home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: rec.audio
- Path: sparky!uunet!world!DPierce
- From: DPierce@world.std.com (Richard D Pierce)
- Subject: re: The Bose flame war: Equalizer Bunk
- Message-ID: <C1A7B3.469@world.std.com>
- Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
- References: <80693@hydra.gatech.EDU> <93022.112357MHUGHES@MIAMIU.BITNET>
- Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 00:42:38 GMT
- Lines: 28
-
- In article <93022.112357MHUGHES@MIAMIU.BITNET> <MHUGHES@MIAMIU.BITNET> writes:
- >
- >The mere fact that 901s are sold with an equilizer is testament to their
- >poor design.
-
- This is so much nonsense. Using active equalization is a perfectly valid
- engineering methodology to achieve a particular response. For example, one
- very nice design is to design a sealed box system with a Qtc of 0.5
- (seriously overdamped) then use a two-pole active high pass filter with a
- cutoff the same as the system resonance with a relatively high Q. The
- result is a 4th order system with high efficiency, relatively small
- cabinet and flat frequency response.
-
- Having defended the technique of active equalization, PLEASE don't think I
- am condoning Bose's obvious abuse of the technique. You can't get
- reasonable linear bass out of a system well below resonance. The technique
- I outlined above results in about a 6 dB maximum boost in the EQ at
- resonance, then a rolloff below that. The Bose EQ has a boost (as I can
- recall) of almost 24 dB well below resonance. The inevitable, physically
- unavoidable result is nothing more than LOTS of distortion. Period.
-
- On the same token, don't take Bose's abuse as evidence to heap wholesale
- condemnation on an otherwise valuable technique.
- --
- | Dick Pierce |
- | Loudspeaker and Software Consulting |
- | 17 Sartelle Street Pepperell, MA 01463 |
- | (508) 433-9183 (Voice and FAX) |
-