впервые столкнулся с этими практически не известными у нас спикерами.
в принципе, среди русскоязычных винтажистов и аудиофилов давно ходили слухи про то, что "Бозак - это голова!", но реально их щупали, а тем более слушали - единицы.
ну, повезло. попали ко мне в-301 Темпо, 70-го года выпуска. включил, нравится, слушаю, поменял емкости в кроссоверах. попутно обнаружил не оригинальные (ПОКА!) среднечастотники (сейчас стоят очень неплохие, но тем не менее все таки не оригинальные Аудаксы, хороши но все равно не то, уже успел заказать оригинальные
после замены емокстей (и выбрасывания всего "ненужного" из крососвера - переключателя коррекции АЧХ, например), акустика совсем ожила. ушла мутноватость. звук стал именно таким, как нравится.

заодно покопал инет на предмет, что же это и с чем едят. таки да, таки кусок истории.


Как пример познавательного "чтива" про малоизвестные нашему авдиофилу (но от того не менее значимые!) страницы аудиоистории, рекомендую прочитать обзор флагмана Бозака - акустики "Коцерт Гранд"
Обратите внимание на отношение Руди Бозака к материалу диффузоров

http://stereophile.com/historical/1005bozak/index.html

Еще циатата про диффузоры знаменитого "шерстяного" низкочастотника Бозак:
"The original 12" woofer cones are a piece of acoustic art. Each is made out of a special
mixture of wool and paper fibers and were hand molded so that the thickness and stiffness
varied from the center to the outer edge. Only one employee at Bozak was sufficiently
skilled to make these cones properly and thus for decades these drivers were made solely by him.
After the company changed hands, he left and the replacements couldn`t make the cones properly."

классная фраза, именно то, что я сам хотел бы сказать про звук Бозака:

"A few months back I purchased a pair of Triangle Celius speakers, and they have been running in the main system. They do lots of things the Bozak`s cannot, but the Bozak`s have a magic that the Triangles just cannot do"

быть может, не во всех аспектах они совершенны (а кто совершенен?) - но в них действительно есть нечто магическое!

Бозаки - действительно, интерестная акустика. Достойная обсуждения. К сожалению, в твоих жилищный условиях не было возможности составить впечатление, надо доводить до ума. И тракт выстроить. Серединка, к слову, явно выделялась. Раз неродной динамик, то это что то объясняет *)

середина была тупо вставлена на место родного дианмика, и фильтр ей не соотвествововал. счас все по другому. там, кстати, середина поделена хитро - от 1200 до 3600 всего играет. Выше - пищалка. Старые электролиты высохли пргосто, отсюда мутность. Но даже тогда сцену хорошо рисовали.
Что интересно, на более поздних моделях 301-го пищалка была установлена не в глубине панели, а вынесена на подложке на лицевую часть. Для конусной пищалки этот колодец не есть гуд. А НЧ динамик можно в гораздо больший корпус поставить... ай, какой простор для эксперимента!

Очень познавательно не только в историческом плане:

Regarding the comments about "The Bozak Sound:" The early Bozaks (`50s) were never an easy first sale. I worked as the repair tech in a prominent stereo store in the `50s (yes, I was barely out of diapers) and saw this first hand: In A-B comparisons in the listening room, most first-time buyers would opt for a competing system that had more flash bang in the sound. The Bozaks are just too true, while the competing iron jumped at you. Bozak was under a lot of pressure from the dealer network to make the Bozaks sound more like the inferior competition which was selling better. Most first-time buyers, after learning how little they liked hearing the same flash and bang in everything they played, would come back to the store in a few months and say, "Uh...could I hear those Bozaks again?" But this was little consolation to the dealers, who wanted Bozak to compete for first-time sales.

The early Bozak systems were perfectly balanced - woofer to midrange to tweeters - and everything in phase. So in the early `60s, when the aluminum-coned B-209A/B midrange and B-200Y tweets came on stream, Bozak really fouled up the xovers. For starters, the polarity of the midrange was reversed. This resulted in a mid sound that was incredibly prominent without actually being louder. With the mid reversed in polarity compared with the woofs and tweets, the xover regions were cancellation notches. This `isolated` the midrange in a manner similar to a picture which is surrounded by a wide, plain matte - it makes the subject more prominent. But the down sides were degraded overall smoothness and seriously degraded stereo imaging. Without any doubt, the reversed polarity on all Bozak N-10102A xovers should be corrected. (It is not crossed on the N-10102 xover, used with the early paper-coned B-209 midrange and B-200X tweets.

The other issue was the Y tweets. They are about 9 dB hotter (louder) than the woofer and midrange (and the previous paper-coned X tweets). Presumably this was to enable inclusion of a Brightness control which could reduce tweeter level or make it higher than flat. Only a very few systems actually had the Brightness control, mainly the early Symphonies and a few B-302A systems. After just a year or so, the Brightness control pots were eliminated. A simple network consisting of a 25 ohm resistor paralleled by a 2.0 uF capacitor was put in series with the Y tweets. The results, by today`s standards, are pretty awful. It results in a big hump in the mid highs, 5.0 kHz to 10.0 klHz, allowing the natural rolloff of the Y tweet above 10 kHz to go unaided. Can you say, "Disco?"

It is not my job to help Bozak sell speakers in a tough `60s and `70s market. What I am doing is re-engineering the xovers to remove the strange tweaks and allow the world-class drivers to sing in their full, true voices, unhampered by the craziness of the `60s and `70s. To that end I designed a much better circuit to drive the Y tweeters. It is more complex than the bozak one, and works much better. It reduces the extra 9 dB level to match that of the woofs and midrange, flat, without the hump. Then, with 9 dB of `extra` level to play with, it is used to extend the extreme high range, boosting from 10 kHz up to the tweeter`s normal limit of about 16 kHz. The result is highs that are very smooth; no peaks, no dips, and a smoothly extended upper range.

(The later xovers, from about `95, need even more help.)

You wanna know what the punch line is to this: Dig: No one who has never heard their Bozaks with the `60s ~ `70s craziness exorcised, has any idea how great they can really sound! That sounds radical, but is very, very true.

When the corrections are made, here is what you get, echoing Tony`s comments:

The TRUE Bozak sound is neither mellow nor sharp. It is just incredibly accurate. Let me magnify that point. Little-known fact: The B-209B midrange driver uses the same `motor` as the 12" woofer! Same magnet, same post and plates, same voice coil diameter. Yet the ultra-light aluminum cone must cover a range of only about 2-1/2 octaves (with 400 Hz lower xover). Driving that with the woofer motor is a little like putting a hemi V8 in a VW. The B-209B, with enough driving power, will reproduce transients that many other mids don`t even see.

The woofer cone doesn`t look particularly light, but the entire cone assy., including voice coil and vc tube, inner `spider` suspension and outer suspension, all together weigh 39.5 grams. That translates, again, to superb transient response. The gutty string sound of a well-recorded bass can be so enjoyable on a Bozak woofer.

Here`s another important point. Quick transients in good-quality recorded audio can easily reach 10 dB (voltage) above average level. That`s a factor of 10:1 in terms of power. Therefore, if your average level is 3 watts, the amplifier must be capable of a clean 30 watts if all the transients are to be heard without clipping. Sometimes it is said that Bozaks will play comfortably loud from a pair of 6AQ5s or the like - call it 15 watts. It is highly unfortunate when that is done, because few high transients are being heard.

Rudy Bozak, in his many tutorial writings in brochures over the years, spoke about the `educated listener.` It is clear what he means: those who have never heard Bozaks, properly configured and with adequate driving power, literally don`t know what they are missing. They are judging from their experience base of speakers of less capability.

Bozaks do have a sound character, and this is it: Properly set-up Bozaks reproduce, accurately, every kind of sound you can throw at them. They are great on classical, great on jazz and great on rock. And they don`t give a hoot what is driving them - VT or SS - so long as the power is ample and very clean. There is nothing to support the opinion that Bozaks are best with VT amplifiers. I listened to my early mono systems with an MC-30 for years. When I converted to stereo I went with a clean SS receiver and have never looked back. Actually, the damping factor of the Macs is very moderate - around 12 - very kind to cranky, hard-to-drive complex xovers. The Bozak bottom end actually appreciates the much-higher DF of good SS amplifiers.

I have unlimited admiration for the late Rudy Bozak. Nothing I do is intended to `correct` any of Rudy`s work. Were it not for the intense pressure from the dealer network, I am fully confident that the sound with my mods is exactly the sound Rudy would have liked. It took the speaker industry years, even decades to adopt some of the principles Rudy originated in the 50`s. My work is dedicated to Rudy Bozak, in hopes that modern listeners can hear his genius through his world-class drivers as they were designed to be heard.

There`s lots more to say - about enclosures, bi-amping, tweeters a lot. This essay will serve as foundation on which to base any further (hopefully brief!) comments.

With best wishes to all,

Pat Tobin
audio.consultant@verizon.net

Они еще до 1958 появились? У магнитофонного стерео была весьма небольшая ниша на рынке, там по определению сложно было

(09-01-2008 22:39)Ziggy N. link писал(а):Они еще до 1958 появились? У магнитофонного стерео была весьма небольшая ниша на рынке, там по определению сложно было

цитата от Pat Tobin:

Historical notes: Before WWII, Rudy Bozak was speaker designer for Cinaudograph, the leading maker of very large theater speakers. At the Bozak plant Rudy had one of 30" diameter. After the war he put in time with Wurlitzer in the electronc organ division. R.T. Bozak was founded in either `49 or `50, in Buffalo, NY. Very soon they moved to Darien, CN, where the company was located for many years.

In `77 Rudy sold the company to a group that included a former Bozak employee, and the name was changed (briefly) to N.E.A.R. That was the end of Bozak as we know and honor it today. Many of the key people left, including the one artisan who made all the very distinctive and advanced woofer cones. Rudy was technically on staff, given an out-of-the-way office in a warehouse somewhere.

There was another incarnation or two. Then in `82, the company was re-born with family members and some original key people returning. Sadly, Rudy passed away in February `82. I would like to think that he was involved in guiding the rebirth. The products made during this period returned to original quality; I have samples from each of these eras mentioned. Some new products were tried, including a dual-voice coil sub woofer. This reincarnation seems to have lasted until about `86.

еще очень информативно, просто и доступно и о Бозаке, и вообще об принципах построения акустики


Here are some comments on Bozak Bass. I know I will be telling a lot things you already know, but this is addressed to all Bozak enthusiasts.

First, we all know that the B-199A 12" woofers are designed for `infinite baffle` enclosure. That is a major departure from conventional speakers. Thiele and Small pointed out that the woofer and enclosure should be considered together as a system (which can be analyzed using filter design equivalencies, the basis of the TS parameter system). We don`t need to go into that here except to note that the great majority of LFR (low frequency radiator) systems use an active enclosure. The enclosure becomes resonant slightly below the natural LF cutoff of the woofer, thereby extending the lower bandwidth of the two as a system. If vented and ported enclosures are designed very carefully, they can be extremely effective.

Rudy Bozak, however, was a purist. He realized that any type of active enclosure degrades LF transient response. That is because of the very nature of a resonant system. He chose to design a woofer powerful enough to reach below 40 Hz with no help. Consequently, an enclosure for the Bozak woofer should be the opposite of active - it should be completely passive - the more `dead` it is, the better. And the enclosed air volume must be at least 5 cu. ft. for one woofer, 8 cu. ft. for two and either 10 or 12 for four (the Concert Grand systems) - I don`t recall which it is.

Inside, it is very important for there to be a free-hanging curtain (reaching side to side but supported only at the top) about midway from front to back. This curtain should be of moderate mass - not just some flimsy angel hair stuff. The purpose of the curtain is to suppress the `cavity resonance` that occurs in any closed space when excited by LF sound waves. This is often overlooked in home-built enclosures, but its importance can`t be over-stressed. In active enclosures, the cavity resonance is tuned to supplement the woofer, but with the Bozak we want no cavity resonance at all. Bozak generally used the same material with which the box was lined. More about that later.

Finally comes the part most often overlooked - panel flex. In a closed box with a very powerful woofer, some really strong air pulses (pressure and rarefaction) take place. Here`s the way to look at this: in a single woofer system, the area of the front, back, top and sides may well be 20 times the area of the woofer cone. (Just a guess off the top of my pointed head, without picking up the calculator.) Now let`s divide that by 2 to account for the fact that all the panels are, in terms of acoustical physics, "edge-clamped diaphragms" in which only the center portions are free to bend very much. In our rough example, that gives us a panel area (neglecting the bottom) which is free to vibrate, of 10 times the area of the woofer cone. See where we`re going here? If the panels flex to 1/10th the displacement of the woofer cone, acoustic radiation from the cabinet panels EQUALS that of the woofer cone! That`s why Bozak went to considerable lengths to use very dense wood for the panels, then brace them in all enclosures except the E-300 (the name for the enclosure used in all single-woofer 300 (two way) and 302A systems (three way). There just isn`t the room for braces in the E-300 and the smaller panels reduce the severity of panel flex, but don`t eliminate it. In the Symphonies, the front panel is braced by a couple of hard wood pieces running between the drivers, plus a front-to-back 2" x 4" brace. In the Concert Grands, there is both a 2 x 4 front-to-back brace and another side to side.

Actually I just snuck this in, because it doesn`t directly affect Tony`s problem of too much bass. The flexing of cabinet panels reduces bass in the room, because the panels a responding to pressure waves from the rear of the woofer cone, which are out of phase with the desired pressure waves from the front of the cone. But as long as we`re talking enclosures, I wanted to do the whole story.

Tony, I don`t know what is causing your excessive bass. But I strongly recommend against using any kind of pad (electrical attenuator) between the woofer and the amplifier. That`s because it degrades damping factor, DF. Let`s talk about that for a moment. Any speaker cone which vibrates also tends to overshoot a little when excited by a strong pulse of audio, and ring a little when audio is suddenly cut off (at the end of a wave). Fortunately, a cone and its motor (magnet system and voice coil) work both ways. They function as an electrical generator as well as a reproducer. When the cone does a little bouncing of its own, a current representing that movement is generated and is seen at the output of the amplifier. This is where the enormous benefit of DF takes place. The actual output impedance (often called the `source` or `looking back` impedance) of the amplifier is lower than the load impedance by the damping factor. That is, if the amplifier is designed to drive an 8 ohm load and has a DF of 20, the actual `looking back` source impedance of the amplifier is 8/20, or 0.4 ohms. So any current generated by spurious vibrations of the woofer cone is shunted by the source impedance of the amplifier, in our example not 8 ohms but 0.4 ohms. This `stiff` `looking back` impedance very effectively damps (not dampens, that requires liquid) the tendency of the woofer cone to do it`s own thing, over and above what it is told to do. BTW, DF is really effective only on the woofer which has considerable cone excursion. Not at all effective on the tweeters and midrange because of the minuscule cone excursion. Also, the Bozak tweets and midrange are very carefully and effectively mechanically damped, something that can`t be done to such a high degree on the woofer.

The big furor about speaker cable size is mostly concerned with not adding resistance between the amplifier and the woofer cone. It`s not the minuscule loss of driving current that is the big concern. Rather, the concern is because any resistance between the amplifier output and the woofer DEGRADES DAMPING FACTOR. The addition of a pad would do the same thing, only much worse than a fraction of an ohm of speaker cable.

Also, the DF of the Mac VT amplifiers was around 12 - very moderate.That was considered pretty good in the VT days, altho some amplifiers went as high as 20. A moderate DF like that, in an extremely stable amplifier like the Mac VTs, is ideal for driving complicated crossovers in speaker systems with nasty impedance peaks and dips. A nasty load will cause many amplifiers to misbehave. But in the case of Bozak - nothing is kinder for an amplifier to drive than a first-order (6 dB per octave) xover and smooth drivers without sharp imedance peaks. So it was a happy-enough marriage, altho Rudy Bozak considered a DF of around 12 a bare minimum. I used an MC-30 in the mono years with my Bozak systems and loved it. (I am now restoring my MC-240 to original performance for sale.) But modern SS amplifiers often have a DF approaching 100. That gets reduced by speaker cable resistance, but is still very good. As we all know, the first SS power amplifiers usually left a lot to be desired. But when really good ones began to appear in the late `60s, Rudy Bozak wholeheartedly endorsed them. That`s when he began promoting bi-amping of Bozak systems.

In the very late days - after Rudy had sold the company and was no longer in charge, some woofer cones were coated. That added mass to the cone, which lowered the natural resonance and thereby provided much stronger lower bass in a closed box system. I worked on a pair of Bozak LS-400 for three weeks and almost went nuts until I realized that the woofer cones were heavier, which changes everything. In enclosures a little smaller than the E-300, it sounded like the woofers were ready to tear the box apart on loud, low bass. That, of course, was a substantial resonance well below the normal LF cutoff of a Bozak single woofer system. A heavier cone has two evil side effects: it reduces the overall level above the big bass peak, and it decimates transient response. So it`s not something I recommend; just something to look out for. In those speaker systems I did add L-pads before the mids and tweets to bring them in line with the softer-speaking (except at very low freqs) woofer.

If I were faced with a condition of too much Bozak bass, I would start by making sure there is a suitable center curtain inside the enclosure. On all Bozak-made enclosures, it should be there. Then I would run a freq. sweep (from oscillator or CD) with a meter across the speaker line. I would want to be absolutely sure that there is no anomaly in the audio electronics system that is causing it. Don`t laugh - it can and sometimes does happen.

If that one passes and the enclosure is OK per above, I would consider the room. You mentioned `small.` Below about 100 Hz, the dimensions of the room can cancel and support bass radiation. Put on a steady LF tone and move around the room. You should hear peaks and nulls, but how severe are they? Important: a room of cubic dimensions is almost hopeless. That`s because when a bass wave length is supported in one dimension, it is also supported in the other two, creating a horrendous peak, and corresponding nulls at corresponding bass frequencies. The best rooms for smooth bass response are those of three dimensions which are not terribly close to one another. Acoustical treatment on the walls does nothing to smooth bass response - the waves are so long that a couple of inches of absorptive material can`t `get hold of` a bass wave in order to absorb a goodly part of it. A lot of heavily absorbent furniture in the room will help, but that`s about all that will help in an existing room. The best space for speaker systems is a broken space, where the boundaries are irregular and broken by large doorways etc. In extreme cases, such as small recording studio rooms, bass traps can be built, usually above the ceiling. But that`s about all that can be done in a cubic room, or one in which two of the three dimensions are very close. The room`s effect on LF response applies to `normal` listening positions. When listening `near field,` the room is not nearly as much in the picture. That is because the listener is hearing mostly the velocity component of the sound wave, and not nearly as much the pressure component.

I hope this has been helpful to all. Tony, I look forward to further reports.

Best wishes to all, Pat Tobin

(09-01-2008 22:39)Ziggy N. link писал(а):Они еще до 1958 появились? У магнитофонного стерео была весьма небольшая ниша на рынке, там по определению сложно было

Не удержался, напишу пару слов...
Мало кто хочет понимать, что аудио ушло, ушло навсегда, оставшись в 50-60-ых, именно расцвет его...
Практически вся акустика, имеющая хоть какую-то историческую и не только ценность, из тех годов +/-... Где Клипш? Вилчур? Генри Клосс? Руди Бозак? Штудер? Франц Торенс? Все там...
Джапы поняли первыми...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudy_Bozak

А пароль съеден

Вообще, понятно - если перец стоял у истоков сценического усиления, то явно не пальцем деланный.
Просто интересно, как в сфере Home Audio было. Кажется, до взрыва моды на стерео (1958-62) домашные акустические системы редко выполнялись отдельными (вообще не знаю ни одного примера) - в лучших случаях использовались огромные тумбовидные приемники, 80% которых и были собсно АС-кой (а остальное тюнер с усилом), к которым подключали все подряд - вертаки, мафоны, даже телевизоры. Момент перехода к блочным системам как раз интересен.

(10-01-2008 21:25)Ziggy N. link писал(а):А пароль съеден

Вообще, понятно - если перец стоял у истоков сценического усиления, то явно не пальцем деланный.
Просто интересно, как в сфере Home Audio было. Кажется, до взрыва моды на стерео (1958-62) домашные акустические системы редко выполнялись отдельными (вообще не знаю ни одного примера) - в лучших случаях использовались огромные тумбовидные приемники, 80% которых и были собсно АС-кой (а остальное тюнер с усилом), к которым подключали все подряд - вертаки, мафоны, даже телевизоры. Момент перехода к блочным системам как раз интересен.

Все просто, были и "отдельные", но совсем немаленькие... А7, например, не влазят во все помещения...
А началось вот отсюда, во всяком случае, из источников мне известных...
"He co-founded Acoustic Research Corporation (AR) with Edgar Villchur in 1954. Villchur, a former teacher of Kloss, had conceived a novel way of building an accurate loudspeaker."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kloss

а7, все таки, для кино предназначались а вот "Иконик", на 604 альтеке, это уже можно было дома слушать

в 50-е были консоли, но блыи и "най-файные" решения, типа моно-интегральников, Ейко, к примеру (ах, какие трансы в них!), да и консольные варианты были опциональными - под них и корпуса продавались отдельные.

605-й альтек на 601-м динамике был раньше иконика.

(10-01-2008 22:15)Huboy link писал(а):605-й альтек на 601-м динамике был раньше иконика.

ага

вообще с этими 605 альтеками путаница изрядная как с танноями Голд и Ред монитор. есть динамики, а есть акустика

(09-01-2008 23:31)Скользящий link писал(а):[quote author=Ziggy N. link=topic=4056.msg80222#msg80222 date=1199907559]
Они еще до 1958 появились? У магнитофонного стерео была весьма небольшая ниша на рынке, там по определению сложно было

Не удержался, напишу пару слов...
Мало кто хочет понимать, что аудио ушло, ушло навсегда, оставшись в 50-60-ых, именно расцвет его...
Практически вся акустика, имеющая хоть какую-то историческую и не только ценность, из тех годов +/-... Где Клипш? Вилчур? Генри Клосс? Руди Бозак? Штудер? Франц Торенс? Все там...
Джапы поняли первыми...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudy_Bozak
[/quote]


Загнули Вы насчёт япошек, Уважаемый, не нужно их уж так впрямь "обожествлять"... :

Для них это в большинстве случаев просто хорррррошая возможность вложения дензнаков!!! Сродни антиквариату. Тамечки тоже очень мало людей понимают толк в аудио. Ну круто проехацца на Порше Кайэн с аудиосистемой с динамиками Сименс-Клангфильм, но для многих - не более того.

А для Вилли Штудера было ошибкой работать больше на спецслужбы и армию, нежели для конечных потребителей. Основными то потребителями его продукции были то в основном люди в разного цвета пагонах...

Мона истчо приводить примеры - но жить ностальгией за безвозвратно ушедшим временем.... Скорее нужно приспособить всёлучшее шо было в те годы к современным реалиям!!!

(11-01-2008 08:18)MZ 2006 link писал(а):[quote author=Скользящий link=topic=4056.msg80244#msg80244 date=1199910701]
[quote author=Ziggy N. link=topic=4056.msg80222#msg80222 date=1199907559]
Они еще до 1958 появились? У магнитофонного стерео была весьма небольшая ниша на рынке, там по определению сложно было

Не удержался, напишу пару слов...
Мало кто хочет понимать, что аудио ушло, ушло навсегда, оставшись в 50-60-ых, именно расцвет его...
Практически вся акустика, имеющая хоть какую-то историческую и не только ценность, из тех годов +/-... Где Клипш? Вилчур? Генри Клосс? Руди Бозак? Штудер? Франц Торенс? Все там...
Джапы поняли первыми...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudy_Bozak
[/quote]


Загнули Вы насчёт япошек, Уважаемый, не нужно их уж так впрямь "обожествлять"... :

Для них это в большинстве случаев просто хорррррошая возможность вложения дензнаков!!! Сродни антиквариату. Тамечки тоже очень мало людей понимают толк в аудио. Ну круто проехацца на Порше Кайэн с аудиосистемой с динамиками Сименс-Клангфильм, но для многих - не более того.

А для Вилли Штудера было ошибкой работать больше на спецслужбы и армию, нежели для конечных потребителей. Основными то потребителями его продукции были то в основном люди в разного цвета пагонах...

Мона истчо приводить примеры - но жить ностальгией за безвозвратно ушедшим временем.... Скорее нужно приспособить всёлучшее шо было в те годы к современным реалиям!!!
[/quote]
МЗ, уточню свою мысль, там где было троеточие, что-бы не было разночтений:
Джапы поняли первыми... И скупили все, что захотели и смогли.
Так понятнее?
Остальное - Ваши фантазии, этого я не писал и так не думаю.

к сожалению, сначала Япония, а теперь и вся Юго-Восточная Азия выгребает остатки аудио-истории со скоростью промышленного пылесоса. А мы все по Китаю сохнем, как же, цена-качество, мля...