TANG BANG VERSION OF BOSE?

[tomk]

HAS ANYONE BUILT A BOSE-LIKE SYSTEM USING FULL RANGE TANG BANG DRIVERS? I AM HELPING A FRIEND WHO WANTED A BOSE ACOUSTIMAS SYSTEM WITH THE TINY CUBES. I TALKED HIM OUT OF BUYING BOSE, AND I ASSUME A TANG BANG VERSION USING 2 OR 3" FULL RANGE DRIVERS WOULD BLOW IT AWAY. ESPECIALLY IF WE ADD A SUB USING 2 OR 3 OF THE NEO 6'1/2" SUBS WITH A PLATE AMP. IF ANYONE HAS BUILT A SYSTEM LIKE THIS AND HAS PICS PLEASE SEND THEM. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THEM. THANKS.

[randogdavis]

<A HREF="http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-...2/MVC-004F.JPG">http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-...2/MVC-004F.JPG</A>

<A HREF="http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-...2/MVC-007F.JPG">http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-...2/MVC-007F.JPG</A>

[tsmith1315]

> HAS ANYONE BUILT A BOSE-LIKE SYSTEM USING
> FULL RANGE TANG BANG DRIVERS? I AM HELPING A

Sounds like you're interested in very, very small "full" ranges with a little sub? The 3" need a substantially larger enclosure as Randy's pictures demonstrate. They'll sound substantially better as well.

To get as tiny as the Bose cubes is tough. If that's a primary design goal, you'r most likely going to have to resort to 2" drivers and their shortcomings.

You may want to check out Aura's offerings, as well as the Adire 3" fullrange. Adire claims respectable midbass and efficiency in as little as 28 cubic inches.

Trouble is, even 28 cubic inches of internal volume gets quite a bit bigger than the Bose cubes once you add layer of 1/2 inch wood around it. Bose uses molded plastic enclosures to really make the most from the external dimensions.

I'm no Bose fan, but deep pockets offer more alternatives. Fiberglass or carbon fiber in epoxy could be layed around a small mold to make a relatively strong, thin enclosure...

I have been tossing around various similar ideas
for unobtrusive on-dash speakers in my car. But, quite frankly the 2" drivers just don't have enough cone area (even in pairs), a couple of 3" drivers show some promise, and the 4" are just too big...

Tim

[tomk]

I believe Bose uses 2 1/2" drivers in their little cubes. The TB 2" drivers look like they would lack a bit. The 3" seem more promising and can still reach 20khz - however as you mentioned the cabinet size gets bigger. I will check out the other brand that you recommended and play with some of those ideas. Bose also does not supply frequency responses for their speakers - they want you to just listen rather than look at specs, but I doubt their cubes reach 20khz.

[kduggan]

> To pull this off I believe you will have to raise the sub crossover point above 200 HZ. I also think the enclosure of choice might be a 4" pvc coupling. it should allow the three inch TB to reach near 200 hz and its thin walls will aid in the enclousre size.

I have been told the single cube bose systems cross at over 300 HZ. I personally don't see how this could be true. If you cross that high you would have tons of vocals coming through the sub.

HAS ANYONE BUILT A BOSE-LIKE SYSTEM USING
> FULL RANGE TANG BANG DRIVERS? I AM HELPING A
> FRIEND WHO WANTED A BOSE ACOUSTIMAS SYSTEM
> WITH THE TINY CUBES. I TALKED HIM OUT OF
> BUYING BOSE, AND I ASSUME A TANG BANG
> VERSION USING 2 OR 3" FULL RANGE
> DRIVERS WOULD BLOW IT AWAY. ESPECIALLY IF WE
> ADD A SUB USING 2 OR 3 OF THE NEO
> 6'1/2" SUBS WITH A PLATE AMP. IF ANYONE
> HAS BUILT A SYSTEM LIKE THIS AND HAS PICS
> PLEASE SEND THEM. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THEM.
> THANKS.

[tomk]

> I have been told the single cube bose
> systems cross at over 300 HZ. I personally
> don't see how this could be true. If you
> cross that high you would have tons of
> vocals coming through the sub.

> I am not sure how they pull it off either. Originally I was going to aim for the 3" drivers to go down to 150 hz but 200 hz is much more reasonable for them. PVC is also a good idea just like in the TB line array in the showcase.

At what point (frequency) does bass become "directional"? Because like you said if the bose is crossed at 300hz many vocals will be going thru the sub... I guess this is why bose wants $1500 for their cube system.

[tsmith1315]

> I have been told the single cube bose
> systems cross at over 300 HZ. I personally
> don't see how this could be true. If you
> cross that high you would have tons of
> vocals coming through the sub.

I worked for a dealer in the late 80's when the first Acoustimass system was introduced. It had two swivel-mount cubes per side and a bandpass sub with (IIRC) dual 6' woofers.
The rep told us the crossover points were assymetrical, 150Hz for the sub and 300 Hz for the cubes. Maybe the sub was more efficient, somewhat trading off a dip in upper bass for a peak in the muddy region. That's what it sounded like to me anyway.

Bose didn't supply response graphs to sell their product. Instead they supplied buzzwords, psychoacoustic demos, and a high WAF.

Damn, this is beginning to sound like a challenge to take on... Please keep us posted of your decisions and progress.

Tim

[aaronm]

> At what point (frequency) does bass become
> "directional"? Because like you
> said if the bose is crossed at 300hz many
> vocals will be going thru the sub... I guess
> this is why bose wants $1500 for their cube
> system.

The Bose cube systems are just another compromise and a lowsy one at that. A far better one can be found at
<A HREF="http://www.zaphaudio.com/audio-speaker20a.html">www.zaphaudio.com/audio-speaker20a.html</A>

It's not extra teeny tiny, but it's so cool lookin' who cares?

BTW, those TB 6.5" subs sound really nice, two of them in a PR box would hit the lows pretty good.

[jimgutterman]

Y'think?

I look forward to seeing what can be done with a tiny cube that will better what Bose has done. Larger enclosures would be considered cheating in this context...

Bose put a great deal of engineering into that system. Regardless of what the opinion of people may be, it is a remarkable achievement as anyone that seeks to replicate it will quickly learn. I suspect that any resulting system will suffer the very same limitations inherent in the Bose system; after all, the laws of physics apply equally to all.

There is only one way someone might pull off a better system but only as a result of being a DIYer; there need be no profit margin in a system designed by a DIYer thus there may be drivers and/or techniques available to us that Bose could not consider due to cost. Keep the component cost the same and the challenge would grow significantly.

Go for it. I look forward to hearing about how it comes out. It would be really nice to see how it measures compared to a Bose system; if you manage to better the Bose system using the same size cubes for a price less than half the final cost of the Bose system you have a real winner on your hands. Keep in mind the actual component cost of the Bose system is likely to be on the order of a couple of hundred bucks for a $1,500 retail system; if you make it with a budget of $750 you have accomplished quite a coup indeed.

[alann]

> Y'think?

> I look forward to seeing what can be done
> with a tiny cube that will better what Bose
> has done. Larger enclosures would be
> considered cheating in this context...

> Bose put a great deal of engineering into
> that system. Regardless of what the opinion
> of people may be, it is a remarkable
> achievement as anyone that seeks to
> replicate it will quickly learn. I suspect
> that any resulting system will suffer the
> very same limitations inherent in the Bose
> system; after all, the laws of physics apply
> equally to all.

> There is only one way someone might pull off
> a better system but only as a result of
> being a DIYer; there need be no profit
> margin in a system designed by a DIYer thus
> there may be drivers and/or techniques
> available to us that Bose could not consider
> due to cost. Keep the component cost the
> same and the challenge would grow
> significantly.

> Go for it. I look forward to hearing about
> how it comes out. It would be really nice to
> see how it measures compared to a Bose
> system; if you manage to better the Bose
> system using the same size cubes for a price
> less than half the final cost of the Bose
> system you have a real winner on your hands.
> Keep in mind the actual component cost of
> the Bose system is likely to be on the order
> of a couple of hundred bucks for a $1,500
> retail system; if you make it with a budget
> of $750 you have accomplished quite a coup
> indeed.

I have put considerable thought in a system that would on a design basis compete with the little cubes and a sub. Bottom line, flawed concept, it’s broken coming out of the gate. Either the sub has to play to high in frequency or the cubes are SPL limited due to Sd and Xmax at low frequencies. It’s a pick your compromise or compromises. For me a clean sheet of paper and a better concept are the better design choice. Trying to improve a bad idea by duplication a bad idea. Its like trying to polish a “you know what”. It still is what it is.

[jimgutterman]

If your goal is excellent sound quality, then your point is dead on.

If your goal is to produce the best sounding system that can be stuffed into a tiny little cube acceptable to people that place aesthetics over sound quality, then your point missed the mark.

By definition the people buying the Bose cube system place a significantly higher priority on the aesthetics than the sound. I swear this is a point that is constantly missed on this board; Bose customers want the best sound they can get in a given package which often requires substantial compromise of sound quality we would find entirely unacceptable and for good reason.

No one with any real concern for sound quality will accept the output of any system of this nature; therefore these systems are oriented towards people willing to sacrifice sound for looks. That pretty much rules out anyone on this board.

I believe it is certainly possible to reach a somewhat better compromise than attained by Bose, but only by using components or techniques not practical for a mass-market system.

Compromise is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder; one man's compromise is another man's pleasure. Every single person I know that has one of these systems puts looks over sound and is quite happy with the results even though I look for a basket to puke in. So be it.

Glad you see that you confirmed that the number one requirement for such a system be that the user is willing to accept a compromise few if any of us would accept.

> I have put considerable thought in a system
> that would on a design basis compete with
> the little cubes and a sub. Bottom line,
> flawed concept, it’s broken coming out of
> the gate. Either the sub has to play to high
> in frequency or the cubes are SPL limited
> due to Sd and Xmax at low frequencies. It’s
> a pick your compromise or compromises. For
> me a clean sheet of paper and a better
> concept are the better design choice. Trying
> to improve a bad idea by duplication a bad
> idea. Its like trying to polish a “you know
> what”. It still is what it is.

[madrok]

The way to do this is to use a somewhat higher Q 2-3" driver in a tiny box. You might find that with a little equalization, you don't even need to seal it or vent it to let it reach...barely...a sub at about 200Hz. Then you place the sub intelligently, and you will be surprised how much of the vocal you do NOT hear from the subwoofer.

I've gone to 150Hz, 24dB/octave, and everything is beautiful. With a 3" Aurasound and the 12" NHT. in the middle. Corner loading of the sub is a big no-nop for this.

Beyond that, the lower midrange starts to sound thin, as the Bose cubes do. And the deep bass becomes too much. But with good placement, and good satellites (the Aurasound and HiVi are both really good), you can get better Bose for much less than $750 depending on how you implement the active xover, which is a must. You also get a much more flexible, adjustable system.

[alann]

> The way to do this is to use a somewhat
> higher Q 2-3" driver in a tiny box. You
> might find that with a little equalization,
> you don't even need to seal it or vent it to
> let it reach...barely...a sub at about
> 200Hz. Then you place the sub intelligently,
> and you will be surprised how much of the
> vocal you do NOT hear from the subwoofer.

> I've gone to 150Hz, 24dB/octave, and
> everything is beautiful. With a 3"
> Aurasound and the 12" NHT. in the
> middle. Corner loading of the sub is a big
> no-nop for this.

> Beyond that, the lower midrange starts to
> sound thin, as the Bose cubes do. And the
> deep bass becomes too much. But with good
> placement, and good satellites (the
> Aurasound and HiVi are both really good),
> you can get better Bose for much less than
> $750 depending on how you implement the
> active xover, which is a must. You also get
> a much more flexible, adjustable system.

Please expand on placing the sub and will it’s placement be acceptable to imaginary typical Bose user?

[surroundu]

You certainly know what you're talking about, Aaron. Compromises aplenty in a sub/sat design.

I kept thinking about the TB alternative, and was wondering [likely a stupid idea] if it were possible to scale down the enclosure to closely match the Bose cubes, yet maintain decent performance through some form of LT circuit for the satellites. There would be some module in place before amplification, and likely some efficiency tradeoffs, but is it completely stupid in concept?

> I have put considerable thought in a system
> that would on a design basis compete with
> the little cubes and a sub. Bottom line,
> flawed concept, it’s broken coming out of
> the gate. Either the sub has to play to high
> in frequency or the cubes are SPL limited
> due to Sd and Xmax at low frequencies. It’s
> a pick your compromise or compromises. For
> me a clean sheet of paper and a better
> concept are the better design choice. Trying
> to improve a bad idea by duplication a bad
> idea. Its like trying to polish a “you know
> what”. It still is what it is.

[surroundu]

[alann]

> If your goal is to produce the best sounding
> system that can be stuffed into a tiny
> little cube acceptable to people that place
> aesthetics over sound quality,

I would love to know the amount of work that psychologists put into defining the sound quality tilt point where the intended typical potential Bose customer will accept or reject the product.

[jimgutterman]

I suspect you have hit upon one aspect of the Bose design; I think they do just that to eq the cubes.

> You certainly know what you're talking
> about, Aaron. Compromises aplenty in a
> sub/sat design.

> I kept thinking about the TB alternative,
> and was wondering [likely a stupid idea] if
> it were possible to scale down the enclosure
> to closely match the Bose cubes, yet
> maintain decent performance through some
> form of LT circuit for the satellites. There
> would be some module in place before
> amplification, and likely some efficiency
> tradeoffs, but is it completely stupid in
> concept?

[madrok]

When the xover is more typical for a mono sub, like under 100Hz, the maximum efficiency is in the corner. It may be a bit loud and boomy, but you don't notice the sound coming more from the left or right.

But when the xover is as high as 200Hz, you WILL definitely notice more bass coming from the corner, so you should put the sub between the satellites. And under a couch will not be as good in the open. This is true of the Bose system as well. They sound better with the subs between the two satellites.

How about an equipment stand in center with a TV on top, components underneath, and an 8" sub on the bottom shelf or floor directly underneath. Then the satellites on short stands, 8 feet apart. Of course, that's not going to work for people who don't even want an equipment stand. But a lot of people have home entertainment centers with drawers underneath.

[tomk]

I FOUND AN INTERESTING LINK SHOWING BOSE FREQUENCY SPECS...
<A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/p_iturra/Misc_HT_Speakers.html">http://www.geocities.com/p_iturra/Misc_HT_Speakers.html</A>

SHOWS THAT THE BOSE CUBES OPERATE FROM 280HZ TO 13.3KHZ +-10.5DB AND THE BASS MODULE FROM 46HZ TO 202HZ +-2.3DB IF THIS IS TRUE THEN THERE CERTAINLY ARE SOME SERIOUS FREQUENCY GAPS...

THE ONLY WAY I SEE THAT YOU CAN BUILD A BOSE LIKE SYSTEM AND KEEP IT THE SAME SIZE AS THE CUBES, WOULD BE TO USE THE TB 2" DRIVERS... THE 3" DRIVERS WOULD REQUIRE TOO LARGE OF A CABINET. THE TB 6.5" SUB IS STILL A NO BRAINER TO USE. 2 OF THEM WOULD BLOW AWAY THE BOSE BASS MODULE. EVERY BOSE SUB THAT I HAVE EVER HEARD BOTTOMS OUT REAL EASY.

SO NOW... EACH SPEAKER IS REALLY 2 CUBES - ONE ON TOP OF EACH OTHER WITH A SWIVEL BRACKET CONNECTING THEM. CAN (2) 2" TB SPEAKERS FITTED INTO BOSE SIZED CUBES COMPARE TO THE BOSE CUBES? THAT IS THE QUESTION. THE TB'S SEEM TO HAVE A WIDER FREQUENCY RANGE. BUT AT 10 WATTS RMS EACH - 20 WATTS RMS PER SPEAKER BECAUSE 2 GO IN EACH SPEAKER - IT DOESN'T LEAVE TOO MUCH FOR POWER HANDLING - BUT WOULD IT BE COMPARABLE TO THE BOSE CUBES POWER HANDLING?

[tomk]

<A HREF="http://www.intellexual.net/bose.html#cubes">http://www.intellexual.net/bose.html#cubes</A>

This link tears Bose apart. If I go through with attempting this project I am realizing that building a Bose system is not an attempt to build the finest speakers system out there. It is an attempt to build a better Bose system for a fraction of the price.