Kelvin uses the absolute zero.
Re:Fahrenheit (Score:4, Informative)
Is there life on Mars? (Score:3, Funny)
I suspect that if we move to other planets we'll change their atmosphere to match the Earth's. Either that or we'll live inside closed biospheres with Earth-like conditions. So we'll still be using centigrade. And x86. And a DOS compatibility layer. And complaining
For the lazy.. (Score:3, Informative)
http://xe.com/
For the Canadian (Score:5, Funny)
Re:For the lazy.. (Score:2)
What would rule (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What would rule (Score:3, Interesting)
If you really want to dampen sound, you may even want to fill your walls with sand. This will reduce the amount of a
Re:What would rule (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What would rule (Score:2)
This should be possible as processing step with PC audio software. Just
record a loud click-type noise (eg let a balloon burst). This is the
"finite impulse response" (FIR) of your room. It describes how your
room responds to a single impulse.
Using a mathematical formula, software can calculate the inverse impulse
response from this. This can be used to remove the effects that your
room had on a recorded signal.
This is
Re:What would rule (Score:2)
Yep. You need to get one of them newfangled psychic microphones--one of the ones that detects what sound you want to hear, rather than recording the sound that is actually incident upon it. Advanced versions of the psychic microphone will also adjust for errors in pitch (particularly for amateur vocalists) and can perform guitar solos.
Seriously, what you want to do can be done (to some ext
Hey, it's cheaper than Meyer (Score:2, Interesting)
Church, eh. (Score:2, Insightful)
What does this do that a serious audiophile can't? (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, "acoustic lens" is just a fancy term for a horn, something that has been used for years to control dispersion and distortion. Also, a mic extended from the base to measure the low-end response? Has anyone heard of a Real Time Analyzer (RTA)? Linear X [linearx.com] makes a PC based RTA for around $900 (PCRTAjr). If you can afford a $16,000 pair of speakers, you can afford to buy an RTA to set it up, or find a dealer that has one.
Re:What does this do that a serious audiophile can (Score:3, Insightful)
It looks fancier and thus the wives can accept them in a living room.
Re:What does this do that a serious audiophile can (Score:2)
Uses? (Score:3, Interesting)
Seems like it's only prominant feature is the ability to produce 360 degree sound, but for that price, you could easily get 5 or 6 high quality speakers and arrange them in a circle.
The flash based site doesn't yield any useful specs either.
Re:Uses? (Score:2)
None of the above. They're designed to enable rich people to show off.
Re:Uses? (Score:2)
>equalized set of JBL speakers can't produce?
It can do it at quiet volumes. For some of us, an amp and speaker is worhless if it is incapable of damaging the foundation of a house. It's very easy to overcome limitations of a room when you are willing to move huge volumes of air (FOH reinforcement for a rock band), because you make the room gemoetry irrelelvant. But at quiet volumes you have other problems.
I understand the apppeal of "home theatre" and
Why is... (Score:2)
An acoustic lens that makes sound travel equally in all directions? Sounds like a fast DSP that cancels out room reflections.
Multipath interference and distortion well studied (Score:4, Informative)
Not a US company, perhaps? (Score:2)
Perhaps it's because B&O isn't a US-based company, but based out of Denmark?
However, the interference of sound and magnetic waves has been studied to death by the military. The technology developed by Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs for doing A/D encoding ran into just such an issue with the US military -- it turned out some of their approaches were being used by these little cruise missiles the US had spent a couple billion developing. (They ended up being allowed to use it, but it was restricted so th
Audiophiles are *worse* than drug addicts (Score:5, Funny)
Moreover, when drug addicts throw their money away, they're usually pumping it back into the local economy instead of shipping it off to hardware manufacturers overseas.
Audiophiles, in contrast, aren't content to waste their money in private or among other like-minded individuals. Oh no. They have a compulsive need to prosthelitize about their audiophilia. As if there weren't enough of their kind in this world as it is, they will openly moan and complain about the quality of others' audio equipment and wax on end about the relative merits of whatever their latest hobbyhorse format is over mp3 which is far too lossy or whatever they're bitching this week.
In all my years of knowing dope smokers and heroin addicts, I've never known any to spend half as much time trying to justify the benefits of their drug of choice as audiophiles do about their wares. It just isn't done. Drug addicts are content to enjoy their recreational substances and leave it at that. Audiophiles feel a need to go so much further.
The other day, I was reading about the US Supreme Court's latest court case upholding the constitutionality of religious groups' use of public school space for after-school bible classes. But what I think was left out of the debate was how religious groups are such a small threat when compared to other secular groups. Whereas the liberals would like to bar the Good News club from coming to elementary schools, they would happily and cheerfully admit an audiophilia club. Whereas the Good News club is just trying to save your soul, the audiophiles are both trying to steal your soul and bilk your wallet at the same time. That is the true threat in our society today.
I'm glad someone is finally casting the light of public scrutiny upon this pestilence in our midst. Audiophilia must be banned and criminalized as it has no place in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Our forefathers did not give their lives to found a nation where we could scamper around with our goldplated headphones and 10 megawatt amps in one giant aureal masturbatory frenzy.
Bumperstickers? (Score:5, Funny)
Here's my first contribution:
Use vials, not tubes!
50 yrs after the transistor revolution... (Score:2)
what? (Score:2)
Re:what? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:what? (Score:2)
Re:what? (Score:2)
Parallel wiring (Score:2)
Biwiring speakers that are also bi-amplified makes perfect sense. It's the people who bi-wire without multiple amplifiers that are wasting their money.
There are two "audiophile" markets. One is the true audiophile that arranges equipment, furniture, etc. to maximize sound quality.
The other is buying 10-15K components because they're more expensive, and therefore must be "better". This market isn't just about functionality any more than buying a Porsche. Unfortunately, it's also probably about 75% of
Re:Audiophiles are *worse* than drug addicts (Score:3, Funny)
the best solution for audiophile clubs would be to require an IQ test upon joining and every 6 months thereafter to make sure you aren't stupid enough
By joining an "audiophile" club, you've already disqualified yourself from passing any imaginable IQ test.
Trademark Names (Score:2, Insightful)
'ALT (Acoustic Lens Technology)' and 'ABC (Adaptive Bass Control)' sound like marketing buzzwords. Where's a peer-reviewed paper describing the phenomenon?
The technology might be cool, but this sounds like a verbatim fax from Bose or similar hype marketing outfit.
I've been hating Stereo Salesmen since first encountering the snide ignorant critters during my connector quests of the 70's. I stomached being in their prese
Re:Trademark Names (Score:5, Insightful)
In all fairness, there's a legitimate marketing reason for assigning names to "technologies", however trivial those technologies might appear to an engineer. Let's say this speaker takes off, and the manufacturer wants to make a smaller, cheaper one with some of the same ideas. They can say "the model 5000 has ALT and ABC". This helps them rub off some magic from the flagship product to something more affordable. I still don't like it, though.
Oh, please (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm having a hard time swallowing this.
Acoustic lensing has been used for quite some time. I'm also not convinced that equal distribution is a good thing. With the traditional sound cone, most of the sound is directed at the listener. With equal dispersion, a lot the sound is being reflected. This means it's being muddied on reflection, and you have delay issues.
Regarding ABC: One of the biggest problems in bass is the standing wave. A standing wave is inaudible at one part of the room, but overpowering in another. One aspect of a standing wave is that it has no effect at the speaker.
Now, using a mic for calibration is a good thing. The Pioneer Elite VSX-45TX reciever, for example, can be hooked up to a mic that is placed at the listening position. It can then calibrate itself for delay, levels, and per-channel eq. That accommodates most room dynamic problems as well as they can be, at least by preprocessing. But if your subwoofer seems to have a screwy response curve, then no preprocessing is going to make it right-- you have to actually stand up and move it.
Validity of 360 degrees (Score:2)
Since I can't view the website, I don't know what, if anything, they're offering. But given a room with some reflections, speakers with a constant coverage angle and constant directivity can sound less colored by the room. This doesn't mean 360 degree coverage is a good idea - it will decrease the ratio of direct to reflected sound. However all practical speakers become 360 degree radiators below a certain frequency. So the question is, ho
Re:Validity of 360 degrees (Score:2)
This doesn't mean 360 degree coverage is a good idea - it will decrease the ratio of direct to reflected sound.
That was supposed to be the main point of my post, but I'm off my game today. Thanks for the insight.
Therefore the walls and ceiling receive a very uneven frequency response, which they pass on to the listeners. If you compensate this with equalization, life still isn't perfect because the direct sounds seem quite different in localization and character from the reflected sounds.
While I agree
Re:Validity of 360 degrees (Score:2)
I think what you're missing here is that the uneven frequency response reflecting off walls in a typical system is a result of the varying dispersion pattern of conventional frontward-firing drivers. By constructing a system that fires in all directions, the walls receive all frequencies equally rather than only those w
Re:Oh, please (Score:2)
Yes, you're right of course. This is what I get for posting right after I get up in the morning.
I was thinking of the case where the reflection distance (both ways) is equal to (k+1/2)l (where l is the wavelength and k is an integer). This would (if I'm still not hazy, and after last night I may be) produce an effect that the mic wouldn't detect. However, it also would, I believe, not produce the ickyness that standing waves do.
Even so, given the strange effects that bass has (standing waves being a de
Bose already has something similar (Score:3, Interesting)
They include special "headphones" (microphones you wear on your head). You sit in five locations where you normally listen to music/movies and play the special CD. It listens to itself and adapts the system to your living room. Yes, the change is clearly audible.
It also means your speakers don't have to be in a perfect rectangle. Place them anywhere you want and it will adapt.
I got the Lifestyle 35 (integrated DVD/AM/FM) for $3000 US. RF remote, sounds awesome and the speakers are *tiny*.
Re:Bose already has something similar (Score:5, Interesting)
I promise you, $3,000 spent could get you something much better than the same money spent on a Bose system.
P.S. that little microphone gimmick is just that, without reference grade microphones to run the measurements with.
think I'm full of it? Go post on some of the pro audio newsgroups, or check the forums at www.prosoundworld.com. Heck, even ask around on some of the home theater groups. Or ask the folks at FOH magazine. People that make their bread & butter dealing with sound. People who have real equipment that can accurately measure system response. People who do real research.
All of them will tell you that Bose is overpriced mediocre gear. Most people buy Bose and think bose is cool because of the marketing. They wouldn't know dbspl from dbv if you knocked them upside the head with an audio textbook.
Re:Bose already has something similar (Score:2, Insightful)
They sound better then most of what people listen to which really is crap. By this I mean, background music in places like malls, $100 boom-boxes, $10 headphones, that sort of stuff. So when people get a chance to hear an OK system, it sounds pretty damn good, if only in comparison.
Bose are small, they are incomspicuous, they are easy to have in a space without them dominating that space. For most people, I guess this is m
Re:Bose already has something similar (Score:3, Insightful)
A friend of my father's spent perhaps twice as much buying a Bose system. Lifestyle unit + satellite speakers + rad
Re:Bose already has something similar (Score:4, Insightful)
Just to name an example off the top of my head, check out Energy's $1,500 Encore 5.1 system. Blows the doors off of Bose junk selling for twice the price, without being any larger.
Or audition any of Linn's speaker systems in the $2,000 price range. When I first auditioned a pair of small Linn bookshelf speakers last year, I spent 15 minutes looking for the switch to turn off the subwoofer . . . only to finally realize there wasn't any subwoofer. Amazing what a manufacturer can do when they spend their money on quality instead of on marketing.
Re:Bose already has something similar (Score:5, Informative)
text [intellexual.net]
Dave
Re:Bose already has something similar (Score:4, Informative)
Bose is known for stuff that looks good, sound OK at best, at greatly inflated prices. Bose's QC also allows a 10dB variation to "pass" as a qualified product when most quality manufacturers use 3dB or less.
For half the price of that Lifestyle 35 you can get an Anthony Gallo set that looks better, sounds better and the speakers are little 3" to 4" spheres. IIRC, they don't rely on a midrange to do a tweeter's job or a woofer's job like Bose does.
I don't think the auto adjust is included but I wouldn't pay much for something I can do by hand and an audio meter for free, $40 if you don't have an audio meter. It's much easier to do than installing or using any computer.
What about the laws of acoustics? (Score:3, Interesting)
Acoustic reflections are going to happen unless you treat the surfaces that the sound is reflecting off. And to make a room more accurate, absorption is only one of the necessary treatments. Without diffusion, the room will sound very dead and, to many, quite uncomfortable.
The design (and placement) of an audio source is only one small part of making a room sound good.
Been into any hoity-toity restaurants in the past few years and noticed you can't understand the person 2 feet away from you? The popular design of restaurant spaces lately includes big vaulted ceilings and lots of open space, but few use any acoustic treatments in these spaces, causing large, boomy rooms.
It's not the source of the audio that needs to be changed (the talking people or the loudspeaker), it's the room itself.
The ALT simply attempts to remove the focal point (or sweet spot) from speaker placement. I've not heard one of these, but my feeling from looking at their website is the eliptical dispersion simply puts the focal point in a spot where no one actually sits and then tries to relfect that spot to the rest of the room.
That's nice, but... (Score:3, Funny)
Then there was a slight whisper, a sudden spacious whisper of open ambient sound. Every hi fi set in the world, every radio, every television, every cassette recorder, every woofer, every tweeter, every mid-range driver in the world quietly turned itself on.
Every tin can, every dust bin, every window, every car, every wine glass, every sheet of rusty metal became activated as an acoustically perfect sounding board.
Before the Earth passed away it was going to be treated to the very ultimate in sound reproduction, the greatest public address system ever built. But there was no concert, no music, no fanfare, just a simple message.
"People of Earth, your attention please," a voice said, and it was wonderful. Wonderful perfect quadrophonic sound with distortion levels so low as to make a brave man weep.
"This is Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz of the Galactic Hyperspace Planning Council," the voice continued. "As you will no doubt be aware, the plans for development of the outlying regions of the Galaxy require the building of a hyperspatial express route through your star system, and regrettably your planet is one of those scheduled for demolition. The process will take slightly less that two of your Earth minutes. Thank you."
The PA died away.
how much?? (Score:4, Funny)
Eight Thousand Euro???
Wow.
That's what I call getting a Bang for your bucks.
Ahhh, more speaker "art" (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever wonder why after decades of research they're still a box?
Ever notice that B&O likes to make non-conventional looking stuff and then charges an arm and a leg?
They're selling you functional art at really high prices folks.
If you want speakers that actually sound good, then try an electrostatic or planar speaker. Magnepans [magnepan.com] aren't a kajillion dollars and are a damned good place to start looking for planars.
Re:Ahhh, more speaker "art" (Score:2)
Re:Ahhh, more speaker "art" (Score:3, Informative)
Make that good looking speakers that actually sound good, but even base models are still a bit expensive. The one thing that electrostatics do is keep everything pretty well in phase, but the magnitude is actually often all over the place often at least +- 5dB. They also still need a bass module (i.e. a "box") because planars don't have enough excursion.
Re:Ahhh, more speaker "art" (Score:2)
>a "box") because planars don't have enough
>excursion.
That's not always the case. *Small* planar speakers, like Magnepan's $700 entry-level pair, require a subwoofer if you want to reproduce loud low bass (think dance, rap, or the cannons in the 1812 Overature). But the giant-sized, 7' tall top-of-the-line Magnepan speakers certainly don't require a sub. True they're expensive (around $4,000 a pair, I believe), but they're still only a fraction the cost
Re:Ahhh, more speaker "art" (Score:3, Interesting)
Or... (Score:2)
Or........... About 8 VW Beetles..
WOW! Sounds REALLY Neat! (Score:2)
Another browser needed...
To view this site, you must use either:
Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.5+ for Windows or Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0+ for Mac OS or Netscape 6.0+ for Windows or Mac OS or Mozilla 1.0 for Linux users
Please visit the supplier websites to attain the appropriate browser
The Open Source Way... (Score:5, Informative)
360 degree speakers (Score:2)
B&Ollocks! (Score:5, Informative)
IMHO, all this crap that companies like B&O and Bose spew about their R&D and the latest gadget they've come up with to "shape" the sound or whatever has little basis in reality at all. Audio reproduction is not a mystery. It is well known how to get good results. There's no secret to it and B&O have not made any breakthroughs.
So if you have the cash and the inclination, instead of spending 8 grand on a pair of these speakers, get yourself some kit from Quad, TAG McLaren Audio, Arcam, Mission, etc. I'm willing to bet you could put together an entire system that'd sound ten times as good as these for a quarter of the cost of these speakers alone, without any of this nonsense they're putting in them.
Having said all that, I'm currently listening to a pair of B&O speakers, although they are about 30 or 40 years old. Obviously they had a bit more of a clue back then as the speakers sound amazing, although they were marred by the very long and very thin cables they came with. A bit of modification of the terminals to accept a thicker cable made them sound like a completely different set of speakers. It makes me wonder, if B&O were prepared to completely ruin the sound for the sake of the design of the cable, of all things.. what else are they doing?
Anything like what Bob Carver does? (Score:2, Interesting)
This Tracking Downconverter supplies their 11" cube subs with enough power to get the stroke of the subwoofer to over 2"... that's moving quite a bit of air. With I believe an 8 pound magnet, and 16 pounds of dead weight on the opposite
walk into your local B&O store in a tie dye sh (Score:3, Informative)
that's how "Good" B&O equipment is. they're worse than Bose when it comes to selling for 8x markup.
Too clean, too perfect (Score:2, Insightful)
It seems some find digital music too clean and pure. The "dirt" adds personility, and this is even from the young croud, not just nastalgia seekers.
Perfect reproduction and esthetic enjoyment are not necessarily the same thing. A lot of it is one-upmanship. Then again, some get entertainment from listening to music, others get it
Well, it could mean one thing... (Score:2)
Where are the specs? (Score:3, Interesting)
If you really want a speaker that performs in a similar manner and you're not afraid to build it yourself, take a look at:
http://www.agora.dk/users/ole.thofte/conus1.htm
This is the Conus I speaker by Ole Thofte- he estimates that it costs about $85 to build, and it should sound as good or better than the $8,000 B&O speaker. And as for the little microphone? If you get some books and a few pieces of test equipment, you can take care of this yourself at a very low price. Either that or you have an extra $7,915 to hire a professional to do setup and placement for you.
Also, the acoustic lens is nothing new. I just looked it up in the Audio Cyclopedia, and while there was no date of origin, the Cyclopedia is copyrighted 1959, so the acoustic lens is at least 44 years old. This is just another example of tarting up old technology and trying to pass it off as something new. This kind of snakeoil is not unusual in high-end audio.
What's sad is that if you want a decent stereo and not pay a fortune for it these days, you have to build it yourself. Speakers sold at the big box electronics stores are not good (including Bose; if you don't believe me, go Google for some performance specs on them. Your $20 computer speakers probably have more accurate reproduction), a quick comparison with "good" speakers leaves no doubt, whether you're an audiophile or not. As for me, I dropped about $250 to build a pair of full-range ribbon loudspeakers with wonderfully flat response. Could have built them for less, a lot of the price was for two types of exotic wood I wanted to use. Anyone seriously interested in good sound should skip this overpriced crap and check out the DIY forums on the Internet. You really can set up a wonderful system for well under $1,000.
Eliminates distortive influence? [probably not] (Score:2)
The original geeks (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How many Yen is that? (Score:3, Funny)
Kroner in question is use in Denmark (as B&O is a danish company). Euro is used by 303 million people in Europe.
Re:How many Yen is that? (Score:2)
That's funny. But seriously.. the Slashdot crowd is largely US based, and the editors must understand that Americans have a hard time relating to anything else than dollars.
Some of them might know that the Euro is the currency of the emu, but most of them would expect one dollar to translate into thousands of Euros or more. In addition to that, there is the totally insane European concept of using a punctuation mark instead of a comma. It's like, totally whack, for sure.
Now, do you think it's reasonable t
Re:How many Yen is that? (Score:2)
Absolutely. I think you are underestimating the people visiting Slashdot. And even if the average Slashdotter is as, uh, educationally challenged as you imply, this article may have made them either understand a little more about the world or scared them away. Both cases leave Slashdot with a more educated audience.
Re:Can't wait (for the ground effect version) (Score:2)
Re:Hah... (Score:2)
Fortunately for the US, the Euro is now rising fast against the dollar which might do something to help US exports.
Re:2500 watts of full range flautence! (Score:2)
Re:2500 watts of full range flautence! (Score:2)
People who use horns are used to getting 108db from a couple of watts, not 2500!
And yes, unless you can reach 120db with a handful of watts, your speaker is going to be distorting like hell at lower, more listenable volumes.
Re:Beware speakers that exist to please wives. (Score:2)