Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!andrew From: andrew@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.audio Subject: Bose vs. CU status - (nf) Message-ID: <1062@inmet.UUCP> Date: Thu, 15-Mar-84 05:54:39 EST Article-I.D.: inmet.1062 Posted: Thu Mar 15 05:54:39 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 16-Mar-84 07:50:04 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