bose personal music sytem?

[littledog]

Lee,

I disagree. Most self-contained bands who drag their own PA systems, (and are the target consumers for the Bose products) are using bottom feeder reverb boxes - Microverbs, Digitechs, cheap Lexicons, etc. These are not bands that are dragging around Eventides, PCM 81's, or upscale TC units. Ans as you point out, unless you use an external mixing board (which kind of compromises the whole idea of the Bose system) giving everyone their own effects boxes that are of even bearable quality makes set-ups much more of a pain in the ass (think of all those wall-warts!), as well as being expensive.

Given the quality and quantity of DSP horsepower already in the Bose and given their R&D muscle, there is absolutely no reason why they couldn't come up with a a few rooms, plates, and halls that would be more than equal to the sub-$200 boxes that almost all their clients are currently using. That stuff about "not satisfying the discerning user" is, I'm sorry to say, bullcrap. Bose marketing muscle has always been able to "retrain" enough users to make their products successful - doubts from discerning users never stopped them before. The reason, in my opinion, that they would make a statement like that is fairly obvious - they want to sell the units they have already manufactured. They don't want people waiting arounf for a possible "Mark II" instead of buying the existing units. For all we know, they could release the reverb add-on next month. Do you think they are different than any other company in their reluctance to make their current product line obsolete by talking about future planned upgrades?

And discerning users? You were at those training sessions, Lee. How many pro-engineers were there? Out of 50 odd participants there were maybe two (that I know of)? Everyone else was a full-time performing musician who, as you saw, they assumed knew next to nothing about audio. And in most cases they were right. So they had, for the most part, 50 tabula rosas they could train (indoctrinate?) with their carefully crafted demos and presentations.

I can practically guarantee that they WILL be adding reverb and other possible DSP algorhythms (like delay, chorus, Leslie simulators, compression, etc.) Unless the system is such a flop that it is discontinued, they will have to do it just to stay maintain a market edge. (Do you honestly think that no one else will ever come out with a competing line-array system?) And when they do put in those additional DSP functions, whaddya wanna bet you won't hear any more talk about "they're not good enough for the discerning user!!!"

As you know, I'm not saying the product is worthless, by any means. And I'm glad you are having such unqualified success with it. But all singers (and others) may not be able to get away with singing or playing dry, especially in dry rooms. Musical style also weighs into the equation. If Bose has any intention of making this product mass-marketable, it would behoove them to deal with the reverb issue instead of making weak excuses.

[tradershort]

Great discussion guys! I tried this system at a Guitar Ctr in NY and was impressed. Unfortunately the guy paying for ithe PA knew nothing about sound/audio and wouldn't pay that kind of $, so he bought some Fender nonsense for half the price....

Anyway, has anyone mic'ed DRUMS through one of these things before? At least kick & snare? I'm curious to know this.

Thanks!

[lflier]

Originally posted by littledog

I disagree. Most self-contained bands who drag their own PA systems, (and are the target consumers for the Bose products) are using bottom feeder reverb boxes - Microverbs, Digitechs, cheap Lexicons, etc. These are not bands that are dragging around Eventides, PCM 81's, or upscale TC units.

Oh, of course not! But, I think even the bottom feeder outboard gear sounds quite a bit better and is much more flexible than the average effects that are built into PA's, that was my point. I mean, most of those verbs don't even have any controllable parameters at all except level.

And discerning users? You were at those training sessions, Lee. How many pro-engineers were there? Out of 50 odd participants there were maybe two (that I know of)? Everyone else was a full-time performing musician who, as you saw, they assumed knew next to nothing about audio.

I don't think a discerning user is somebody who necessarily knows anything technical about audio, but working musicians (if they are good, and most of those folks were) do know what they feel sounds good and what doesn't. And they do care about sound quality. And most of the working musicians I know would rather use outboard stuff than anything built into a PA (if in fact the previous PA's they used even HAD any built in effects). I don't disagree at all with what you're saying about Bose's defensiveness and the reasons behind it (wanting to sell what they've got), but I also think the decision not to include any effects in the first place was probably made based on some pretty good research - namely asking musicians whether they actually used any of the effects that came with their (probably cheapo powered mixers) previous PA's.

I can practically guarantee that they WILL be adding reverb and other possible DSP algorhythms (like delay, chorus, Leslie simulators, compression, etc.) Unless the system is such a flop that it is discontinued, they will have to do it just to stay maintain a market edge. (Do you honestly think that no one else will ever come out with a competing line-array system?) And when they do put in those additional DSP functions, whaddya wanna bet you won't hear any more talk about "they're not good enough for the discerning user!!!"

I'm sure you're right, I don't disagree with that at all. In any case, I'm the one who used the phrase "not good enough for the discerning user," I've never heard anybody from Bose say that and I'm sorry if I gave anybody the impression that they did. Bose's contention is simply that people usually want to use their own stuff, and I presume they didn't come to that conclusion out of thin air. It also matches up to my own experience. That's all I'm saying. They probably will in fact end up having to add effects because of the demand, like you say, but whether that will actually improve the product is another story.

But all singers (and others) may not be able to get away with singing or playing dry, especially in dry rooms. Musical style also weighs into the equation.

Oh yeah, I agree. We for the most part prefer no effects, we used to like a bit of reverb or sometimes slapback on the vocals with conventional PA's but we've never been a heavily effects oriented band and haven't missed it with the PAS - even though we have enough outboard reverb units for everybody if we wanted them. But certainly there are bands who rely heavily on effects because of the style they play. I guess the question is whether those bands would be satisified with the effects likely to be built into the PAS if they were added. Would they be programmable? Most bands I know that run their own sound and really like effects, use MIDI controlled effects cuz they could never control all the parameter changes manually from the stage.

I guess a compromise would be to just have a few verb and delay sounds for the musician who just wants a smidgen of that, which I suppose is a lot of them. So that's probably what Bose will end up doing.

[littledog]

Originally posted by lflier

As for effects... they've had lots of requests for it, especially reverb, and they are considering it, but their contention is that most of the reverbs that come built into PA systems aren't that great anyway, and to build one that was tweakable enough to satisfy a discerning user would be an expensive proposition. They've been asking people whether, if their current PA system has onboard reverb, they ever actually end up using it. And most people of course end up going with outboard units.

You're right, Lee. The way you wrote that it: "it was their contention..." certainly sounded like you were expressing Bose's view and not your own.

We're not in major disagreement, I think. The point I'm making is that the quality of a reverb unit is not determined by the case you stuff it into. Just because most cheap PA boards have crappy reverb doesn't mean you can put only crappy reverb in a PA board. If Bose limited themselves to only designing products that conformed to past perceptions and definitions, they would never have designed this system at all. The DSP in the Bose is far superior to that which you would find in a Microverb or a cheap PA head, and there is no reason why much higher quality reverb algorhythms couldn't be included. That's why I found their argument (which as it turns out wasn't their argument?) so ludicrous.

Polling someone as to whether they prefer to use internal or external reverb in their current systems has nothing to do with the question: Would someone prefer to have a built in high quality reverb (as well as compression, delay, etc.) available at the touch of a button, or would they rather drag around a half dozen additional boxes (with all the cables, wall warts, etc.) so they can be proud of the fact they are using "external" processing and effects?

I can't imagine many people happily choosing the second option. And for those who do have a favorite reverb or other box, there's still nothing to prevent them from plugging it in.

[lflier]

OK, I see what you're saying now, but I guess maybe I just think building a "high quality" effects processor into the system would be a LOT more difficult than you seem to think it would be. I agree that the DSP already in the system is of high quality, but to make effects that are both high quality AND have a flexible enough interface to be usable in place of outboard gear... I dunno. Sounds like it would add a lot of expense to the system to me. The interface would probably be the real killer more so than the algorithms (speaking as a programmer/systems designer here ). Therefore I'm guessing that if they did add effects, it would be something very simple and a lot of people would find it wasn't enough for them compared to what they're used to with outboard stuff. But that's all just speculation on my part of course, I could be totally wrong.

[littledog]

And I see your point as well, Lee.

I would imagine to utilize practical effects presets you would need to add a couple of cursor buttons and a parameter value knob to the current base station and/or remote. To be honest, I don't know how much that would add to the price. But seeing as there are effects boxes for sale for $100 total price that includes the power supply, chassis, LCD screen, DSP, audio/midi jacks as well as knobs and cursor buttons, I can't imagine that it would add a whole lot to the price - except for the fact that they might have to slightly redesign the base to accomodate those physical features. Maybe it would be easier and cheaper just to incorporate the new features only on the remote.

[lflier]

Originally posted by tradershort

Anyway, has anyone mic'ed DRUMS through one of these things before? At least kick & snare? I'm curious to know this.

Sure, we mic our drummer through his. If it's a small room, we just mic the kick - his vocal mic goes into input 1 and the kick in input 2. If we need to mic all the drums, we use a little Mackie mixer into one of the line level inputs. It sounds great!

What we have found works well in terms of controlling the mix is we turn up the drum mics until we can just barely hear them on stage over the natural drums. Then we back them off just a hair. This will give the folks in back coverage through the PAS while those in front will mainly be hearing the natural drums. It also keeps the mix truer between what we hear on stage and what the house hears. The exception is the kick drum - we do crank that loud enough to hear it well onstage since you can never hear the kick well enough anyway.

[lflier]

Originally posted by littledog

I would imagine to utilize practical effects presets you would need to add a couple of cursor buttons and a parameter value knob to the current base station and/or remote. To be honest, I don't know how much that would add to the price. But seeing as there are effects boxes for sale for $100 total price that includes the power supply, chassis, LCD screen, DSP, audio/midi jacks as well as knobs and cursor buttons, I can't imagine that it would add a whole lot to the price - except for the fact that they might have to slightly redesign the base to accomodate those physical features. Maybe it would be easier and cheaper just to incorporate the new features only on the remote.

Not to belabor this point too much, and maybe I'm being overly sympathetic because I've designed software. But I think the major cost would be in the development, and it might be a lot of cost for little benefit. I really did try to think along with Bose on this one (not by asking them, just trying to imagine myself working on the project) when I first found out there weren't any effects, and I think I'd have come to the same conclusion they did.

First off, putting an LCD screen on something that's going to be used onstage is asking for disaster IMO. It's OK on a rack unit which is going to be more protected from abuse, but otherwise I'm not a fan of it. Yeah I realize that lots of devices have them these days such as multieffects stompboxes and modeling guitar amps - but personally I think it's a really bad design decision. I know quite a few musicians who've owned those things and had the LCD fail at a gig. They are really pretty fragile things, and considering the way the PAS is designed and how it is used, it's pretty imperative that everything be durable and/or anything fragile be easily replacible. I think the mechanical preset switches, for example, were a great idea and probably were designed that way specifically to avoid using LCD's. I really don't want to be in a position of having my entire "PA" have to go in the shop just because an LCD quit working. If it fails on a multieffects unit you're not in that position. If it fails on a modeling guitar amp you're kinda SOL, and a few too many spilled drinks on your top panel and throwing stuff on top of your amp during a gig as most people do, and it's GOING to fail at some point. Ergo, I think anybody who would buy one of those amps is nuts even if the amps sounded good, which they don't. But I digress.

So if you don't wanna use an LCD screen, how would you do a multieffects interface and squeeze it into a space that small? I'd guess, you couldn't do much more than have a mechanical switch that switches between effects (e.g. "reverb," "delay," etc.) and a couple of knobs to adjust level and length. It would be hard to allow for much else. And since a lot of people wouldn't consider that enough compared to an outboard box, it would be a lot of development effort for little benefit. Ergo, not worth doing. I suppose you could have it be MIDI controllable from a separate controller, but then you're back to an external box again.

I have no idea whether the guys at Bose went through the same thought process (and now I'm curious to ask them! LOL), but that would've been mine. Maybe they will do it anyway at some point, and frankly a simple interface like that, if the effects sounded good, would be good enough for bands like us who don't use many effects if any. There IS a "data" port on the PAS which thus far hasn't been used for anything, and maybe it could eventually be used for effects control.

[Ted Nightshade]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by lflier
Sure, we mic our drummer through his. If it's a small room, we just mic the kick - his vocal mic goes into input 1 and the kick in input 2. If we need to mic all the drums, we use a little Mackie mixer into one of the line level inputs. It sounds great![QUOTE]

Now I know we're not talking about the same thing, when we say "it sounds great!"

Maybe it sounds pretty much OK with all the drums and vox from Spyder the drummer through the Mackie into the Bosie? Better than you would sound through the typical house system, maybe much better, I will believe. But "great"? I'm wondering how many % I should take off the rest of your claims... about the Bosie Bottiddy Bop.

Tell me how much better does it sound before you get the Mackie involved? Things must be pretty well damaged already if that isn't a real blow to the sound- or what I mean is, at some point in the chain things must be lo-fi enough that the Mackie's form of sound abuse is not really evident, if it's not. I'm sure you have it set up well with plenty o' headroom but still. Being "barely" able to hear the amplified drums from the stage must be a factor in your happy acceptance of that solution!

But I'm a fussbudget I know- so much so, that I don't play out often because it's not often possible to make sure things sound healthy- and subjecting people to unhealthy sounds is something I think is amply well provided for already...

you'll excuse me, Lee, I know you will. I'm just like this you see...

What we have found works well in terms of controlling the mix is we turn up the drum mics until we can just barely hear them on stage over the natural drums. Then we back them off just a hair. This will give the folks in back coverage through the PAS while those in front will mainly be hearing the natural drums. It also keeps the mix truer between what we hear on stage and what the house hears. The exception is the kick drum - we do crank that loud enough to hear it well onstage since you can never hear the kick well enough anyway.

I have little doubt that you are implementing the system available to you (3 poles, as I understand- doubtless it would be a further realization of the potential of this Bosie idea to have separate poles for each vocal, and each instrument) as well as it could be done, or close- you're engineer enough and ingenious and bent enough to pull good results out of some cheap recording gear that would give me fits. And of course using it well is going to be very necessary for any tool, but maybe are you a little overqualified? you know I'm half kidding but still.

I'll be back to hear more! Sounds like a great approach- it's the implementation I have my doubts about- what a tricky spot, $2000 a pop seems so steep but what can you really do for that kind of money retail? With digital and analog both, amps and speakers? Compromises are necessary... and one compromise compromises the next.

[lflier]

Ted, I shoulda figured you'd jump all over that. Tell you what: hate me if you must, but I don't mind at all the sound of a snare drum through a Mackie. I've sometimes used it by choice at times when I've had better stuff available. For the kind of stuff we play, even a little distortion on the snare and even toms can be cool - in fact that bit of distortion is part of why I like the sound of saturated analog tape for rock'n'roll. As for the kick, we still mic it directly into the PAS.

If you want to get into using GML pres to mic your drums through the PAS, be my guest. I'm sure it would sound wonderful and I'm sure the PAS would be great at amplifying the nuances of high quality studio grade gear. I don't think going to such extremes would be worth it for my band. From what I understand you play drums rather quietly so a very high-gain, low noise, low distortion pre might be of more benefit to you than us.

In any case, you're right about one thing: we do have to try and strike a balance between being practical and having audio that's as good as humanly possible, otherwise we'd never do a single gig. The PAS offers us benefits that really do improve the overall sound and the experience of playing, for us and our audience, far and away over what we're used to using. That's the important thing to us. If having that means putting a couple of channels of drum mics through a Mackie because that's what's available, so be it. But hey, if anybody would like to give us a rackful of GML's to use onstage, we wouldn't kick them to the curb.

[Ted Nightshade]

Originally posted by lflier
Ted, I shoulda figured you'd jump all over that. Tell you what: hate me if you must, but I don't mind at all the sound of a snare drum through a Mackie. I've sometimes used it by choice at times when I've had better stuff available. For the kind of stuff we play, even a little distortion on the snare and even toms can be cool - in fact that bit of distortion is part of why I like the sound of saturated analog tape for rock'n'roll. As for the kick, we still mic it directly into the PAS.

If you want to get into using GML pres to mic your drums through the PAS, be my guest. I'm sure it would sound wonderful and I'm sure the PAS would be great at amplifying the nuances of high quality studio grade gear. I don't think going to such extremes would be worth it for my band. From what I understand you play drums rather quietly so a very high-gain, low noise, low distortion pre might be of more benefit to you than us.

In any case, you're right about one thing: we do have to try and strike a balance between being practical and having audio that's as good as humanly possible, otherwise we'd never do a single gig. The PAS offers us benefits that really do improve the overall sound and the experience of playing, for us and our audience, far and away over what we're used to using. That's the important thing to us. If having that means putting a couple of channels of drum mics through a Mackie because that's what's available, so be it. But hey, if anybody would like to give us a rackful of GML's to use onstage, we wouldn't kick them to the curb.

Well your gear acquisition syndrome seems to include freebies these days, so why not? You are a capable spokesfolks and could do well for yourself... I wouldn't mind hearing the results!

Interesting that the kick still goes straight in.

If it doesn't have a line in that bypasses the pre, like some boards where you're better off attenuating to mic level to find the sweet spot instead of hammering it with line level and turning the pre way down, it might not really help to have a GML, just the right mic or attenuation to avoid overloading the pre.

My personal thing would actually be to do a one-mic on the vox and drums, so I'm not a candidate for a premix, 2 ins would be plenty. I think that approach would work well with the intent of the Bosephone. The other one would get keys and vibes, which don't happen too much at the same time- bass, we'd have to go with a separate rig to get the crazy low C's and that from the keys. So actually it's a pretty decent probability that the system would be a good call for us, if it sounds good enough. It would need to have beaucoup headroom though- between the drums and vox and vibes(!) there are just scary SPLs hitting the mic- which needs crazy headroom too. Problem is, headroom is expensive! Especially in solid state. Hence my concerns... and skepticism, since you like a touch of distortion on the drums, the hottest thing you're micing very probably, and I'm not seeing any specs for what kind of input levels it tolerates. At some point I will go to the GC, when they get some around here, and feed it a nice hot signal and see what happens.

I very much like the ambient idea- we're a 360 degree experience except for vox, to some extent, and the things with speakers-bass and keys- except for the leslie of course. 180 would be an appropriate way to do things.

Anyhow it's great to have someone experienced with this thing to answer my belligerent questions!

[lflier]

Originally posted by Ted Nightshade

If it doesn't have a line in that bypasses the pre, like some boards where you're better off attenuating to mic level to find the sweet spot instead of hammering it with line level and turning the pre way down, it might not really help to have a GML, just the right mic or attenuation to avoid overloading the pre.

I would think you could bypass the pre using the inserts. But honestly, I have no complaints at all about the Bose pre. I haven't really tried to establish its limits yet but it seems to be one of the things they threw the most money at. In fact I'm very curious to try them out in the studio just for the hell of it.

I do have my doubts about whether the benefits of using a GML or similarly high quality pre would be terribly apparent in a live gig situation though, unless you're talking about a pristine concert hall where there's hardly any ambient noise and the audience is being perfectly quiet! Which is hopefully not the case at any of our gigs.

It would need to have beaucoup headroom though- between the drums and vox and vibes(!) there are just scary SPLs hitting the mic- which needs crazy headroom too. Problem is, headroom is expensive! Especially in solid state. Hence my concerns... and skepticism, since you like a touch of distortion on the drums, the hottest thing you're micing very probably, and I'm not seeing any specs for what kind of input levels it tolerates.

I didn't say I liked a touch of distortion on the drums, I say I don't mind it and on occasion I like it. It's one type of drum sound out of many that I like. I certainly recognize and appreciate a very high fidelity recording of drums, but honestly I haven't ever heard that be reproduced in a live amplified performance, nor am I sure it could be no matter what you were using for sound reinforcement.

I'm quite sure the PAS can take a very hot signal though... how hot are you talking about exactly? I might be able to do an experiment here.

[Ted Nightshade]

Originally posted by lflier
I would think you could bypass the pre using the inserts. But honestly, I have no complaints at all about the Bose pre. I haven't really tried to establish its limits yet but it seems to be one of the things they threw the most money at. In fact I'm very curious to try them out in the studio just for the hell of it.

I do have my doubts about whether the benefits of using a GML or similarly high quality pre would be terribly apparent in a live gig situation though, unless you're talking about a pristine concert hall where there's hardly any ambient noise and the audience is being perfectly quiet! Which is hopefully not the case at any of our gigs.

I don't think ambient noise level has much to do with it- distortion will be evident regardless. When you have an instrument like a vibraphone that will either come out pure and magic or like broken glass, it gets pretty critical. Anyone can tell the difference between a healthy vibe sound and a clipped one.

Good to hear the pres are such a priority.

I didn't say I liked a touch of distortion on the drums, I say I don't mind it and on occasion I like it. It's one type of drum sound out of many that I like. I certainly recognize and appreciate a very high fidelity recording of drums, but honestly I haven't ever heard that be reproduced in a live amplified performance, nor am I sure it could be no matter what you were using for sound reinforcement.

I've heard such things at the symphony outdoors and on some jazz gigs. We've done it too- and with the real drums there too, of course it can sound much better than a recording! No converters and that- it's like the PA is the control room monitors writ large. You don't hear it a lot- not often enough! And many times it's not a big deal, but with our particular vision, it is.

I'm quite sure the PAS can take a very hot signal though... how hot are you talking about exactly? I might be able to do an experiment here.

Like +26 or so. On a signal where any distortion will be really evident- that's the trouble with the vibes, it's much worse than the drums as far as intolerance for distortion. Snare drum is a good place to distort a bit sometimes- not vibes.

I'm curious about what the pres can take and also what the inserts can take. hadn't thought about the inserts- can I skip the DSP that way maybe? Anything to lose some signal chain...