Bose L1 - something to save up for?

[Miket156]

Craigv:

 

OK, I was just checking to see if you had an ax to grind or not.

 

Quote by Craigv:

 

"So your answer was "no" (and added after you edited the post), and saying it's not worth saving for, but he's not asking about value, he's asking about what venues it'll handle. And this has been my point...there's a mob mentality going on here that blinds some of you to what the poster was asking. I'm simply asking you to look at that before you diverge into other directions."

 

Its not a crime to edit and add something after I've seen something in previous posts that I didn't address, is it?

 

I get what you're saying. My big problem with Bose is cost, not design, not sound. It's not a good value for what it is.

 

I have a relative that bought the Wave Radio when it came out and paid either $500 or $600 for it.

I have a clock radio that works just as well and I paid about $40 for it, a Panasonic I believe. Oh, the Bose does sound better. They both keep excellent time. But my relative actually had to get installment payments on a freakin clock radio. Criminal.

 

Mike T.

[Craig Vecchione]

 

I get what you're saying. My big problem with Bose is cost, not design, not sound. It's not a good value for what it is. I have a relative that bought the Wave Radio when it came out and paid either $500 or $600 for it. I have a clock radio that works just as well and I paid about $40 for it, a Panasonic I believe. Oh, the Bose does sound better. They both keep excellent time. But my relative actually had to get installment payments on a freakin clock radio. Criminal. Mike T.

 

 

And I know several people who ride Yamaha motorycles. In my opinion they are good quality bikes but their cost is pretty steep compared with others, and their accessories are priced out of this world. How does this relate to the value of an MG series mixer?

[Miket156]

Quote by CraigV:

 

"I didn't say or imply that anything was wrong with editing. I pointed out that you edited to add that comment because it changed your post, and I had already replied to the original."

 

I didn't see your post when I edited mine.

 

Additional quote:

 

"And I know several people who ride Yamaha motorycles. In my opinion they are good quality bikes but their cost is pretty steep compared with others, and their accessories are priced out of this world. How does this relate to the value of an MG series mixer?"

 

You know my point, Bose is more expensive than it has to be and more money than many other brands that can do the same thing.

 

Mike T.

[boseengineer]

I don't think it's productive to have an argument about what Bose does or not. Everybody has their opinion on the topic and this discussion is unlikely to change it.

 

The L1 is a somewhat different approach to live sound amplification, and naturally many people are interested what it can do or not. The most useful feedback comes from people that have actually used it for a while. As with all gear, some of the feedback will be negative and some will be positive and there is a lot of very good information in that. Opinions based on theoretical arguments (some of which are wrong) and the brand in general feel less useful to me.

[boseengineer]

 

I think a little clarity is needed here. I guess you could say that any speaker that you put behind you eliminates the need for monitors. It also limits the performance in terms of feedback and bleed. The Bose is no better or no worse here. I think it's an overstatement to say that the line array design makes much difference. Bose is subject to the laws of physics just like everyone else. If you cross the threshold of feedback ... you get feedback. Only Andy has the power to exclude his designs from the laws of physics (or so the thread says;))

 

 

 

Depends on what qualifies as "much of a difference". If you were to put a horn-based speaker and an L1 behind a performer and compare gain before feedback (for the same SPL in the audience), you'd see a very significant difference. I haven't actually measured that but my guess is, that's way in excess of 10 dB and probably more than 20 dB difference.

 

A properly setup and carfully controlled monitor system with a stationary mic and floor wedges will have significantly more gain before feedback than an L1 behind the performer.

[Craig Vecchione]

 

You know my point, Bose is more expensive than it has to be and more money than many other brands that can do the same thing.

 

 

The point it that Bose makes good products that you don't find value in. Meyer and Clair also make good products that cost a hella lot of cash. The fact that you or I can't afford them, or an L1 system, doesn't mean they aren't a good value. You could easily say that a Yamaha MG does "the same thing" as a PM5000, but that wouldn't be any more valid a comparison.

 

"The same thing" in the case of the L1/2 is a personal audio system with a line array speaker and integrated mixer with presets. The only remotely similar system is the Fishman SoloAmp, which is a shorter less effective array, only an array in the midrange, has 200w vs 750w, and has no bass module, for $1,000. It may be perfectly suitable to some uses as well. Haven't tried it, heard it or seen it in person, as it's a very recently available product.

 

The L1/2 are unique products that fit a narrow market. They won't fit the majority of 3-piece or larger rock bands, and Bose' marketing alienates the average sound guy. But they have a good following for the segment that they work well for...the solo and duo artists playing relatively light fair to the very typical bar, club and coffeehouse gigs. I've seen other uses, as I've mentioned, but for the most part the small acts are a viable market for this product. The cost of admission is high, but the rewards begin to pay off as soon as you load in for the first show. I don't see why that's such a terrible thing as to draw so much ire from so many.

[Craig Vecchione]

 

Depends on what qualifies as "much of a difference". If you were to put a horn-based speaker and an L1 behind a performer and compare gain before feedback (for the same SPL in the audience), you'd see a very significant difference. I haven't actually measured that but my guess is, that's way in excess of 10 dB and probably more than 20 dB difference. A properly setup and carfully controlled monitor system with a stationary mic and floor wedges will have significantly more gain before feedback than an L1 behind the performer.

 

 

That's been my experience as well. But how many monitor systems that match that condition are available to the average small act in the average small venue? You're typically very very lucky to get a crap wedge with who know's what mix.

[xmlguy]

A stationary mic and IEMs will have significantly more gain before feedback than a floor monitor system or an L1 behind the performer. IEMs seem to provide a better solution to many of the problems that the L1 is attempting to solve. IEMs can be used in venues where the L1 is unsuitable.

 

Using IEMs also allows a better possible configuration for speaker placement behind the performer than the L1 vertical towers. Using a horizontal array above and behind that mostly overshoots the stage mics would allow more gain before feedback than a vertical array, and a single stage width array would be a much more appropriate configuation for a larger number of performers than the 5 or 6 vertical poles that Bose suggests. A horizontal array would also seem to be a better solution to provide less of a single-point focused source of amplification, particularly if it has multiple channels across the width to allow individual instruments to be dynamically placed in specific positions within the array.

[Craig Vecchione]

 

Using IEMs also allows a better possible configuration for speaker placement behind the performer than the L1 vertical towers. Using a horizontal array above and behind that mostly overshoots the stage mics would allow more gain before feedback than a vertical array, and a single stage width array would be a much more appropriate configuation for a larger number of performers than the 5 or 6 vertical poles that Bose suggests. A horizontal array would also seem to be a better solution to provide less of a single-point focused source of amplification, particularly if it has multiple channels across the width to allow individual instruments to be dynamically placed in specific positions within the array.

 

 

Why would you place FOH speakers behind the performer if you're using IEM's? A horizontal array will focus sound into a vertical pattern. Why would you want that?

[xmlguy]

 

Why would you place FOH speakers behind the performer if you're using IEM's? A horizontal array will focus sound into a vertical pattern. Why would you want that?

 

 

A horizontal array could have a horizontal pattern, using horns with flat tops and bottoms, with flared sides, no? Or perhaps flat sided horns with tight patterns, depending on the overall distribution pattern of say, 12 or more drivers to cover the audience. A horizontal array above the performer could also provide a less obstructed shot to the audience. With a floor standing vertical array, the performer and all the gear on the stage are obstructive or reflective between the speaker and the audience.

 

One advantage of placing the speakers behind the performer is to deliver a more even sound level and distribution to the audience, according to BOSE in their white papers. Increasing the distance of the speakers from the front of the audience allows a higher SPL for everyone without being too high for those in front, ref. p. 39 of "Applying the Benefits of Unamplified Acoustic Music to Performances with Amplification" that Bose publishes on the L1 website.

[Craig Vecchione]

 

A horizontal array could have a horizontal pattern, using horns with flat tops and bottoms, with flared sides, no? Or perhaps flat sided horns with tight patterns, depending on the overall distribution pattern of say, 12 or more drivers to cover the audience. A horizontal array above the performer could also provide a less obstructed shot to the audience. With a floor standing vertical array, the performer and all the gear on the stage are obstructive or reflective between the speaker and the audience. One advantage of placing the speakers behind the performer is to deliver a more even sound level and distribution to the audience, according to BOSE in their white papers. Increasing the distance of the speakers from the front of the audience allows a higher SPL for everyone without being too high for those in front, ref. p. 39 of " Applying the Benefits of Unamplified Acoustic Music to Performances with Amplification " that Bose publishes on the L1 website.

 

 

 

You should research line vs point source systems. A line array works as I described. A tall vertical column will result in a wide flat dispersion, which works more this way as frequency increases. Thus, bass frequencies are not handled this way effectively, which is why you don't see subs in such an array. The longer the array, the more effective the pattern control.

 

Your second paragraph is what Bose writes, but it still isn't necessary to put the speakers behind the performers for those reasons if you aren't using the system for monitoring too. The inverse square rule still applies no matter where you begin the point of measuring SPL. If you don't want the front row blasted, adjust accordingly. No matter where the source, if the front row has, say 100dB, sound still drops off from there back at the same rate. If you don't need to cover the band for monitoring purposes, there's no sense in wasting that distance, and hence power, to get to the audience.

[Miket156]

Quote by Cragiv:

 

 

[MrKnobs]

I haven't been impressed with the BOSE L1 either.

 

I've seen it in use about half a dozen times here in Austin. It does have an interesting "spatial" sound, and is OK for a small venue. And by small I mean ~50, definitely not 300 and definitely not playing rock with a drummer.

 

The idea that a band can mix itself onstage isn't new. All truly professional bands do at least a fairly good job of mixing themselves on stage, the old fashioned way, by listening, by turning down when they're not being featured, and coming up when they're soloing or whatever. This works equally well with the BOSE system or with a pair of Yamaha full range cabs on sticks behind them.

 

It is, however, a complete fantasy to think that the audience 30-50 ft away is hearing the same sound as the band is on stage, whether you're using the BOSE system or anything else. Mixing yourself on stage works OK for a very small club, provided you have the main speakers behind you and provided all players act in a mature, professional manner.

 

In anything other than a very small club, room acoustics take over, dispersion patterns start to matter, and what you hear on stage is unlikely to remotely resemble what the audience is hearing. That's why bands have soundpeople. Bands that try to get by without soundpeople do that because they simply can't afford it, they're not tapping into the "power" of mixing themselves, they always had that power by playing softer or harder, or turning the master volume on their amps down.

 

With regard to monitoring, there's only so loud you can hear yourself with speakers behind you, whether it's BOSE or any other speaker system. If you want more, you either have to go to a dedicated monitor system (IEMs or wedges), or, GASP!, turn down on stage. Microphones have a maximum gain before feedback, and once you've arranged the speakers so they point at the nulls in the microphone pattern but directly at your ears, that's really about all you can do - other than go to IEMs.

 

Bottom line is the L1s are unusual and kind of pleasant/spacey sounding, but useful only for very small shows, and quite pricey compared to alternative solutions. The line array properties of the columns fall off with distance and in inverse proportion to frequency. The net result of this is a lack of low midrange / thinness at a distance.

 

You can do a lot better with subs than buying several of the BOSE units, and for a lot less money. Back during one of our previous pissing contests here, when the demonstration bands (got the systems for free) were singing the praises of their free gear, two of those bands privately contacted me and confessed they wanted more low end than their systems were putting out, and asked me to recommend added subs.

 

That's the reality of it. I have no issues with BOSE, other than what I considered inaccurate and intentionally misleading statements on their website. They knew better than some of the stuff their marketing people were saying.

 

I do like the strange but pleasing sound of the L1s in a coffee house type venue, provided the style of material is appropriate and there isn't a drummer pounding away. Probably a corporate type band whose job is to provide pleasant but unobtrusive background music while people talk, eat, etc. would do well with these. Like any other piece of gear, these have their place and it's a matter of personal preference.

 

But, like others have said, form your own opinion. Go out to some clubs and listen to the L1s in use. If their money back guarantee is still operative, by all means get some and try them.

 

Just my 50 cents.

 

 

Terry D.

[gspointer]

I heard a band using a couple of the bose systems, they were, drums, keys, guitar. They played C&W and 50's 60's rock. They were in a venue I have played at with my PA. Their volume was appropriate for the space, and they sounded fine. If I were to only play spots that size, I would buy one. I think they are a great solution for the right gig. Small/quick.

[Bajazz]

It's funny: I don't bash any products I've not gigged with and really tried out. And even those I hate after giving it up, I respect others to have other opinions on it: I tried the A&H MixWiz and gave it up, Behringer gear can be OK, I found my Shure PSM200 to be not after my taste.

 

But I never Bash those products, even if I give them up. Others might find them nice. I respect that.

 

Now, I've come to the point where I find a perfect PA for me. Lightest to carry, very clear sounding, great sound projection and distribution, fastest setup and easy to use, works nice for 200+. It might not be the best for all, but is simply the best for me.

 

Then there comes a bunch of guys bashing my setup, and they haven't even gigged with it. They also say that what is my experience is a lie. Still haven't gigged with it!!! What the h**???? They simply tell me I'm a liar and wants to trick other people into doing something stupid???

 

I think there must be some kind of problem you have. Is there a issue??

[Lee Flier]

 

I guess you could say that any speaker that you put behind you eliminates the need for monitors. It also limits the performance in terms of feedback and bleed. The Bose is no better or no worse here. I think it's an overstatement to say that the line array design makes much difference.

 

 

Actually, as someone with lots of experience using both types of systems, it makes a huge difference. The reason is, because of the line array design you don't have to turn up the Bose system as loud at the stage to be heard at the back of the house. The volume drops off at a much slower rate. So you won't need to turn up to the point of feedback anyway, usually. I think that's the hardest part to get your head around if you're used to conventional speakers.

 

You also don't need to turn up as much to hear yourself, if you're using the system as intended (one per musician), because the systems are spatially separated so you can hear all the different voices without having to make yours much louder. So you're less likely to have "volume wars" or excessive stage volume.

[Lee Flier]

Then there comes a bunch of guys bashing my setup, and they haven't even gigged with it. They also say that what is my experience is a lie. Still haven't gigged with it!!! What the h**???? They simply tell me I'm a liar and wants to trick other people into doing something stupid???

 

Well, to be fair, most of the people that bash the Bose system are sound guys. And I can see why they would because the system is usually not going to work for someone who has to have a rig (or several) that can deal with lots of different situations. It wouldn't work as a generic system at a venue, for instance, other than maybe a coffeehouse that features solo or duo acoustic acts.

 

The Bose system is mainly for musicians who mix themselves and don't have a sound man. And of course like with any other piece of gear, some musicians will like it and find it ideal for them, others will think it sucks. Just like an amp or anything else. And most people who use it will have to tailor the system to suit their purposes and there'll be a learning curve while this happens.

 

I think this system has some unique qualities as far as how both the musicians and the audience experience the performance, which some people will find worth paying extra for, just like some people will spend a bunch of money on a boutique guitar amp and someone else might think they were crazy.

[Miket156]

Quote by Lee Flier:

 

"I think this system has some unique qualities as far as how both the musicians and the audience experience the performance, which some people will find worth paying extra for, just like some people will spend a bunch of money on a boutique guitar amp and someone else might think they were crazy."

 

I guess that's true. I have friends that have paid very serious money for a brand new Taylor acoustic guitar and are happy as a pig in mud with their purchase. One thing I have to make clear, I'm not saying Bose makes crappy equipment. Everything I ever heard by Bose sounded excellent, ever their little wave radio. In some cases, pretty amazing. I may not be the best person to give an opinion on the L2 Model II system, because that system could never work for what I do and what I play. I'd say it is strictly a small venue line array system that is fine for solo acts, if they don't mind paying Bose price.

 

Lee, I appreciate your take on the Bose system, being that you have one and use it. You are in a better position to critic it than I am, but again, it would never fit what I do and I would never pay what they are asking for it. To each his/her own.

 

Cheers,

 

 

Mike T.

[Bajazz]

I think this system has some unique qualities as far as how both the musicians and the audience experience the performance, which some people will find worth paying extra for, just like some people will spend a bunch of money on a boutique guitar amp and someone else might think they were crazy.

And there are those who really are convinced that this is just a conspiracy!! Really, I'm not kidding! No, They really think it's all a plot against themselves personally. I can hear the X-files melody whistling in the background

 

So what is this?

[Craig Vecchione]

 

Quote by Cragiv:

[MrKnobs]

Yes, but whenever this wars comes it always is in the context of a soloact mixing himself looking for a PA for small/medium venues: It's always very clear in the original post! Nevertheless, the Bashers always manage to accuse the happy BOSE users of claiming it to be the solution to all worlds problems, including the power needed for heavy metal in large concert halls!!! When all we do is say that we are successfully gigging with it and advice them to test it and use the return policy, which btw no other PA brand has.

 

When it first came out, material on the BOSE site showed it being used in a fairly large auditorium without reinforcement, and indicated that it was superior to a traditional sound reinforcement system. That was an unfortunate decision by their marketing department, and the only thing that made me speak out.

 

I don't know if BOSE still has those graphics up. I was originally interested in the product, now I am not.

 

Terry D.

[Craig Vecchione]

 

Lee, I appreciate your take on the Bose system, being that you have one and use it. You are in a better position to critic it than I am, but again, it would never fit what I do and I would never pay what they are asking for it. To each his/her own. Cheers, Mike T.

 

 

 

Mike, isn't the quote in red exacty what I've been saying?

[Craig Vecchione]

 

When it first came out, material on the BOSE site showed it being used in a fairly large auditorium without reinforcement, and indicated that it was superior to a traditional sound reinforcement system. That was an unfortunate decision by their marketing department, and the only thing that made me speak out. I don't know if BOSE still has those graphics up. I was originally interested in the product, now I am not. Terry D.

 

 

I and several others here (maybe you?) argued with boseengineer about this back then. That was the only real issue I've had with the package. I don't think they actually intended to imply an oversell, but that's definitely how it appeared.

[Miket156]

Quote by Craigv:

 

"Mike, isn't the quote in red exactly what I've been saying?"

 

Actually it is. What I object to is the high cost for what you get. Getting back to the OP, he was asking if he should save up for it and my answer remains NO.

 

If it were me, I would buy the alternative system I used for an example, or at least a pair of those EAW speakers and other equipment. I would be coming in well under what the basic L1 system costs, and be getting a better value, IMNSHO (In my not so humble opinion).

 

As one of my recent posts mentioned, I heard the L1 system, the sound quality was excellent, but it WAS overwhelmed as the room started to fill up. So I agree with Lee Flier that its fine for a small coffee house with limited capacity, but that's probably where the market ends. I think that 3k is a lot of loot to pay for a PA that is that limited.

 

Well, your rid of me for another day, I'm leaving for now. I'll be back tomorrow to annoy you. :poke:

 

Mike T.

[MrKnobs]

I and several others here (maybe you?) argued with boseengineer about this back then. That was the only real issue I've had with the package. I don't think they actually intended to imply an oversell, but that's definitely how it appeared.

 

I remember.

 

And Boseengineer has been very helpful, informative, and as impartial as anyone working for the company making the device being discussed could possibly be.

 

However, the BOSE marketing dept. had some factually incorrect, and in my opinion misleading material up on the website initially. Also, some very enthusiastic early users kind of (understandably) oversold what these things can do. My involvement came as I felt I needed to provide balance to the discussion so that forumites who were following the threads might hear both sides of the argument and form their own, informed opinions.

 

Just to give some examples of thought provoking concepts one should consider after reading BOSE's side of the argument:

 

(1) Their current marketing video has musicians describing complaints with a conventional system; one is "it's too loud on stage." How about using small amplifiers, pointing them at yourself, and... turning down? You'll have to do that with the BOSE system too. And are you really gonna give up your tube amps and plug your guitars directly into the L1?

 

(2) A diagram on the current site shows a line of L1s covering more of the audience than a conventional speaker, which they show producing less than 30 degrees of coverage. What is that speaker supposed to be? Is it PA mains or a instrument cab? If the former, nobody sets up one PA box in the middle of the stage, if the latter, aren't you still going to have a beamy amp unless you point it at yourself, turn it down, and mike it?

 

(3) Their graphics seem to indicate a fairly large auditorium type situation. Leaving aside the suggestion that more than a minority of musicians actually play in such an acoustically tweaked environment, there is no way the tone coming out of an L1 is going to be the same on stage as in the middle of those seats. I don't want to post the graph again showing where a line array of that length becomes a point source vs frequency, but both theory and direct listening show that the farther away you get from the L1 the thinner the tone. How are you going to mix yourself when you don't hear what the audience hears?

 

(4) The graphics also show a drummer, apparently amplified by an L1 (presumably with one or more of the little computer type subs). That seems to indicate you're going to be able to use the L1 with a drummer and still be able to hear yourself and that the drummer will have sufficient low end amplification for his kick drum. Anyone who has ever mixed a band knows that the very first thing that needs amplification on a drum set is the kick drum, and the last things are the snare and cymbals. Is the drummer going to play very delicately with rods or will his on stage volume overpower the people playing through the L1s? I guess that depends on what kind of music it is, but it's not gonna be rock.

 

(5) Basically, the marketing creates a straw man (a bad conventional PA setup with players who don't listen to each other using a poor monitoring system all run by a bad soundperson), then argues the L1 system is better than that, an argument with which I agree. But obviously, fixing some of the problems conventionally (turning down is FREE) can achieve the same or better results, especially when the genre is rock, the desired audience listening level is fairly loud, and/or the venue is larger than just a few seats. It's targeted at frustrated musicians who have experienced the "fog of jam" on stage, which admittedly exists and does indeed cramp the performance.

 

So again, this product is clever but it not miraculous and it's not cheap. I know from direct experience that it can give your band a pretty good sound in a very small, low volume venue. I also know the same results can be had with a conventional system for less money. And finally, I know that if the venue is less than small, or has less the perfect acoustics, or has more than, say, 20 people standing in front absorbing your sound, mixing yourself from the stage is going to be a compromise at best. You simply have to be out IN the audience to know what it sounds like TO the audience.

 

Terry D.