Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!andrew
From: andrew@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Bose vs. CU status - (nf)
Message-ID: <1072@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 16-Mar-84 05:46:35 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.1072
Posted: Fri Mar 16 05:46:35 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 18-Mar-84 07:19:02 EST
Lines: 29

#N:inmet:2600048:000:1468
inmet!andrew    Mar 11 14:37:00 1984

The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear the Bose-CU suit and will do so later
this term.  (Synopsis:  In a 1970 speaker test, CU commented negatively on the
imaging characteristics of the original Bose 901's, claiming that the sound
of instruments tended to "wander around the room".  Bose sued CU, claiming that
the report was false, defamatory, etc.; the case has been kicking around in
various lower courts all these years.)

A Bose victory would be a chilling infringement on the right to freedom of
speech, as well as a re-interpretation of the concept of truth as an absolute
defense in libel cases.

Any speakers intentionally designed to reflect sound from the walls of the
listening area put their frequency response and imaging characteristics at
the mercy of the room acoustics.  (Don't *conventional* speakers have enough
trouble with this?)  There IS such a thing as front-to-back imaging (even
top-to-bottom), and it is certainly possible for room anomalies to cause the
sound of an instrument to "wander around the room" in two, or even three, 
dimensions.  

I suppose I should make the statement that the above views are completely
my own and do not reflect those of my employer.
 
Andrew W. Rogers, Intermetrics    ...harpo!inmet!andrew
733 Concord Ave.                  ...hplabs!sri-unix!cca!ima!inmet!andrew
Cambridge, MA  02138              ...uw-beav!cornell!esquire!inmet!andrew
(617) 661-1840                    ...yale-comix!ima!inmet!andrew