I am planning a surround system and before I did my research I was planning on the Bose 191's. This site has since guided me to Triad or Paradigm Speakers. Anyway, before this, I sent an E-mail to Bose asking about the Frequency Response of the Bose 191's so I could plan my system. I didn't want HUGE holes in the frequency range like their Accoustimas System and other Home Theater in a Box solutions.

After several forgotten weeks I received this reply from Bose reguarding their opinion on Frequency Response. I think you might find it amusing.


Bose does not publish frequency specifications. The reason for this is
that we believe that such statistics do not add very much to an
understanding of an audio product's acoustic characteristics and, even worse,
can be misleading. Audio manufacturers make these measurements
independent of industry standards, and in varying conditions. Additionally, a
single statistic is not a reliable measurement of a product's
performance. One could, for instance, find a very expensive system with exactly
the same specifications as a much less expensive system. On paper, the
two would appear identical. The difference in performance, however,
would be significant. A better approach, we feel, is to listen to the
product.


Thank you for contacting Bose Corporation.


So I guess with Bose, GAPS in the listening range are Factory Guaranteed, and they stand behind it.

People slam bose a lot. So do I for that matter. However, I completely agreee with thier reply

I dont, I completely disagree.

Frequency measurements from companies that have a reputation for reasonable accuracy can be a helpful statistic. For example, If a company like Paradigm claims their little bookshelf goes down to 50hz, you can take it to faith that little speaker is gonna have some bass.

and it can be VERY helpful when comparing products within one manufacturer's lineup.


Also, there are independent industry tests, Bose just avoids them like the plague...

An opinion is an opinion, but the note also contains one incorrect statement, and at least one logical fallacy.

1) Frequency response measurement isn't a free-for-all. There is an accepted way to measure response. Granted that it isn't easy to translate measurements into in-room performance, but they're saying that there's no good way to compare measurements. That's a lie.

2) That the more expensive system will sound better than the less expensive system with identical specification. That's what they (and the boutique cable sellers) would *like* you to believe, but it ain't necessarily so. There's no necessary correspondence between price and performance. That's a self-serving oversight.

This missive encapsulates why people despise Bose and other peddlers of snake-oil.

Yea and who said people are using a "a single statistic <to measure> a product's performance" ???

When you buy a car, you want to know the gas mileage. That is not the only specc you are looking at though.

Bose does not publish frequency specifications. The reason for this is
that we believe that such statistics do not add very much to an
understanding of an audio product's acoustic characteristics and, even worse,
can be misleading. Audio manufacturers make these measurements
independent of industry standards, and in varying conditions. Additionally, a
single statistic is not a reliable measurement of a product's
performance. One could, for instance, find a very expensive system with exactly
the same specifications as a much less expensive system. On paper, the
two would appear identical. The difference in performance, however,
would be significant. A better approach, we feel, is to listen to the
product.


Thank you for contacting Bose Corporation.

LOL. :D

Now, why don't they publish other specs (ohms, sensitivity, power ratings and crossover points)?

Originally posted by Roman74
Now, why don't they publish other specs (ohms, sensitivity, power ratings...

Because their package works as a system, so these factors aren't an issue. (cubes go directly to bass module, not receiver, for example)

Originally posted by Roman74
....and crossover points)?

Because the people who buy these systems wouldn't know a crossover from a valve spring out of an engine head - it's irrelevent. The educated buyer who knows about these things (generally) wouldn't even consider Bose (although, like everything else, there are exceptions). ;)

I know that the Lifestyle system cubes go directly to the bass module, but what about the stereo speakers and center channel (not part of a set)? I agree that most educated buyers choose other brands.

Originally posted by M NEWMAN
....wouldn't know a crossover from a valve spring out of an engine head - it's irrelevent. .


Enough to know they must cost a fortune, I paid almost a grand to get my muffler springs replaced :rolleyes:

Bose knows that if they did publish their specs, they would be in a world of hurt. For what they charge, you can definately do a lot better.

Originally posted by YeuEmMaiMai
Bose knows that if they did publish their specs, they would be in a world of hurt. For what they charge, you can definately do a lot better.

I keep reading this from other people and I have to keep asking myself, where are these sat systems that *sound* better than bose for less money? I just went out this weekend to look for some outdoor speakers and I was hoping to find the new Rocket outdoor speakers (I guess these are internet only) so I went to two high end HT stores (Harvey and Audio Breakthroughs) and while I was there, I listened to these really small Paradgim sats almost identical to Bose, with an SVS sub. It sounded good and was also about $2500 for 7 sats and the sub. I also listened to ascends small speakers (not really sats, but they were small) and Klipsch. The only ones that were cheaper than Bose were the Klipsch, but they were still $800 and they didn't really blow me away. The Ascends were also in the $1500 range with a Velodyne. So I ask. Where are these cheaper than Bose sat speakers set ups that sound so good for less money?
Disclaimer
This is not comendation of Bose. I am not arguing about the materials they use or the specs on the speakers as compared to others. I am just asking what small sat speaker set ups are cheaper and sound better?

BTW, I ended up buying Klipsch KHO-7's for the front of the house and 4 Yamaha outdoor speakers for the back. Best buy was remodleing their store and I got them for 60% off

I sent a similar email to Bose last year asking about specs. I got the exact same reply that you did. It sounds like they have a standard answer all ready for this sort of question. You think they get this sort of question often? :D

Originally posted by lexa695
I keep reading this from other people and I have to keep asking myself, where are these sat systems that *sound* better than bose for less money?


I have been here for a little while and read all the blasts at Bose and I read you can get MORE for the same money as Bose and I have read you can get equal for less. I set off on a search for these speakers and discovered:

1. Bose doesn't sound as good as I thought
2. Everything I have heard costs more and sounds better
3. AVSForum.com has educated me passed my financial means

I would love to go back to the days when I was stupid and richer. When the upgrade from VHS to DVD via Composite thrilled me with awesome picture quality. When Surround Sound only needed cheap throw away speakers from a clock radio. When things such as Macro Blocking, Edge Enhancement and White Crush were terms that didn't mean a thing.......

Originally posted by lexa695
I keep reading this from other people and I have to keep asking myself, where are these sat systems that *sound* better than bose for less money? I just went out this weekend to look for some outdoor speakers and I was hoping to find the new Rocket outdoor speakers (I guess these are internet only) so I went to two high end HT stores (Harvey and Audio Breakthroughs) and while I was there, I listened to these really small Paradgim sats almost identical to Bose, with an SVS sub. It sounded good and was also about $2500 for 7 sats and the sub. I also listened to ascends small speakers (not really sats, but they were small) and Klipsch. The only ones that were cheaper than Bose were the Klipsch, but they were still $800 and they didn't really blow me away. The Ascends were also in the $1500 range with a Velodyne. So I ask. Where are these cheaper than Bose sat speakers set ups that sound so good for less money?

Disclaimer
This is not comendation of Bose. I am not arguing about the materials they use or the specs on the speakers as compared to others. I am just asking what small sat speaker set ups are cheaper and sound better?

BTW, I ended up buying Klipsch KHO-7's for the front of the house and 4 Yamaha outdoor speakers for the back. Best buy was remodleing their store and I got them for 60% off


What sounds better? Personally the smallest speakers I would use are of Bookself size that that simply has to do with the laws of physics.

OK here is my setup and I can guarantee that it will put the smack down on the bose system for $1400 less

Yamaha HTR-5635
5 NS-6490 3 way acoustic suspension speakers with 8" 4" 1" drivers
2 YST SW-215s (8" subs)

Total cost:

receiver $155 delivered
6 speakers $300 delivered (you can only get them in pairs)
2 subs $220 out the door at U.E.

So lets see here total cost $675 for a system that sounds a whole lot better and comes from a manufacturer that is KNOWN to build quality stuff.

Sure you can go with the cubes but you are definately not getting anywhere near quality sound reproduction. Heck why not go to Target and buy Sony's $199 system as it uses the same drivers as the BOSE system and cost a lot less and you get a better sub (8" versus 2 or 3 5" drivers in a box)

Originally posted by lexa695
I keep reading this from other people and I have to keep asking myself, where are these sat systems that *sound* better than bose for less money?

Oh no, not again.

Post a link of one positive review from someone who DOESN'T STAND TO MAKE BUCK from selling or distributing a Bose product.

I'll take my Ascend Acoustics sats and SVS over Bose hands down for about the price of an Acoustimass 10 system. Please explain how a "bass module" that doesn't go below 50hz is supposed to "make you feel" the bass. Two 5¼" so called "woofers" just can't do it. I have sound tested Bose before, cheaper systems simply have more dynamic range.

My last post on this thread, although I always find these Bose threads very entertaining just for the absurdity.

That's like selling a sportscar that does 0-60 in 12 seconds, has a skidpad of .75, goes from 60-0 in 300ft and then saying "you have to drive the car, we don't believe that specifications mean anything". Uh-huh.

Bose knows that at least 95% of the buyers of HT systems don't know anything about the specifications. Given how successful their business model is, who can fault them?

Just consider yourself one of the fortunate few who know what they are doing, who cares about the accuracy of your system, and that you know enough to not buy Bose.

I'm sure all of us buy some products that we wouldn't if we were better versed on them.

People just love to be cool and bash bose over and over.

Yes bose is horrible for us cool audiophiles but they are correct in what they are saying.

Who that owns bose products knows what, how are why they need to see a frequency response for a speaker???? NONE

They are right though. Who cares what they can show you when they can make a graph do whatever they want it to do with room characteristics or changes and with making changes to the speaker they are measuring.

5 people could measure a speaker and all 5 would have different readings. YEAH!!!!! Now that's a standard to trust!!!

There are many speakers out there that cost less than Bose. Are they better? That is for your ears to decide. Here is a link listing many of them.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=439068

And here's a review that makes mention compared to Bose. Which is tough to find many reviewers do.

http://www.audioholics.com/productreviews/loudspeakers/Tannoy_FX5.1_review_p1.html

Bob

Just saw that the number of views on this thread was 666, just thought it was fitting.

Originally posted by lexa695
[B]I keep reading this from other people and I have to keep asking myself, where are these sat systems that *sound* better than bose for less money?

i dont think the poster said anything about sats. let's just play around with the price. take this as an example:

http://www.crutchfield.com/S-xTZO1ITa6pF/cgi-bin/ProdView.asp?g=37700&I=018LS28IIB&search=bose

for $2,299 U.S. + shipping :rolleyes:

...and in the other corner, Ascend 170s all around, with a 340c, either an HSU VTF-3 or SVS PB12-ISD, Samsung 841 dvd-player and the Pio 1015, that will BLOW away (understated) that piece of crap bose system and still be under $2,299 U.S.

* you can replace the Ascends with Rocket ELTs all around and the Rocket system will kill that blose crap

Originally posted by JeffD2.
Oh no, not again.

Post a link of one positive review from someone who DOESN'T STAND TO MAKE BUCK from selling or distributing a Bose product.

I'll take my Ascend Acoustics sats and SVS over Bose hands down for about the price of an Acoustimass 10 system. Please explain how a "bass module" that doesn't go below 50hz is supposed to "make you feel" the bass. Two 5¼" so called "woofers" just can't do it. I have sound tested Bose before, cheaper systems simply have more dynamic range.

My last post on this thread, although I always find these Bose threads very entertaining just for the absurdity.

Jeff, what did you pay for them? Was it less than $1000? Yes, your ascends are better. So is your sub, but how much did they cost? I really would like to know.

Originally posted by CenterForAnts
i dont think the poster said anything about sats. let's just play around with the price. take this as an example:

http://www.crutchfield.com/S-xTZO1ITa6pF/cgi-bin/ProdView.asp?g=37700&I=018LS28IIB&search=bose

for $2,299 U.S. + shipping :rolleyes:

...and in the other corner, Ascend 170s all around, with a 340c, either an HSU VTF-3 or SVS PB12-ISD, Samsung 841 dvd-player and the Pio 1015, that will BLOW away (understated) that piece of crap bose system and still be under $2,299 U.S.

* you can replace the Ascends with Rocket ELTs all around and the Rocket system will kill that blose crap

Your example is pretty bad. I don't consider a lifestyle system anything more than a HTIAB. Bose Lifestyle systems blow. I was refering to someone who would buy an AM10 for $1000 compared to (Fill in sat speakers and sub). Most people who buy a Bose sat system are going for a small unobtusive look for the room more than sound. Bigger speakers will sound better than a sat system in most cases. That is the trade off. I just have look recently and listened to some sat systems from the more internet respected companies. Yes I thought a bunch of them sounded better, but none were cheaper.

http://www.ascendacoustics.com/pages/products/speakers/htm200/htm200hts.html

Check the prices out yourself. But you can't compare Bose to Ascend and Hsu. One is meant for people who appreciate music and the other is meant for people who appreciate marketing. There are one heckofa lot more people who treasure marketing way over music. Our whole economy is based on the marketing concept. Dr. Bose caught on this from the get go.
I've owned Bose 901's in the past and now I own Ascend 340's. There is absolutely no comparison on sound or price. The Bose cost much, much more and the Ascend's are much, much more accurate.

David

Originally posted by Bikedorian
http://www.ascendacoustics.com/pages/products/speakers/htm200/htm200hts.html

Check the prices out yourself. But you can't compare Bose to Ascend and Hsu. One is meant for people who appreciate music and the other is meant for people who appreciate marketing. There are one heckofa lot more people who treasure marketing way over music. Our whole economy is based on the marketing concept. Dr. Bose caught on this from the get go.
I've owned Bose 901's in the past and now I own Ascend 340's. There is absolutely no comparison on sound or price. The Bose cost much, much more and the Ascend's are much, much more accurate.

David

I give up. No wonder you people hate Bose. Sure, lets compare a speaker that is about 5'X3"X4" to one that is 11" x 6.5" x 6.375". Wow, I'm stunned the bigger speaker sounds better. BTW, I totally agree the 901's are a rip off.

Originally posted by blkwrxwgn

5 people could measure a speaker and all 5 would have different readings. YEAH!!!!! Now that's a standard to trust!!!

Sorry, but this is a silly comment. Stick a Bose cube in an anechoic chamber, set up the calibrated mic, and have 5 different people come in and run a frequency sweep from 20hz to 20Khz and all 5 will get the exact same result. To confuse proper testing format with ineptitude is foolish at best.

That said, I will agree that there are some cheapo manufacturers out there that flat out lie, but not respectable makes - they might "fudge" just a bit, but their reputations and vision of brand loyalty is too darned important to risk losing market share over a stupid lie.

Frequency measurements from companies that have a reputation for reasonable accuracy can be a helpful statistic.

agreed

Audio manufacturers make these measurements independent of industry standards, and in varying conditions

also, sometimes true

That the more expensive system will sound better than the less expensive system with identical specification. That's what they (and the boutique cable sellers) would *like* you to believe, but it ain't necessarily so

true, but I have listened to spekers with identical printed specs and they have sounded dramatically differant.

Of course, because printed specs (the one typically mentioned for speakers... FR, and perhaps some distortion number if you are lucky) is not enough to completely define the sound of the speaker. But it does contribute to the sound, and if you accurately know the FR, then you know more about the performance of the speaker than you would without it.

And while it is true that two speakers with identical FR may sound drastically different, it is extremely unlikely that either of them, if that FR is really horrid, will sound "good." And that IMO is the main point.

Bose are OK, most of the speakers you guys like would sound just as bad to me as Bose.

Actually getting most of the sound from a single driver is a legit idea and has some definate virtues (and faults). There's an entire single-driver cult out there that would sniff at the plastic cone-tragic dome speakers favored by many here.

I haven't ever seen a professional review on the Bose lifestyle systems. do they even submit them for review anymore?

Originally posted by Tom Brennan
Bose are OK, most of the speakers you guys like would sound just as bad to me as Bose.

Huh?! How could this be?....unless you're basically deaf?

Originally posted by Tom Brennan
Actually getting most of the sound from a single driver is a legit idea and has some definate virtues (and faults). There's an entire single-driver cult out there that would sniff at the plastic cone-tragic dome speakers favored by many here.


I'm sorry, but comparing a 30 cent 2.5" driver in a plastic cube to a Lowther (or other equivalent high end full range) dual cone 5, 6 or 8" driver in a properly designed transmission line or horn enclosure, is not even remotely similar. You're comparing apples to green peas, my friend - they're that different.

"Huh?! How could this be?....unless you're basically deaf?"

Not deaf, open minded. I've heard some Bose systems sound pretty good and heard "audiophile" speakers that sounded like a Sawzall.


'I'm sorry, but comparing a 30 cent 2.5" driver in a plastic cube to a Lowther (or other equivalent high end full range) dual cone 5, 6 or 8" driver in a properly designed transmission line or horn enclosure, is not even remotely similar"

And how do you know what the Bose driver costs? In any case I've heard some very nice open-baffle single-driver rigs using cheap Radio Shack and Tangband drivers. And heard rigs using more expensive Fostexes and Lowthers in rear-horns that sounded like Skilsaws. A capable designer can get good results with cheap parts. And price doesn't always refelect quality of sound.

Of course I've also heard Fostexes and Lowthers sound good, same with EV SP-8s, JBL LE-8s, Dia-Tones, Corals and Supravoxes. Just a couple of weeks ago I used some Fostex FX-120s in shoeboxes, not bad. Now thay await a proper baffle. I've some little experience with this single-driver thing you see, as do several of my pals.

Why shouldn't a platic cube work well anyway? The cube isn't called upon to do bass and a small plastic enclosure can be quite stiff.

Originally posted by M NEWMAN
Sorry, but this is a silly comment. Stick a Bose cube in an anechoic chamber, set up the calibrated mic, and have 5 different people come in and run a frequency sweep from 20hz to 20Khz and all 5 will get the exact same result. To confuse proper testing format with ineptitude is foolish at best.

That said, I will agree that there are some cheapo manufacturers out there that flat out lie, but not respectable makes - they might "fudge" just a bit, but their reputations and vision of brand loyalty is too darned important to risk losing market share over a stupid lie.

Wow you assume way to much.

Yes every speaker is tested in an anechoic chamber, oh and the same one at that! :rolleyes:

That is what would have to happen for your analogy to work. Most of the time when manufacturers state their measurments for advertising there is nothing there that say's what the graph would look like. That is what we are talking about here the advertised spec's and not how stupid measurments and graphs are anyways (which they are) since none of us live in an anechoic chamber. Some companys will say +-2db (yeah right) at 50hz for example on a $200 pair bookshelf speaker.

Go ahead and buy something like that i'm sure it would be your perfect speaker.

Originally posted by lexa695
Jeff, what did you pay for them? Was it less than $1000? Yes, your ascends are better. So is your sub, but how much did they cost? I really would like to know.

Originally posted by JeffD2.
My last post on this thread, although I always find these Bose threads very entertaining just for the absurdity.

I'll take a mulligan on this one since its not an opinion on sound quality.

I went to the bose checkout for acoustimass 10 on their website.
Cost: $1082.16 shipping and tax included.

Warranty: ONE Year.

My system:
Ascend HTM-200s $652 total. FIVE year warranty.
SVS PB10-ISD $463 total. THREE year warranty.

Total: $1115
Difference: $32.84

Originally posted by vhato
After several forgotten weeks I received this reply from Bose reguarding their opinion on Frequency Response.
Customer Service:
Sent 3 emails to Ascend. They were answered same day.
Sent 4 emails to SVS. They were ALL answered in 30 minutes.

Do ya think I got my $32.84 worth? Nuff said.

BTW- Its George Carlin

Originally posted by lexa695
Wow, I'm stunned the bigger speaker sounds better
That puts you at least 1 up on the average Bose owner.

Originally posted by Tom Brennan

Why shouldn't a plastic cube work well anyway? The cube isn't called upon to do bass and a small plastic enclosure can be quite stiff.

As you well know, it would be quite possible to design a decent sounding speaker in a small plastic cube. It might be tough to design a great speaker, but not hard to do one that would easily better the performance of a Bose cube.

It is likely that your little cube would not have a cheap 1.75" or 2.5" paper driver.

For an example, consider the small Gallo spheres. Certainly still small, stylish enclosures, and able to produce very respectible sound. Larger than Bose cubes, but still small.

I would be inclined to consider coaxial drivers, so at least there would be a tweeter. If the plastic cube was large enough to handle a 4" coaxial driver, you could make a nice little speaker, that would easily best a Bose throughout its frequency range, particularly on the lower midrange and on highs. It would require far less equalization too.

Or instead of putting two cheap full-range drivers in both the top and bottom of double/swivel cubes, put in a better 3" driver in the bottom and a 1" tweeter in the top, using a very simple crossover. This could produce much better sound.

But I can understand why Bose doesn't go in this direction. If I'm selling tens of thousands of systems and able to manufacture those systems at very low cost, then why put in more expensive parts? That would cut into profit margins.

Originally posted by JeffD2.
I'll take a mulligan on this one since its not an opinion on sound quality.

I went to the bose checkout for acoustimass 10 on their website.
Cost: $1082.16 shipping and tax included.

Warranty: ONE Year.

My system:
Ascend HTM-200s $652 total. FIVE year warranty.
SVS PB10-ISD $463 total. THREE year warranty.

Total: $1115
Difference: $32.84


Customer Service:
Sent 3 emails to Ascend. They were answered same day.
Sent 4 emails to SVS. They were ALL answered in 30 minutes.

Do ya think I got my $32.84 worth? Nuff said.

BTW- Its George Carlin

Let's not even discuss that this does NOT qualify as a sat system but:

The Acsends avg about $300 a pair, so are you using a 4.1 system? I would have figured at least a 6.1 at this stage for most people here. A cheapo center channel goes for about $75 and the better ones are about $200 to $300, so are you using a Sony center for the extra $52? Oh BTW, I call Bose tech support and get my answers in about 5 minutes.
Thanks for the tip on Carlins name. I suck at spelling. Also I didn't pay tax or shipping and speaker warranties are near useless. My 9 year old has my old Panasonic speakers that are about 20 years old. They still work fine. I have never had a warranty issue with a speaker.

Originally posted by Tom Brennan

Not deaf, open minded. I've heard some Bose systems sound pretty good and heard "audiophile" speakers that sounded like a Sawzall.

Don't you think you're exaggerating a WEE bit here?! The only time I've ever heard ANY speaker sound like a sawzall, audiophile or otherwise, was when I plugged it directly into a wall oulet. Sounds just like one, for about a hlf a second before it smokes....
Besides, "some Bose systems" do sound "pretty good", they just don't sound "very" good...ever. ;)


Originally posted by Tom Brennan
And how do you know what the Bose driver costs?


From being in the speaker building biz for a few years - I'm very well aware of actual material costs associated with speakers. I can easily obtain as good or much better drivers than what Bose sticks in those cubes for around 30 cents each in reasonable quantities. I'm probably being too generous here - Bose' actual driver costs might be far less in the massive quantities they build in.


Originally posted by Tom Brennan

In any case I've heard some very nice open-baffle single-driver rigs using cheap Radio Shack and Tangband drivers. And heard rigs using more expensive Fostexes and Lowthers in rear-horns that sounded like Skilsaws. A capable designer can get good results with cheap parts. And price doesn't always refelect quality of sound. Of course I've also heard Fostexes and Lowthers sound good, same with EV SP-8s, JBL LE-8s, Dia-Tones, Corals and Supravoxes. Just a couple of weeks ago I used some Fostex FX-120s in shoeboxes, not bad. Now thay await a proper baffle. I've some little experience with this single-driver thing you see, as do several of my pals.


I think I'm beginning to understand your angle here. If you're basically trying to say that it's possible to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear as an analogy, then I agree. I do it all the time. You're quite correct that really good results can be achieved from some truly humble drivers. It's also a lot of fun to do this. :)


Originally posted by Tom Brennan
Why shouldn't a platic cube work well anyway? The cube isn't called upon to do bass and a small plastic enclosure can be quite stiff.

No disagreement, but the point is that Bose' cubes are anything but "quite stiff". ;)

Originally posted by blkwrxwgn
Wow you assume way to much.

Well, when you throw out a blanket statement like you did with zero stipulations about how you arrived at your premise, what else are we supposed to do?

Originally posted by blkwrxwgn
Yes every speaker is tested in an anechoic chamber, oh and the same one at that! :rolleyes:
That is what would have to happen for your analogy to work. Most of the time when manufacturers state their measurments for advertising there is nothing there that say's what the graph would look like. That is what we are talking about here the advertised spec's and not how stupid measurments and graphs are anyways (which they are) since none of us live in an anechoic chamber. Some companys will say +-2db (yeah right) at 50hz for example on a $200 pair bookshelf speaker.

Don't be so simplistic. You're acting as if measuring a speaker's performance characteristics is some form of black magic. It isn't. In fact, the vast majority of the bigger and higher end makes either do make measurements in an anechoic chamber or they use FFT along with other specific tests in a controlled environment that mimics the result found in anechoic chambers very accurately. This isn't difficult, and it's not prone to much variability when executed properly. Hence, mainstream makes are generally pretty darn close to their advertised specs. However, as I said before, there is sometimes a "little" fudging going on....mostly in the form of "smoothing" the response graph. This does NOT, however, make the information useless, but rather still gives a very good idea of performance capabilies for comparison.
Also, I have heard and tested (and built) MANY bookshelf speakers that will do 50Hz + or - 2 db. That's not difficult at all. 40 Hz is waaaayyyyyyy tougher (and nearly impossible, which is why you don't see them).


Originally posted by blkwrxwgn
Go ahead and buy something like that i'm sure it would be your perfect speaker.

Please don't assume I'm some dolt.

Originally posted by M NEWMAN

No disagreement, but the point is that Bose' cubes are anything but "quite stiff". ;)

Mike, do you care to qualify this? They are anything but quite stiff as compared to what? Upon reading this, you encouraged me to get out a step stool and examine the cubes. I would dare say I think they would crack before they flexed.

Originally posted by johnu
That puts you at least 1 up on the average Bose owner.

I have spent enough time listening to high end speakers to know that a sat system could never even hold a candle to most audiophile speakers. Everytime I walk into audio breakthroughs, they are playing the high end stuff in a listening room. As soon as I hear it I want to buy what ever it is they are using to play the music, and then I see the price ;) . In any case, anyone who thinks a small cube is going to sound like a 3 or 4 way speakers is kidding themselves. Lets just say the Bose solution works for me and the wife.

Originally posted by lexa695
The Acsends avg about $300 a pair, so are you using a 4.1 system? I would have figured at least a 6.1 at this stage for most people here. A cheapo center channel goes for about $75 and the better ones are about $200 to $300, so are you using a Sony center for the extra $52?

HTM-200 x 5 = $608 + $44 shipping = $652

Originally posted by ClutchBrake
HTM-200 x 5 = $608 + $44 shipping = $652

OK, I was going off the price per pair. I didn't use the calulator, but these still wouldn't have worked for me. I would have bought Klipsch speakers if my wife didn't insist on a sat setup. Hey, it got me a plasma tv and a new audio rack :D

Thanks for all of the valuable replies. I have learned so much.

My reason for the thread was I asked Bose about their 191's. At the time I was going to use them for their "stereo everywhere" characteristics in rear surround and center rear surround. However, the Home Theater will also be used for home audio w/MP3's, FM Stereo and CD's. I wanted to design a system without Audible Holes so I asked about the 191's frequency response. Bose's reply was it doesn't matter because it is the sound of the speakers that counts. Well.....OK......If a speaker can only reproduce frequency's from 8khz-14khz (for instance) then it won't do me much good. It may sound fantastic, but I may also be missing MANY instruments that play in the lower or higher range. According to the Bose response I posted at the beginning of the thread, I am wrong!!

Originally posted by vhato
Thanks for all of the valuable replies. I have learned so much.

My reason for the thread was I asked Bose about their 191's. At the time I was going to use them for their "stereo everywhere" characteristics in rear surround and center rear surround. However, the Home Theater will also be used for home audio w/MP3's, FM Stereo and CD's. I wanted to design a system without Audible Holes so I asked about the 191's frequency response. Bose's reply was it doesn't matter because it is the sound of the speakers that counts. Well.....OK......If a speaker can only reproduce frequency's from 8khz-14khz (for instance) then it won't do me much good. It may sound fantastic, but I may also be missing MANY instruments that play in the lower or higher range. According to the Bose response I posted at the beginning of the thread, I am wrong!!

The audible hole (which IMO I'm isn't very audible) is only in the Acoustimass systems I believe. but don't buy Bose. They are over priced.

Hello Newman

"Don't you think you're exaggerating a WEE bit here?! The only time I've ever heard ANY speaker sound like a sawzall, audiophile or otherwise, was when I plugged it directly into a wall oulet."

A wee bit. Though I must say the Klipsch Heresys I just got rid of did an excellent imitation of an air-powered 9" Chicago Bridge and Iron grinder.;)


"You're quite correct that really good results can be achieved from some truly humble drivers. It's also a lot of fun to do this. "

Indeed. Remember the Fulton FMI-80 from about 25 years ago? Used a Peerless paper cone tweeter and sounded swell, a great little speaker.

See, here's the thing with Bose Newman. I've been caught unaware a couple of times and enjoyed listening to music on Bose speakers before I was aware I was listening to Bose, in record stores and such. So I came to the conclusion they're not so bad afterall.


Are they what I want to listen to? No. But then I'm an old Altec freak and there are lots of other speakers besides Bose I don't want.

Originally posted by Tom Brennan

A wee bit. Though I must say the Klipsch Heresys I just got rid of did an excellent imitation of an air-powered 9" Chicago Bridge and Iron grinder.;)


:D


Originally posted by Tom Brennan
I've been caught unaware a couple of times and enjoyed listening to music on Bose speakers before I was aware I was listening to Bose, in record stores and such. So I came to the conclusion they're not so bad afterall.

No, they're not so bad afterall, otherwise they wouldn't be selling a gazillion of 'em to the uneducated masses (and the ones who know better but are having their arms twisted by the "missus" in the house). ;)


Originally posted by Tom Brennan
But then I'm an old Altec freak and there are lots of other speakers besides Bose I don't want.

You are! Well then, am I gonna make you jealous. My Pa just happens to still have his original Altec 'Voice of the Theater' pair in his Great Room set up. Damn things still rock too (and I mean HARD)! He bought 'em around '65, I think (but then I was only a couple years old so not sure of the exact year).

Originally posted by lexa695
Mike, do you care to qualify this? They are anything but quite stiff as compared to what? Upon reading this, you encouraged me to get out a step stool and examine the cubes. I would dare say I think they would crack before they flexed.

Most hard plastic devices will crack before they are flexed much. But to answer your question, when I dissambled one a few years back, what I remember about the cubes is that there wasn't anything remarkable about them. Seemed like the walls were around 1/8" thick, with more meat where the driver and terminals mount. Okay, but nothing special (like everything else about them). Contrasting that with other makes that use really good plastic boxes shows quite a bit of difference. I've seen some models that use really thick walls and when you rap on 'em, it's similar to a rock (even with the drivers removed so you can hear internal resonance). So, I don't dispute that plastics can be effective for enclosures, and considering Bose' already dismal freq response, the actual cube resonances are probably somewhat irrelevant. ;)

I have to sort of agree with Bose at least with frequency response, I mean on Headfi you've got people [jokingly] comparing Sennheiser PX-100 and Grado RS-1 similar in sound because of similar FR. Then the Sennheiser 650 "is the best" because of the near flat FR..although they sound "boring" to some..

Although I still think Bose Blows, are overpriced and of cheap components. I would say the active lifestyle system is worth about £500 maximum, certainly not the ~£4500 asking price.

Mike----Yeah, those VOTs were great speakers and IMO unmatched for reproducing movie sound in the home.

I have a pair of 1961 Heathkit AS-21s, a kit version of the Altec 9844 studio monitor. 2-12s cross at 800 to a compression driver and horn. The drivers and horns are painted that Kool-man Altec green hammertone.

I also have a pair of 605A Duplexes, another Altec monitor from around the late 50s-early 60s. You probably know it; 15" woofer with a coaxially mounted treble horn. The horn driver is mounted behind the woofer magnet and the horn runs through the woofer pole-piece and ends in a small multi-cell mouth. You should hear old Elvis records over 605s; like he's in the room.

I've loved Altec sound ever since I was 10 years old back in 1959 and my Dad took me downtown to see the roadshow showing of Ben-Hur. The opening blasts of the overture were my introduction to hi-fi and I was thrilled.

Of course I didn't know then that there were 5 Altec A4s behind the screen but I learned later.

Originally posted by vhato
3. AVSForum.com has educated me passed my financial means


:) :) :) :eek:


I dare say that you're not the only one.

Face it guys, Bose is a marketing company that fills the niche for people who want an HT but really don't know anything about specs. The truth is, they could have a lot more speaker dollar for dollar, if they were educated.

What gets me about Bose is the ridiculous asking price for many of their "systems". Bose doesn't withhold specs for the benefit of their consumers, they do it because reviewers and competing manufacturers would rip them a new sphincter.

BTW, I used to own 901's, :eek: so I don't speak from total inexperience.

P.S.

I bought them used, so I didn't get totally ripped off.

Originally posted by lexa695
The Acsends avg about $300 a pair, so are you using a 4.1 system? I would have figured at least a 6.1 at this stage for most people here. A cheapo center channel goes for about $75 and the better ones are about $200 to $300, so are you using a Sony center for the extra $52?

You're correct in your presumption. I thought the same thing until I sent an email and they linked to me to their "speaker configuration" ordering page.

It seems they give discounted package deals on popular comibinations of speakers. In my case, buy 4, get the 5th free. This is not apparent on their home page or product listing page. Ascend should address this. I've seen this issue pop up on more than one thread.

I was almost universally encouraged to upgrade to the 170's, but because of room size and WAF chose not to.

I gotta admit Lexa, you're a lot of fun!

Originally posted by JeffD2.
You're correct in your presumption. I thought the same thing until I sent an email and they linked to me to their "speaker configuration" ordering page.

It seems they give discounted package deals on popular comibinations of speakers. In my case, buy 4, get the 5th free. This is not apparent on their home page or product listing page. Ascend should address this. I've seen this issue pop up on more than one thread.

I was almost universally encouraged to upgrade to the 170's, but because of room size and WAF chose not to.

I gotta admit Lexa, you're a lot of fun!

Jeff, you could have ripped me a new one, so I'll politlely bow out, but i did say what sat system. I showed my wife Klipsch B3's nwhich look like the Ascends in size and even those were too big. Seems like anything noticeable was not getting the WAF.

Originally posted by M NEWMAN
:D




No, they're not so bad afterall, otherwise they wouldn't be selling a gazillion of 'em to the uneducated masses (and the ones who know better but are having their arms twisted by the "missus" in the house). ;)


Bose speakers sound kind of good In the stores (where they are perfectly placed and far away from better speakers). That's why people buy them, but once you get them out of their perfect positions, and find them impossible to set in your own room, everything gets messed up.

If Bose was a reputable company, they wouldn't have done what they did to the army with the so called canceling sound headphones.

Most people dont realise how poor Bose sounds in stores for many reasons...

Bose are almost always played with some soundtrack that has explosions and clanging :) Like say watching Terminator 2 or something, people in stores don't expect to be floored by low - infrasonic bass because they only ever see the tiny little satellites, then they say WOW... that sound is coming out of speakers this small? And the sales man says yes, the secret is this small black box that you hide...

Bose almost never play solo piano music or other instrumental pieces, otherwise they would never sell it to anyone who knows what an instrument would sound like... their hole in the 200-280hz zone may not be a full octave but still, it's a few keys lopped off the piano... not nice. Especially when some instruments have second harmonics which are equally as strong as the primary.

They almost always play the Bose system louder than a cheaper unit in stores that push Bose... I've heard a Bose in a friends place, volume was at 70% of max and it was what I would call completely domestic levels... nothing loud at all, except when compared to say TV speakers. People will mistake the additional volume of the small speakers to be superior sound quality... tsk tsk.

There are probably hundreds of other reasons... like it's expensive so it's for the elite people who know sound quality and style...

Cheers...
Duy-Khang Hoang

Mirage Nanosats are cheaper than the Bose system listed above and will sound better. Also, the Tannoy system linked above. So that's at least two "cheaper" sat/sub systems that are Bose-like in size and have better sound and are less expensive. The Energy Act6 system is not very big either and sounds better. It's also less expensive.

Originally posted by Ovation
Mirage Nanosats are cheaper than the Bose system listed above and will sound better. Also, the Tannoy system linked above. So that's at least two "cheaper" sat/sub systems that are Bose-like in size and have better sound and are less expensive. The Energy Act6 system is not very big either and sounds better. It's also less expensive.
Edit
Come to think of it, I did hear the Mirage speakers. That's OK you like them, but I'll keep my Bose. I thought they sounded how they looked. small
End edit.

. I'm not familar with the tannoy system at all so I will withhold my opinion on that one. If these are internet only systems, I wouldn't have bought them anyway. I just wouldn't buy a speaker without hearing it first. Lets just say I'm content with the Bose system anyway. Oh and hdkhang, if your ever in NY, I invite you to come over to my place and listen to some Chic Corea or Kieth Emerson piano music and point out where these missing keys on the piano are. So far I haven't heard them. Just lucky I guess. I didn't hear any missing guitar or bass notes on the Joe Pass/Niels Pederson CD I have either.

Originally posted by Ovation
Mirage Nanosats are cheaper than the Bose system listed above and will sound better. Also, the Tannoy system linked above. So that's at least two "cheaper" sat/sub systems that are Bose-like in size and have better sound and are less expensive. The Energy Act6 system is not very big either and sounds better. It's also less expensive.

Had a long conversation with the best audio dealer in town a week ago. These guys are by far the most knowledgeable dealers I've ever come across.

Bose came up in the conversation. He said if a customer raises the issue, he politely tries to explain the situation. Either the customer gets annoyed and walks out or he gets them looking at act6 and the Gallo spheres.

I must admit, the Gallo spheres must score high on the WAF. They are absolutely gorgeous with the anodized aluminum housings in gold/blue/green etc. This dealer knows what he's talking about so I don't doubt they are half decent, but for that price I am sure a more conventional speaker would sound even better.

Sound is all about moving air - small drivers just can't move enough air. Sophisticated manufacturers can get around this by clever design and tight integration with a sub, but it's easy to screw this up...

Incidentally, I ended the visit in his high-end room with a Bryston 14B SST powering B&W 802Ds. Drool...:cool:

It would certainly worry me that Bose's response to a request for a frequency graph is that measurements lie, but cost is a much better indicator.

Martin

Originally posted by lexa695
Edit
Come to think of it, I did hear the Mirage speakers. That's OK you like them, but I'll keep my Bose. I thought they sounded how they looked. small
End edit.

. I'm not familar with the tannoy system at all so I will withhold my opinion on that one. If these are internet only systems, I wouldn't have bought them anyway. I just wouldn't buy a speaker without hearing it first. Lets just say I'm content with the Bose system anyway. Oh and hdkhang, if your ever in NY, I invite you to come over to my place and listen to some Chic Corea or Kieth Emerson piano music and point out where these missing keys on the piano are. So far I haven't heard them. Just lucky I guess. I didn't hear any missing guitar or bass notes on the Joe Pass/Niels Pederson CD I have either.

I was just trying to offer other choices not mentioned that I found better than Bose. None of the three I listed are internet only brands. If you like the sound of your Bose system, that's great. My beef with them is cost versus performance and the "don't worry your little head about it" attitude I've encountered in their stores. I have a set of Harmon Kardon HKTS6 sat/sub speakers that cost 400$ retail. I a/bed them with the Bose system (can't recall the number) in the same store with the same receiver. The Bose was 1100$ and was no better. In fact, it was not as good as the HK sub was considerably more effective in the bottom end. The upper frequencies were relatively similar. For the cost difference, it was a no brainer. In my main system, (as I had no WAF issues) I have more traditional bookshelf monitor speakers that are, in every way better. But again, I don't have a WAF issue, or a space problem.

If I were shopping for small speakers with a 1200-1600$ budget (around the Bose prices I've seen w/o the Lifestyle player/amp/receiver module), there are a number of sets I'd consider. Boston Acoustics have several, Monitor Audio has the Radius line, the Gallo system that's been mentioned. There are others. Are they cheaper? No. But they give, to me, much more value for dollar spent.

In the end, it's all about personal preference and circumstance. People bash Bose for many reasons, some legit, some less so. For me, it's for the reasons I stated above. At the very least, I should be able to find out the impedence load so I can select proper amplification.

But, as long as you're enjoying the tunes, that's what counts.

Originally posted by Ovation
I was just trying to offer other choices not mentioned that I found better than Bose. None of the three I listed are internet only brands. If you like the sound of your Bose system, that's great. My beef with them is cost versus performance and the "don't worry your little head about it" attitude I've encountered in their stores. I have a set of Harmon Kardon HKTS6 sat/sub speakers that cost 400$ retail. I a/bed them with the Bose system (can't recall the number) in the same store with the same receiver. The Bose was 1100$ and was no better. In fact, it was not as good as the HK sub was considerably more effective in the bottom end. The upper frequencies were relatively similar. For the cost difference, it was a no brainer. In my main system, (as I had no WAF issues) I have more traditional bookshelf monitor speakers that are, in every way better. But again, I don't have a WAF issue, or a space problem.

If I were shopping for small speakers with a 1200-1600$ budget (around the Bose prices I've seen w/o the Lifestyle player/amp/receiver module), there are a number of sets I'd consider. Boston Acoustics have several, Monitor Audio has the Radius line, the Gallo system that's been mentioned. There are others. Are they cheaper? No. But they give, to me, much more value for dollar spent.

In the end, it's all about personal preference and circumstance. People bash Bose for many reasons, some legit, some less so. For me, it's for the reasons I stated above. At the very least, I should be able to find out the impedence load so I can select proper amplification.

But, as long as you're enjoying the tunes, that's what counts.

The one system I regret not seeing is the Anthony Gallo's. I know I could have talked the wife into a set of chrome ones. As a matter of fact, she would have demanded I buy them if they were the same price. They just are not very available where i live, but I believe they cost a lot more in any case.

Originally posted by Roman74
Now, why don't they publish other specs (ohms, sensitivity, power ratings and crossover points)?

For kicks I recently sent the following letter to Bose:

I'm in the market for either bookshelf or floorstanding speakers. As an educated shopper and audio enthusiast, I insist on having as much factual information as possible with which to make my decisions. Indeed, I've been to various reputable speaker manufacturers' websites (e.g., Tannoy, Klipsch, Wharfedale, etc.) and have easily found the specifications for the speakers I review. Your website, however, lists only weights and sizes under speaker "specifications." This is wholly unacceptable. Where are your frequency responses, impedance ratings, input power ratings, sensitivity ratings, crossover frequencies, etc.? These figures are, of course, ESSENTIAL to the educated, online shopper.

Where you market yourself as one of the world's finest speaker manufactuers, it is totally nonsensical that this information is not readily available to consumers. Please send me a catalog and data fully disclosing the specifications (i.e., not just the weight and size) of your speaker line so that I can make an informed decision.

And I received the following response from Bose:

Thank you for your interest in Bose Corporation.

We appreciate the difficulty that consumers face when choosing loudspeakers. Information provided by manufacturers can often be confusing, and it may suggest a basis for comparing speaker performance that is unrelated to the speakers' performance in your listening environment. Furthermore, a speaker's response in a lab (or even a calibrated living room) does not always suggest that you will achieve that response in your room.

There is a great deal of variety in response-measuring techniques. Most of these techniques neglect how a listening room and the speakers' placement in that room can affect the response. On top of that, there is no clear and easy methodology for comparing responses. Our feeling is that response curves are a poor customer tool for comparing two speakers. For this reason, Bose (R) elects not to publish curves.

Bose recognizes that listening to a speaker in an audio store can only approximate the performance that a customer might achieve at home. Only when a speaker is installed in a listening room can the customer learn what its actual performance is. That's why Bose designs speakers using a combination of laboratory measurements and real-world evaluation methods in homes that represent a broad range of sizes, shapes, and constructions. We want to ensure that our speakers sound good in the listening environment that really matters; yours.

Taking a car for a test-drive cannot tell you what it will be like to live with that car. Similarly, a brief audition of a speaker can only begin to tell you what you might experience in your home. The common thread is that you are the customer, and you are the one seeking an enjoyable experience. You can compare speaker specifications and read reviews, but this will not tell you what you will experience in your own home. You can ask your friends what they like, or read testimonials from Bose customers to learn about their experiences and this may suggest that your experience might be similar.

Ultimately, your ears are the only equipment that can adequately compare speakers for you. We can only do the best we know how, using proven research and decades of design experience. We are confident that our speakers' performance compares favorably with the many high-quality speaker products available today. Our customers have consistently expressed their satisfaction with, and enjoyment of, Bose speakers and systems over the years. We hope that you will have an opportunity to reach the same conclusion.

:rolleyes: :D

Hmmmm, interesting response. There's a lot of truth in what they're saying, you know.

For those indicating Bose is a marketing powerhouse (they are) don't forget they hold 162 design and utility patents, with another 3 pending. They have a very active R&D group.

While their products are not for me, (and I'm certainly not defending them,) they employ a lot of interesting psycho-acoustic principles (tricks?) in their products.

Like sins of omission are better than sins of commission.


Now, they are working on high contrast ratio projection screens:

US Patent Number 6848743
"The invention provides a high-contrast front-projection video system especially advantageous where there is substantial ambient light, such as in a lighted room. The high-contrast projection screen reflects projector light back to the viewer without reflecting a substantial amount of ambient light from the room. It typically achieves this by (1) reflecting narrow-band peaks of blue, green and red projector light while absorbing light energy of other wavelengths, such as those in the more broadband ambient light spectrum, (2) reflecting light from a polarized projector while absorbing a large percentage of unpolarized ambient light, and (3) steering the reflected projector light from the projection screen into the viewing area by lensing and/or diffusion while not accepting ambient light from off axis. Not only do these features improve contrast ratio, but reflecting the narrow-band peaks of primary colors improves color as shown above. "

PATENTS SCHMATENTS. You think the patent issuers are audiophiles?

I wish someone would post a link to this thread @ the SPoT. That would give ol' Paul a heart attack.

Some are, of course. The disease afflicts all races, creeds, and professions.

How many junk products get patented?

Prozakk,

You got the "A" in A/V. Where's the "V"? What is that, a 32", 1998 Sanyo?

Samsung 47" HD RPTV. New pics coming this weekend. I've replaced almost everything in my ol' pics.

BTW, it was a '96 model Panny.

Originally posted by JeffD2.
Prozakk,

You got the "A" in A/V. Where's the "V"? What is that, a 32", 1998 Sanyo? LOL. :D Low.

I thought it was funny too.

I was waiting for a descent HD RPTV to be had for around a grand. I didn't/don't care as much about video, as audio (obvious by old pics) .

little late to the forum but may i give my two cents being the only girl registered here...with no one giving specifics as to what Bose model how can everyone be so critical. I mean the lower Bose Acoustimass 10 are not even double cubes and the Subwoofer Acoustimass only has 2 subwoofers and not 3 like the Acoustimass 16...so when you guys talk bad about the Bose speakers are we talking about the new and improved Acoustimass 16 which has the 3 subwoofer setup??? Anyway...love reading the wars...ciao

little late to the forum but may i give my two cents being the only girl registered here...with no one giving specifics as to what Bose model how can everyone be so critical. I mean the lower Bose Acoustimass 10 are not even double cubes and the Subwoofer Acoustimass only has 2 subwoofers and not 3 like the Acoustimass 16...so when you guys talk bad about the Bose speakers are we talking about the new and improved Acoustimass 16 which has the 3 subwoofer setup??? Anyway...love reading the wars...ciao

It's the Acoustimass concept in general that people have a problem with.

It's possible (but difficult) to make good sound using tiny speakers. Some manufacturers can do it. However you need very good integration with the sub. Unfortunately Bose got this wrong - there are large frequency gaps which they try to correct with a custom equalizer, with varying degrees of success.

On top of this, they claim it's the best system in existence and charge 4 figures for it. That's the icing on the cake for most folks around here. Bad products happen, but to charge what they do for them and claim they are the best in the world just invites page after page of flaming.:)

little late to the forum but may i give my two cents being the only girl registered here...
Your not the only girl registered here...not by a long shot.

I have been doing MUCH research lately on Home Theater in a Box systems similar in price to the Bose Accoustimas 16.

One I keep coming back to is from Cabasse. I have read 2 reviews and they are GLOWING. The link to the system i sposted before the pix. It can be purchased at retailers for $1,295.00 American from Legacy Audio/Video and an additional speaker for 6.1 for a small charge. The reviewers praise its Home Theater Performance and were shocked at how well it reproduced music. It also includes all mounting hardware (wall, stand) and 2 different color speaker covers. Bose charges extra. I find this a great value against the Accoustimas especially since no reviews exist on the Accoustimas 10, 15 or 16. I am planning to purchase this. B&W as well as others are begining to capture this growing low cost entry market with better solutions than even Sony and others can effectively compete with.

http://www.cabasse-usa.com/english/xo2/

Here is a review.

http://www.cabasse.com/french/revue_presse/XO2%20SYSTEM%20-%20AVG%20MONTHLY%20-%20FEB%202005.pdf

http://members.cox.net/sandifer4/xo2-1.jpg
http://members.cox.net/sandifer4/xo2-2.jpg
http://members.cox.net/sandifer4/xo2-3.jpg

I have been doing MUCH research lately on Home Theater in a Box systems similar in price to the Bose Accoustimas 16.

One I keep coming back to is from Cabasse. I have read 2 reviews and they are GLOWING. The link to the system i sposted before the pix. It can be purchased at retailers for $1,295.00 American from Legacy Audio/Video and an additional speaker for 6.1 for a small charge. The reviewers praise its Home Theater Performance and were shocked at how well it reproduced music. It also includes all mounting hardware (wall, stand) and 2 different color speaker covers. Bose charges extra. I find this a great value against the Accoustimas especially since no reviews exist on the Accoustimas 10, 15 or 16. I am planning to purchase this. B&W as well as others are begining to capture this growing low cost entry market with better solutions than even Sony and others can effectively compete with.

http://www.cabasse-usa.com/english/xo2/

Here is a review.

http://www.cabasse.com/french/revue_presse/XO2%20SYSTEM%20-%20AVG%20MONTHLY%20-%20FEB%202005.pdf

http://members.cox.net/sandifer4/xo2-1.jpg
http://members.cox.net/sandifer4/xo2-2.jpg
http://members.cox.net/sandifer4/xo2-3.jpg

Ooooooooooooooooohhhhh...nice Bose killers!

Hmmmm, interesting response. There's a lot of truth in what they're saying, you know.



True.

Nothing against Bose, but I have found all good lies have a substantial amount of truth.

Bose knows that if they did publish their specs, they would be in a world of hurt. For what they charge, you can definately do a lot better.
----------------------------

I have owned several Bose products and have been very satisfied with them and will continue to buy Bose products. Now audiophiles will call me stupid for wasting my money, but in the end I believe there are several factors that people consider when buying almost anything. I believe with clever product conception and marketing, Bose has done a good (excellent) job of catering to their customer base. Here are some points that come to mind:

1. Last year I was looking to upgrade my existing Bose Lifestyle system with a newer one since the system I owned lacked some basic features like progressive scan DVD and lack of component connections. After looking at several sets, I decided to go with the Lifestyle 48 because of it's combination of features, aesthetics and sound quality. Every single person who has come over to our place, whether to see a movie, TV or listen to music has positively commented on the sound quality. So, I am clearly not the only person imagining good sound here (I did not say best, good).

2. Statistical leadership does not translate to the best product. GM and Ford for years have been turning out cars that are cheaper and statistically more impressive than their Japanese counterparts, yet unable to sell them.

3. Major bands, auto manufacturers and even hollywood sound producers have been using Bose products. Why would they, if these were such inferior products!

I know audiophiles love to disparage anyone buying or considering Bose products. But in the end it is your money, buy what you think makes most sense to you. I enjoy my Bose (and from what I can tell a lot of other folks do as well).

Sure Motor Trend recommends cars that have a top speed of 180MPH and the best cornering on a race track or whatever. Am I a fool to buying a car rated as boring by them? I'm a Honda and Acura kind of person, and the Bose does just fine by me...and I guess that's all that matters to Bose :)

----------------------------

I have owned several Bose products and have been very satisfied with them and will continue to buy Bose products. Now audiophiles will call me stupid for wasting my money, but in the end I believe there are several factors that people consider when buying almost anything. I believe with clever product conception and marketing, Bose has done a good (excellent) job of catering to their customer base. Here are some points that come to mind:

1. Last year I was looking to upgrade my existing Bose Lifestyle system with a newer one since the system I owned lacked some basic features like progressive scan DVD and lack of component connections. After looking at several sets, I decided to go with the Lifestyle 48 because of it's combination of features, aesthetics and sound quality. Every single person who has come over to our place, whether to see a movie, TV or listen to music has positively commented on the sound quality. So, I am clearly not the only person imagining good sound here (I did not say best, good).

2. Statistical leadership does not translate to the best product. GM and Ford for years have been turning out cars that are cheaper and statistically more impressive than their Japanese counterparts, yet unable to sell them.

3. Major bands, auto manufacturers and even hollywood sound producers have been using Bose products. Why would they, if these were such inferior products!

I know audiophiles love to disparage anyone buying or considering Bose products. But in the end it is your money, buy what you think makes most sense to you. I enjoy my Bose (and from what I can tell a lot of other folks do as well).

Sure Motor Trend recommends cars that have a top speed of 180MPH and the best cornering on a race track or whatever. Am I a fool to buying a car rated as boring by them? I'm a Honda and Acura kind of person, and the Bose does just fine by me...and I guess that's all that matters to Bose :)


Sounds like you're trying really hard to defend yourself here :p

I hate them partially because of all of the reasons you've heard here, but also because I used to sell them. Their sales and marketing practices are just downright sleazy. I've gotten two of their regional sales reps to admit that they're products are poor quality compared to comparably priced alternatives. But in their words: "it doesn't matter. The brand sells itself. They're quick, easy sells that will help you close deals quicker and make more money, that's why you should push our products." The company intentionally goes out of their way so you can not do A/B comparisons. They fix prices, and they do not allow us to sell customer returns as open box discounts or sales for other customers.

You state earlier that other people have commented on the sound quality of your system. Just for arguments sake, lets say they all thought the system sounded like garbage. You invite your friends to your house, show off your new system that you just dropped a couple of grand or so on...do you think they would tell you they sound like garbage, or do you think they'd just tell you what you want to hear? The real test is to see if any of them buy anything similar based on their experience in your home. I've had two other people go out and buy Gallo Ref3s after hearing them in my house.

Like them or not, they're still a sleazy company.

I have owned several Bose products and have been very satisfied with them and will continue to buy Bose products.

I guess marketing really does work.:)

Personally I really don't care if Bose puts out a good product or not. Companies are allowed to put out any product they care to. What I would rather not see is someone going out and buying Bose just because it is Bose. Make comparisons. If you really love it, as you state, it's your money. If you've made an educated choice then that's being fair to yourself.


2. Statistical leadership does not translate to the best product. GM and Ford for years have been turning out cars that are cheaper and statistically more impressive than their Japanese counterparts, yet unable to sell them.

One word: reliability. It doesn't matter if it has 50 or 100 more horses if it's in the shop or on the side of the highway.;)

Bose is actually inviting people to listen to and COMPARE their products to the competition? :eek: That is a letter that should be framed in the Halls of Audio.

Of course, since most Bose displays are set up in isolation you have no chance to do a direct comparison. This is done for a reason...if you compare, you buy the competition.

Bose is actually inviting people to listen to and COMPARE their products to the competition? :eek: That is a letter that should be framed in the Halls of Audio.

Of course, since most Bose displays are set up in isolation you have no chance to do a direct comparison. This is done for a reason...if you compare, you buy the competition.

True. A truly competitive product is not afraid to stand up to the competition.

Sounds like you're trying really hard to defend yourself here :p

I hate them partially because of all of the reasons you've heard here, but also because I used to sell them. Their sales and marketing practices are just downright sleazy. I've gotten two of their regional sales reps to admit that they're products are poor quality compared to comparably priced alternatives. But in their words: "it doesn't matter. The brand sells itself. They're quick, easy sells that will help you close deals quicker and make more money, that's why you should push our products." The company intentionally goes out of their way so you can not do A/B comparisons. They fix prices, and they do not allow us to sell customer returns as open box discounts or sales for other customers.

You state earlier that other people have commented on the sound quality of your system. Just for arguments sake, lets say they all thought the system sounded like garbage. You invite your friends to your house, show off your new system that you just dropped a couple of grand or so on...do you think they would tell you they sound like garbage, or do you think they'd just tell you what you want to hear? The real test is to see if any of them buy anything similar based on their experience in your home. I've had two other people go out and buy Gallo Ref3s after hearing them in my house.

Like them or not, they're still a sleazy company.
----------------------------------

I'm not going to make comments about which company has the sleaziest sales force. That is a pointless argument. I've seen sleazy and good sales people everywhere.

Now on the point of trying to defend my choice. I am, and I am also saying that for me the Bose systems I bought were ok. I didn't buy them because they were Bose, but because they fit what I wanted from my system. I also have multiple Plasma TVs. I had a Panasonic and then bought an NEC. As a consumer I can buy what I want. Based on my experience with Bose, I would not hesitate to buy from them again, if they had what I was looking for.

I think a lot of people are pre-disposed to dislike Bose, just as a lot of people are pre-disposed the other way. To accuse people who prefer Bose as being 'easily fooled' I think is very naive and misses the point of why people buy certain products. Samsung is the #1 selling Plasma manufacturer in the world, yet no review ever, anywhere puts them as the # in PQ or any other top TV category. But I'm sure there is a reason why people buy them.

The point is that people don't buy products based on just specs and what experts think they want people to buy. It's not for home theatre products and not for any other product. Just think about it and go to sleep peacefully.....

I guess marketing really does work.:)

Personally I really don't care if Bose puts out a good product or not. Companies are allowed to put out any product they care to. What I would rather not see is someone going out and buying Bose just because it is Bose. Make comparisons. If you really love it, as you state, it's your money. If you've made an educated choice then that's being fair to yourself.



One word: reliability. It doesn't matter if it has 50 or 100 more horses if it's in the shop or on the side of the highway.;)
--------------------------------------------------------------

If marketing didn't work companies wouldn't be doing it! Think of a successful mass marketed product and ask yourself if marketing had anything to do with it. But it is also important to remember that while marketing will help a good product perform very well in the market, it will almost never help a lousy product do consistently well in the market. From this forum it appears Bose could be an exception to the rule....not!

And it's not just reliability, because recent statistics also show that American cars are fairly close in terms of reliability as well. I think it is 'trust' there is a trust that people have when they think about Honda, Toyota etc, that goes beyond their specifications alone....I believe a lot of Bose buyers have trust in the brand.

I have a $500 stereo in my bedroom and a 4K Bose in my living room. To me the Bose sounds much better. Does it sound ten times better - probably not. I've also listened to 10K AV set ups that didn't sound a lot better than my 4 K Bose (if better at all), but I'm not going aroung trashing those sets as being not worth the 10K. I'm sure the person who put them together probably finds them perfect!

Hope everyone enjoys what they have.

True. A truly competitive product is not afraid to stand up to the competition.
--------------------------------------

Why should you buy without comparing? I don't see how you can't compare products when they are all in the same store? How do you compare Plasma TV sets? I see on CNET the most popular Plasma is the Panasonic 50 inch commerical set, that probably 50% people buy without ever seeing.

You cannot compare several of the most popular Plasma TV sets today in a single store. It's not as unusual as you think.

Don't assume that people are stupid because they don't think like you or agree with you. I have found that people in general are rational and act according to rational behavior. Bose could not have survived (thrived) by continuously putting out inferior products at inflated prices. To assume otherwise is irrational.

Ok looks like I am preaching to an audience that is by an large one-dimensional in their thinking. You don't have Bose, great! You're just so smart, perhaps some sort of award for cleverness is in order....

But it is also important to remember that while marketing will help a good product perform very well in the market, it will almost never help a lousy product do consistently well in the market.

Too easy. Marketing really does prop up a poor product.

To continue with the car analogy...Cadillac (overly complex, failure-prone yet enormously successful due to marketing), Hummer ("gotta have it" marketing and vehicles with the highest number of defects on delivery), Saab (performance expectations due to marketing which are dashed as they never leave the repair shop), Saturn (never as high a quality as the marketing makes it out to be).

Even the much-hyped Porsche Cayenne has dragged down their once-excellent quality reputation.

We are fortunate that there are not many truly poor audio products out there these days. The one exception is ironically the one which is most heavily promoted. I won't mention any names.;)

Sounds like you're trying really hard to defend yourself here :p

I hate them partially because of all of the reasons you've heard here, but also because I used to sell them. Their sales and marketing practices are just downright sleazy. I've gotten two of their regional sales reps to admit that they're products are poor quality compared to comparably priced alternatives. But in their words: "it doesn't matter. The brand sells itself. They're quick, easy sells that will help you close deals quicker and make more money, that's why you should push our products." The company intentionally goes out of their way so you can not do A/B comparisons. They fix prices, and they do not allow us to sell customer returns as open box discounts or sales for other customers.

You state earlier that other people have commented on the sound quality of your system. Just for arguments sake, lets say they all thought the system sounded like garbage. You invite your friends to your house, show off your new system that you just dropped a couple of grand or so on...do you think they would tell you they sound like garbage, or do you think they'd just tell you what you want to hear? The real test is to see if any of them buy anything similar based on their experience in your home. I've had two other people go out and buy Gallo Ref3s after hearing them in my house.

Like them or not, they're still a sleazy company.
-----------------------

Actually two of my friends have gone out and bought Bose Lifestyle systems after listening to mine. One replaced some Polk Audio set-up he had and other an Onkyo set.

Anyway, I think I'll end my discussion here on this subject.

Why should you buy without comparing? I don't see how you can't compare products when they are all in the same store? How do you compare Plasma TV sets? I see on CNET the most popular Plasma is the Panasonic 50 inch commerical set, that probably 50% people buy without ever seeing.

You cannot compare several of the most popular Plasma TV sets today in a single store. It's not as unusual as you think.

Don't assume that people are stupid because they don't think like you or agree with you.

At first I was not calling you stupid, but if you do buy everything in one store without comparing anything at all then you are stupid. Sorry. I generally try to get along, but that really is stupid.

As I said, if you had done some comparisons and preferred Bose then I'd have nothing to say.

I have found that people in general are rational and act according to rational behavior.

I find the exact opposite. People are, as a whole, incredibly stupid and irrational, preferring myths, preconceptions and general beliefs to actual data. This is where marketing comes in. One can never underestimate the stupidity of the public at large. Most people, for example, believe that a volcano will kill you through lava flows. Google "pyroclastic flow".

Bose could not have survived (thrived) by continuously putting out inferior products at inflated prices. To assume otherwise is irrational.

A poor product can do incredibly well in the marketplace. The Q-Ray Ionized Bracelet is a smash hit.


Ok looks like I am preaching to an audience that is by an large one-dimensional in their thinking. You don't have Bose, great! You're just so smart, perhaps some sort of award for cleverness is in order....

I'll put it on my mantlepiece.

At first I was not calling you stupid, but if you do buy everything in one store without comparing anything at all then you are stupid. Sorry. I generally try to get along, but that really is stupid.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would I not compare if they are available?

As I said, if you had done some comparisons and preferred Bose then I'd have nothing to say.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why did you infer I did not compare? In fact I said I had compared before I bought.



I find the exact opposite. People are, as a whole, incredibly stupid and irrational, preferring myths, preconceptions and general beliefs to actual data. This is where marketing comes in. One can never underestimate the stupidity of the public at large. Most people, for example, believe that a volcano will kill you through lava flows. Google "pyroclastic flow".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here we disagree. I point out to a trend towards 'less' myth and 'more' facts in our everyday lives. We have gone from 100% people believing in a flat earth to 50% to almost 0% today. We may resist facts, but rationality implies that we will eventually accept them because it's in our interest to do so....you can never underestimate the extent to which people overestimate their wisdom - just read your above statement!

A RATIONAL PERSON DOES NOT IMPLY A WISE PERSON.



A poor product can do incredibly well in the marketplace. The Q-Ray Ionized Bracelet is a smash hit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Not knowing enough about the benefits of this product. If it is a poor product it will not survive for long. Fads do come and go. A great product is not a fad. Your understanding appears to be very superficial of most subjects you claim to know anything about. Bose has been around for around 30 years or so (I believe).



I'll put it on my mantlepiece.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Due to your recent comments I take this one away from you. But I'm sure others on this forum will be happy to fill your maktlepiece.


--------------------------------

I'm no audiophile. I have an inexpensive Polk setup.

In all of my casual listenings to Bose systems, I have been impressed by the *lack* of sound quality. No clarity, glaring holes in the frequency response, no low bass output, etc etc. They sound like crap because they *are* crap. Cheap materials, cheap construction. That's the end of the story as far as I'm concerned.

Bose are not accurate speakers and they will never do well in a lab test. Many of the lab tests I have seen actually use dubious claims (poor math/science) to exaggerate holes in the frequency response of the Bose systems.

However their direct reflecting technology does sound wide, warm and spacious in most bedrooms/living rooms which are far from perfect acoustically. I have a set of 9 year old 301 Series IV, and they hooked up to an old HK AVR35, sounded quite nice. I have a setup now which costs 5x more (Rocket Onix 750 Signature with the UFW10). They sound better and clearer but certainly not 5x better.

Another thing to keep in mind is that how human beings perceive a sound is radically different from what an oscilloscope will show. Let me give you an example related to vision. If you see the moon rising over the horizon, especially a full moon, it looks much larger than the full moon after it has reached the middle of the sky. There is no optics involved. It is just that when the moon is close to horizon, nearby objects on the earth are a part of your view and that makes your mind to perceive the moon to be a different size than when the moon has risen further. Bose has invested a lot in doing such studies on how human beings perceive sound and have tuned their lines according to that. This is well beyond the technological or financial realm of most speaker companies.

All the talk about frequency curves is somewhat bogus since it is measuring a single impulse response . i.e. it is measuring the response when a particular frequency is being played. In real life, the speaker is playing tons of different frequencies. Unless the system is linear where the individual frequency components can be added, the response curve is far from what the speaker will sound with real data. And speakers are not linear. That is why we go for sub-woofers, to separate out the low frequency components so they do not tax the main speakers.

Another thing about comments on Bose construction. Bose speakers come with a 5 year warranty which is one of the longest in the industry. You can complain of paper speakers etc but there are a lot of different kind of paper and construction techniques you can use. From what I have seen, the Bose bookshelf speakers are not prone to breakdown and even 10-15 years old speakers have a decent resale value. And since raw material costs are such a small fraction of the sale price, Bose could easily spend 2x on the raw-material with very little hit to their bottom-line. There is very little business justification for not spending more, if the engineering demands it. It is clear from their research that a bigger investment in supposedly better materials is not needed.

The Bose Acoustimass based systems are a different breed than their bookshelves. There Bose's claim to fame is that they were first to the market with a unique product which created a market where none existed. I am sure the 5.1 market would not have taken off the way it did, if the Bose cubes were not there. WAF of a 5.1 system went to the stratosphere with the Bose cubes. Once you are in, you can gradually expand the size of the speakers. ;)

--------------------------------------------------------------

I've also listened to 10K AV set ups that didn't sound a lot better than my 4 K Bose (if better at all)


I guess that means that bose makes a 10,000 dollar AV system now.

rofl


All kidding aside, bose is not the best for the price, but they target a subtle/naïve (not in a bad way) market and make it seem like the easy and smart solution. Can you buy better sound? Oh god yes, but you know what, most people don’t really care about the differences. You throw a subwoofer in a cheap system and it all of a sudden sounds great. People want simplicity and peace of mind and a name thy can hold on too without hurting their ego.. we are after all, Americans and marketing rules our world. plazman, you're really going out on a lime trying to compare bose with other systems. It doest really compare buddy and it only hurt your argument, but I'll give you this, Bose knows how to target their market much better then the rest of us and the fact is, you're bose's market, and you're the majority. I’m glad it works for you.

Put them behind an acoustically transparent fabric , hidden from view, invite 100 posters from here out to listen to them , telling them it's a new speaker , and then have them draw the FR curve. How many , do you expect, will come close? I mean this should be a slam dunk , right? Hugely inaccurate with respect to FR and full of problems, these speakers dips and drop offs should be glaringly obvious, right? The percentage of those who could accurately reproduce the independantly tested graph would be, I suspect, astonishingly low. IMO.

By jove tweeterex, I do think you're on to something. As many who bash Bose, take a look at how some people you know buy relatively expensive, and admittedly well performing speakers, and then stick them in corners against the walls. Then they've got hard tile floors, almost nothing on the walls. large expanses of windows. Or what about the omindirectional crowd. A bit different from Bose, but still basing a substantial amount of their preference on reflected sound. Or what about the other companies that put out single driver speakers...some in smallish cubes or orbs...some in large floor standing cabinets...what about them?

Depends on what is being played, obviously. Make it a frequency sweep from 20 to 20,000 Hz and it will be *damn* obvious. You won't hear anything below 55-60Hz and there will be a giant dip in the low midrange. Play something I'm very familiar with, like some Tori Amos, and I'd be able to do it as well.

007']I guess that means that bose makes a 10,000 dollar AV system now.

rofl


All kidding aside, bose is not the best for the price, but they target a subtle/naïve (not in a bad way) market and make it seem like the easy and smart solution. Can you buy better sound? Oh god yes, but you know what, most people don’t really care about the differences. You throw a subwoofer in a cheap system and it all of a sudden sounds great. People want simplicity and peace of mind and a name thy can hold on too without hurting their ego.. we are after all, Americans and marketing rules our world. plazman, you're really going out on a lime trying to compare bose with other systems. It doest really compare buddy and it only hurt your argument, but I'll give you this, Bose knows how to target their market much better then the rest of us and the fact is, you're bose's market, and you're the majority. I’m glad it works for you.
--------------------------------

I guess the term would be 'acoustically challenged'. I believe the set up was a combination of some high end stuff put together by a professional AV shop. It sounded good, but I would not have paid 10K for it. I am also not saying that Bose is the cheapest or the best. All I am saying is that I am satisfied with my investment. I like the sound and the looks of the system for what I paid.

If I didn't like it would I have returned it or got another? sure! I've done it with many other products.

Good marketing is not something to be denegrated and equated with sleaziness.

Make it a frequency sweep from 20 to 20,000 Hz and it will be *damn* obvious. You won't hear anything below 55-60Hz and there will be a giant dip in the low midrange. Play something I'm very familiar with, like some Tori Amos, and I'd be able to do it as well.

But could you hear that and draw a graph without knowing what your listening to?
Try it, unless you're scared of the results......you would , of course not be able to know what you were listening to, and now couldn't do bose because you know the graph. I'm not saying some can't , but rather that most can't draw the right graph after listening to an unknown speaker.

A Bose 5.1 setup would rightly cost maybe $200-$300. Instead, with their aggressive marketing, they charge more like several thousand. Still sounds like a $200 speaker system, but now the consumer thinks they have some high-end audio gear.

But could you hear that and draw a graph without knowing what your listening to?
Try it, unless you're scared of the results......you would , of course not be able to know what you were listening to, and now couldn't do bose because you know the graph. I'm not saying some can't , but rather that most can't draw the right graph after listening to an unknown speaker.
It's not very hard to tell where you are in a frequency sweep if you've listened to a couple. And it's super easy to know that the lowest sounds you're hearing are not 25 or 30Hz but instead 60Hz.

I don't have golden ears. I'm a cheap SOB who has fairly cheap gear and hasn't listened to a ton of stuff... but 60+Hz is very distinguishable from 30Hz.

There's no way the guys at Best Buy would let me pop in an Avia test disc with a Bose system so we could do some frequency analysis, and I'm sure as hell not going to buy one of these systems.. but I *know* they can't do bass and can't reproduce the entire frequency range. That's obvious upon even a casual listen.

I'm one of the few people who will admit to buying a set of Acoustimass 5 SII speakers back in 1992 or so. I was totally taken by the demo at Circuit City in Maryland while I was in college.

At the time, they were a terrific thing for my very small apartment. Gave me good staging with a small footprint, and didn't lose sound quality even when attached to the walls with mounts. I had a set of Mission bookshelf speakers that did not have the bass that the Bose provided. Granted, it was muddy bass, but I didn't have high expectations for the package.

I wasn't a sonic idiot mind you. I was very interested in classical and opera, and demanded a certain level of imaging and accuracy. My parents home at the time had a very (and I mean very) expensive and high quality setup, including a pair of Apogee ribbon speakers powered by 2 Jeff Rowland monoblocks and a 2 channel krell amp.

Even then I could detect a problem with cymbal crashes, and voices disappearing. Sopranos sounded terrific, but Tenors had "issues." Overall, I came home from college very happy with my purchase.

Until I stacked them head-to-head with my brothers ADS floorstanders. It wasn't a blind a/b, but comparing the two I was pretty amazed at what was missing from the bose.

Nonetheless, I don't think they're that terrible. They are incredibly over priced, but they do provide a pleasing sound for certain people in certain situations. Sound quality is in many ways subjective, and why get all bent if some ppl don't give a s**t if it's not accurate? Keep on educating them (I assume that's why they come here).

If you're a true "audiophile," you have bigger fish to fry. The quality of recorded music is going down, not up. People are actually believing that 128kbs AAC files are equal to cd quality music. Music is being mixed to sound good on iPods. I don't care about the quality when I jog or drive in my car, but it sure is heck noticeable on my HT rig.

BTW, I am now one of those Omnisat converts. I think they sound pretty good considering my problematic room (tile, 3 walls, practically no dampening materials), but I don't even put them in the same league as a full range speaker. They were a necessary concession - I wanted a pair of Def Techs that sounded awesome for the price.

I don't think they're pretending to go down to 20 Hz. What's that giant dip in the midrange? Got a graph?

You are brave indeed, plazman, sticking your head into this hornets' nest of Bose hatred.

To someone who has no emotional response to Bose one way or the other, some of the bashing here seems borderline irrational.

Yes, I do own a pair of Bose speakers. They fit their application just fine. In other applications, my equipment list includes names like McIntosh, Luxman, Burwen, Audionics, Harman Kardon, Sony, SVS, DVDO, Pioneer, Panasonic, etc, etc. I simply choose the component that I think best fits my needs.

As for performance, I think BayAreaFan, tweeterex, and Chu Gai said most of what I would say.

I'd like to add a couple of points. First, contrary to widely held opinion, Bose speakers do well on some lab tests for accuracy. Many of them have consistently measured among the most accurate by Consumer's Reports.

Before everyone goes ballistic, I wouldn't suggest for a moment that one should necessarily agree (or disagree) with CR's conclusions, or even their criteria, but those who are familiar with their techniques acknowledge that their measurements are made objectively and dispassionately. I think CR's approach falters when they rate subjective products, but they do try to reduce everything to measurable parameters. (Please, let's not hijack this thread into a CR flame war, there are plenty of those here already.)

Secondly, it's axiomatic among marketing professionals that nothing kills a bad product faster than great marketing. It can create a short term faddish sensation, but not a success that lasts for decades, like Bose. For the long term, a product must offer something of value.

Speakers are about as personal a decision as anything this side of choosing a mate. What someone else likes is not necessarily what you like, but to insult them for their choice is totally unwarranted.

You are brave indeed, plazman, sticking your head into this hornets' nest of Bose hatred.

To someone who has no emotional response to Bose one way or the other, some of the bashing here seems borderline irrational.

Yes, I do own a pair of Bose speakers. They fit their application just fine. In other applications, my equipment list includes names like McIntosh, Luxman, Burwen, Audionics, Harman Kardon, Sony, SVS, DVDO, Pioneer, Panasonic, etc, etc. I simply choose the component that I think best fits my needs.

As for performance, I think BayAreaFan, tweeterex, and Chu Gai said most of what I would say.

I'd like to add a couple of points. First, contrary to widely held opinion, Bose speakers do well on some lab tests for accuracy. Many of them have consistently measured among the most accurate by Consumer's Reports.

Before everyone goes ballistic, I wouldn't suggest for a moment that one should necessarily agree (or disagree) with CR's conclusions, or even their criteria, but those who are familiar with their techniques acknowledge that their measurements are made objectively and dispassionately. I think CR's approach falters when they rate subjective products, but they do try to reduce everything to measurable parameters. (Please, let's not hijack this thread into a CR flame war, there are plenty of those here already.)

Secondly, it's axiomatic among marketing professionals that nothing kills a bad product faster than great marketing. It can create a short term faddish sensation, but not a success that lasts for decades, like Bose. For the long term, a product must offer something of value.

Speakers are about as personal a decision as anything this side of choosing a mate. What someone else likes is not necessarily what you like, but to insult them for their choice is totally unwarranted.

Just a few quick comments...if you own a set, it's hard to state you have no emotional response. The speakers might fit their application well, but that does not debunk the claim that many here (and on pretty much any other audio forum I've ever come across) believe that you could have gotten something else that fits just as well for a couple hundred less. Also, on Consumer Reports, they're not audio experts. They're also the same company that was sued by Suzuki for intentionally trying to roll the tracker in their tests back about 10 years ago. CR is the absolute last place I'd look for good information on audio. When I used to be in the business of selling this stuff, their reliability reports on certain brands and models often conflicted drastically with the failure and return rates we were witnessing in our store. I've yet to see anyone who specializes in audio that gives them good marks for accuracy.

I made good money selling Bose when I was in college. If someone came in asking about Bose, and if I were short on time or if I didn't feel like spending a half of an hour or more convincing them not to believe all of the marketing they've heard, they were usually easy quick sales that allowed me to make a quick commission and move on to the next customer. Yet, I despise their products. If there's anyone who should like them, it's me. And I'm telling you, from working in an audio store for 3 years, I got plenty of time to listen to hundreds of speakers in a myriad of configurations, and I've conducted more blind A/B tests than I care to count for (not much else to do on a Tuesday afternoon when my last class is at 10am, I get to work at 1100, and everyone else is working, so there's no business in the store), and I have no doubt in my mind that Bose is one of the absolute worst values for the dollar that I came across in the industry. When I got two Bose regional sales reps to agree with me (no easy feat), that was all of the validation anyone could ask for.

I don't think they're pretending to go down to 20 Hz. What's that giant dip in the midrange? Got a graph?

Take a Barry White CD to a CC or BB, and see what they do. :eek: Don't need a graph for that! :D

I'd like to add a couple of points. First, contrary to widely held opinion, Bose speakers do well on some lab tests for accuracy. Many of them have consistently measured among the most accurate by Consumer's Reports.



I don't think this represents the true situation at all.

Consumer Reports has given Bose some negative reviews, to the point where Bose has filed a lawsuit against them. Since that time it seems to me that CR has tiptoed around Bose in their reviews.

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/954/

This case actually went all the way to the Supreme Court.

Bose has also sued other reviewers. To me this is corporate intimidation at its worst, and is one reason that I would never recommend their products.

Just a few quick comments...if you own a set, it's hard to state you have no emotional response. The speakers might fit their application well, but that does not debunk the claim that many here (and on pretty much any other audio forum I've ever come across) believe that you could have gotten something else that fits just as well for a couple hundred less...
Actually, I may have emotional attachments to some of the gear I own, but not all of it.

My Bose computer speakers undoubtedly cost more than others, but since they cost less than $100, the difference isn't that huge, and they offer a convenience not matched by many, the ability to simultaneously receive signals from my FM tuner and my computer. And I was pleasantly surprised with how good they sound, especially when combined with my Dayton subwoofer (itself a less than perfect device). At least they lack the fatiguing, shrill quality of so many I've heard.

Do they match any of my other systems? Of course not, but they are more than adequate for what they are asked to do. (I only mentioned them in the first place as a matter of full disclosure, not as a ringing endorsement.)

I've never said that you couldn't find something that you like for less (often much less), only that people who don't agree with the prevailing "audiophile" opinion are entitled to their own, without being subjected to insults and ridicule.

...Consumer Reports has given Bose some negative reviews, to the point where Bose has filed a lawsuit against them. Since that time it seems to me that CR has tiptoed around Bose in their reviews.

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/954/

This case actually went all the way to the Supreme Court..
I don't intend to derail this thread with a CR debate, but did want to mention that cases don't get to the Supreme Court if both sides don't have a compelling position.

If CR feels intimidated, all they have to do is stop reviewing Bose speakers. They barely touch a fraction of the brands out there as it is. (A significant criticism of CR's ratings, in my view.) They certainly wouldn't have had to put two Bose speakers on their "Quick Picks" short list. They can't get sued for saying nothing.

Again, I'm not trying to convince anyone to buy Bose, or even to like them. All I'm saying is show some respect to those who do.

I don't intend to derail this thread with a CR debate, but did want to mention that cases don't get to the Supreme Court if both sides don't have a compelling position.

Did you examine the contents of the link? It appears pretty apparent to me that the Bose case was based on a farcical legal technicality that while may be interesting as a point of law has little or nothing to do with the actual merits of the review.

In any case I don't think CR is a good of information for consumer electronics, however you opened that door by citing CR reviews of Bose speakers. I was merely pointing out that there is substantial history there.

The basic point of my opinion is I think Bose automatically disqualifies itself from consideration as a company to do business with by suing reviewers.

Combined with the fact that they don't publish any technical specifications and actively make it hard for shoppers to direct comparisons between their products and other offerings, it is clear that they are actively working to prevent informed evaluation of their product.

I think consumers should avoid companies who act in this manner.

a niche market and I really don't see why people get so emotional over this.

It's not geared toward audiophiles. It's targetted to those that want a small, simple product that sounds decent (better than TV speakers) and has name recognition.

It is definetely a company based on marketing. That's fine. They do what they do.

I do believe they are a collosal rip off and I would tell my friends and family this. If they were looking at speakers, I would definetely recommend bookshelves or floor standing speakers. If they wanted something smaller, I'd recommend something else based on their budget.

It's quite obvious Bose speakers aren't very accurate, have a sizable frequency gap, and don't play very low. I'm also irritated by some of their owners that claim they have the greatest speakers in the world (and I've come across such people while working in sales myself).

People don't have to justify their purchases. Everyone can buy what they want. That's how the free market works. However, if a person I know (and if I'm actually concerned about how they spend their money) is willing to shell out a few thousand on some "jewel cubes", I'd let them know that for the price they can get something a lot better - and if they want something of similar (or better) quality, they can find something a lot cheaper.

--------------------------------

I guess the term would be 'acoustically challenged'. I believe the set up was a combination of some high end stuff put together by a professional AV shop. It sounded good, but I would not have paid 10K for it. I am also not saying that Bose is the cheapest or the best. All I am saying is that I am satisfied with my investment. I like the sound and the looks of the system for what I paid.

If I didn't like it would I have returned it or got another? sure! I've done it with many other products.

Good marketing is not something to be denegrated and equated with sleaziness.


Bro, there is a lot of stuff I would never pay 10k. I mean we make the Krell master reference subwoofer drivers... I would never pay 20,000 dollars for one! Its nice, but its just not worth that to *me*, but I bet someone would want it. Bragging rights on that thing are through the roof.

The best speakers I own are the ones I got for free :)
no joke!


I guess you're right, it just comes down to what you are satisfied with and if you are satisfied then **** everyone else.

A number of folks talk about the holes in the frequency response in Bose speakers. One question I have is the relevance of these response curves.

The speakers reproduce music which consists of a ton of different frequencies at the same time. A frequency sweep consists of a single tone. As a speaker design engineer the frequency sweep is a tool I would use to design the stuff. However, how the speaker will reproduce a set of different frequencies is just not captured in these sweeps.

The speakers are not a linear system and the religious belief in the curves is misplaced. A better test would be a system where you plug in multiple frequecies, which are not harmonic multiples of each other and observe the behavior. But I rarely do see one; simply because there an infinite number of combinations you could have.

Another aspect to keep in mind is how the mind perceives music or sound. Bose invests in research on sound perception. For example, human mind can fill in missing frequencies in a sound source which has gaps in reproduction but consists of a sound source which produces multiple harmonics. See Missing Fundamental Effect (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/sound/subton.html#c2) . From what I have read of Bose research, they have used this information in designing their systems.

We dont listen to single frequency tones (Thank God!). Our ears and mind are not an oscilloscope. It is pointless to rely completely on the frequency sweeps. In our statistics obsessed society, technical specs have their relevance raised to a level they do not deserve. And the speaker industry is not alone. It is funny to see the contrast ratios and response time games being played by the flat screen display makers too.

I still feel that at $300 a pair, Bose 301 series is one of the better set of $300 speakers around when put in your acoustically challenged study, bedroom or living room; and I have heard a lot of speakers in different settings.

Bose's cube based system might be a different story. There their claim to fame was pioneering the industry. There are a lot of other players who can build good speakers systems based on that concept; but most can not compete with the Bose brand name. Good thing is that the consumers can get good quality stuff at much lowere costs than Bose when it comes to the cube based speakers.

I have no doubt in my mind that Bose is one of the absolute worst values for the dollar that I came across in the industry. When I got two Bose regional sales reps to agree with me (no easy feat), that was all of the validation anyone could ask for.

Jehrico:

Is your comparison based on Bose Bookshelves/Floor Standing Models or the cubes?

Was the comparison done in a audio-store's studio with good acoustic properties or in someone's dorm rome, bedroom, living room or study?

well I mean jesus christ... if bose is gonna try and pull the "your brain will fill in the **** we're missing" excuse then we might as well just sell air and call them virtual speakers.

We use oscilloscopes because if a speaker can't do a frequency linearly, then it can't do any combination of frequencies or harmonics that contain that particular one, linearly either. If you want to test a speaker with every musical instrument in the world before making some judgment about it, be my guest, but the oscilloscope is a proven industry standard tool that works well and can characterize a speaker’s response across the human hearing range and outside.

The 301's are not very good speakers imo. The parts are extremely cheap, made in china and I could probably replicate the entire speaker including that cheap finish they put on it for less than 20 dollars.


So horse is so dead and so beaten at this point.. why do we continue these debats?

We use oscilloscopes because if a speaker can't do a frequency linearly, then it can't do any combination of frequencies or harmonics that contain that particular one, linearly either. If you want to test a speaker with every musical instrument in the world before making some judgment about it, be my guest, but the oscilloscope is a proven industry standard tool that works well and can characterize a speaker’s response across the human hearing range and outside

I have often wondered about the non-linear performance of amps and speaker combos at differant volumes with respect to FR.

Also, the "loudness" curves have been brought up before, and their neccesity at lower levels.

Did you examine the contents of the link? It appears pretty apparent to me that the Bose case was based on a farcical legal technicality that while may be interesting as a point of law has little or nothing to do with the actual merits of the review..
Actually, I only scanned it, I'll admit. I already have a strong bias against lawsuits of this type, strictly on First Amendment grounds, and I was quite sure you were not pointing me in the direction of something that might support the other (Bose) side of the debate.

As soon as I saw the date, a bell went off, recalling the brouhaha that ensued when CR ripped the 901's at a time when most of the buff books were still praising them.

I don't pretend to be qualified to determine the legal merits of the case (although I have strong opinions of its ethical merits), but I know it had to pass through a phalanx of judges to get to the high court, and only a tiny fraction of cases are actually heard by them, so I am not swayed from my contention that Bose's position must have had some legal merit, whether I agreed with it or not. Most civil cases involve some kind of "technicality," and my "technicality" could be your crucial distinction.

In any case I don't think CR is a good of information for consumer electronics, however you opened that door by citing CR reviews of Bose speakers. I was merely pointing out that there is substantial history there.
You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I look at them as a valuable source of information to add to the mix. They take a different approach from virtually everyone else, trying to reduce a heavily subjective issue to objective numbers. I don't accept their rankings as gospel any more than I do the opinions voiced here, or those of professional A/V reviewers, but all are useful to me. (CR measures and reports rather than reviews in the conventional sense.)

Again, history or not, CR didn't have to continue to report on Bose products. Further, not only did they win the lawsuit, but they rarely do subjective reviews any more like the one that triggered the suit. Instead, they now measure specific parameters and issue rankings based to those measurements. It would probably be hard to find an excuse to sue based on those kinds of findings, which are essentially devoid of opinion or interpretation.
The basic point of my opinion is I think Bose automatically disqualifies itself from consideration as a company to do business with by suing reviewers.
That's my emotional response to any company that does that, too, but like "buying American" I'm afraid I violate it from time to time. :o I can tell you from personal experience that all it takes is one angry CEO to launch the lawyers, even if everyone else thinks he shouldn't. It doesn't mean a whole company is wrong headed, only the boss.
Combined with the fact that they don't publish any technical specifications and actively make it hard for shoppers to direct comparisons between their products and other offerings, it is clear that they are actively working to prevent informed evaluation of their product.
I remember when McIntosh was being bashed for never submitting their products for review. ("Must have something to hide," blah, blah, blah.) It didn't make their products bad, in my view. Speaker specifications are often meaningless, as they are not subject to strict regulation and even if they do measure the same under the same lab conditions, they won't sound the same in our various rooms.

I believe those who say Bose may restrict comparisons in some situations as I have no evidence to the contrary, but for their low priced models, at least, Circuit City must not have gotten the memo. They display Bose right next to Infinity, Polk, et al, and customers are free to compare (albeit under dreadful listening conditions, but the same ones for everyone).
I think consumers should avoid companies who act in this manner.
I abhor predatory business practices, as well. I presume this means you avoid Microsoft, too.

Jehrico:

Is your comparison based on Bose Bookshelves/Floor Standing Models or the cubes?

Was the comparison done in a audio-store's studio with good acoustic properties or in someone's dorm rome, bedroom, living room or study?

I had done comparisons on all of their bookshelves and the cube models. The comparisons were done in dedicated speaker rooms (roughly 15x15 square, so about as big as moderate bedrooms) that had *decent* (not great) acoustic properties. About the time I got out of the business was when Bose started restricting retailers as to how thier speakers could be displayed. We did not stock their floorstanders in our store, as most people who were interested in Bose were people who were interested in small solutions. We also had JBL and Polks. The JBL SCS systems were cheaper than the AM10 and were better quality. The Polks were a little more expensive and cleaned up on them. I couldn't find another employee in the store who disagreed, and customers overwhelmingly felt the same after being administered a blind A/B test.

007']well I mean jesus christ... if bose is gonna try and pull the "your brain will fill in the **** we're missing" excuse then we might as well just sell air and call them virtual speakers.

We use oscilloscopes because if a speaker can't do a frequency linearly, then it can't do any combination of frequencies or harmonics that contain that particular one, linearly either. If you want to test a speaker with every musical instrument in the world before making some judgment about it, be my guest, but the oscilloscope is a proven industry standard tool that works well and can characterize a speaker’s response across the human hearing range and outside.

The 301's are not very good speakers imo. The parts are extremely cheap, made in china and I could probably replicate the entire speaker including that cheap finish they put on it for less than 20 dollars.


So horse is so dead and so beaten at this point.. why do we continue these debats?


Just to further your point (not that it needs it), but if the brain could fill in the missing information, then there'd be no need for MP3s or any other compressed format greater than 128kbs. I think it's safe to say that 128kbs MP3s most certainly do NOT sound as good as CDs do.

I abhor predatory business practices, as well. I presume this means you avoid Microsoft, too.

I don't think it's fair to compare a Bose customer to a Microsoft customer as far as supporting their business practices go. There are plenty of alternatives to Bose out there that don't have 2nd and 3rd order effects to choosing them over Bose. Whether you like MS or not, you basically have two realistic alternatives: Apple or Linux. Linux doens't have near the driver or hardware support. You have to be a bit more savvy to successfully employ Linux without sacrificing any functionality, and there are far fewer software platforms available to you on Linux than MS. Apple also doesn't have as large of a offering on software available through it, and you're more restricted when it comes to hardware, especially for your DIYers. Doesn't mean either are inferior, but for your common user, there are 2nd and 3rd order affects that will deter them from the alternatives. You can easily chose something other than Bose with no further ramifications.

I've never said that you couldn't find something that you like for less (often much less), only that people who don't agree with the prevailing "audiophile" opinion are entitled to their own, without being subjected to insults and ridicule.
If I've ever come across as to be personally insulting or ridiculing with my hatred of Bose, then I have to apologize to anyone who felt so. I do try to direct my insults and ridicule towards Bose as a company, and not towards any of their customers. That is sometimes easier said than done.

007']
We use oscilloscopes because if a speaker can't do a frequency linearly, then it can't do any combination of frequencies or harmonics that contain that particular one, linearly either. If you want to test a speaker with every musical instrument in the world before making some judgment about it, be my guest, but the oscilloscope is a proven industry standard tool that works well and can characterize a speaker’s response across the human hearing range and outside.


Conversely, there is absolutely no guarantee that a speaker that is perfectly linear in a single tone sweep will not be screwed up in a multiple frequency test.

I am an MSEE and topped the PhD qualifying exam (but was too bored to continue) at one of the top 3 graduate EE programs in the US. And Acoustics was one of the 4 subject areas I chose in that exam. I am also earn my living as an EE. As a design engineer the freqency sweep is one of the best tools I can use. However, a linear frequency response is no guarantee of how the speaker will sound when played with live data. That is why speaker design is an art and not a science. And that is exactly why, an over reliance on specifications and curves is self-defeating.

Any metric should be used based on the objective of the test. A frequency sweep is a great design tool; however it has limited value in determining the quality of the sound reproduced by the speaker. It should not be religiously worshipped the way it is often done.



The 301's are not very good speakers imo. The parts are extremely cheap, made in china and I could probably replicate the entire speaker including that cheap finish they put on it for less than 20 dollars.


Ignoring the China barb, how are you so sure that parts they use are not good enough for the job. If you do a search in speciality paper, you will find hundreds, if not thousands, of variations. Many of them very cheap, but some of them quite expensive. You are just repeating heresay which you read somewhere.

If Bose indeed manufactures the speakers for $20 and retails them at $300, they have enough margins to double the cost to $40 and still make a bundle. Do you think that a corporation as big and successful as they have been, and one which competes in a market with a number of other strong players, delibrately choses poor sounding components, and is willing to lose market share and hurt their brand name by skimping on raw material costs?

Bose is not a Microsoft like monopoly. There are enough big players to destroy them, if they truly sucked like the Bose Bashers would like to believe.

Does it ever strike you that perhaps they are on to something which you are not on? And could you please list other $300 speakers which have a much better sound than Bose as you claim?

If Bose indeed manufactures the speakers for $20 and retails them at $300, they have enough margins to double the cost to $40 and still make a bundle. Do you think that a corporation as big and successful as they have been, and one which competes in a market with a number of other strong players, delibrately choses poor sounding components, and is willing to lose market share and hurt their brand name by skimping on raw material costs?

Bose is not a Microsoft like monopoly. There are enough big players to destroy them, if they truly sucked like the Bose Bashers would like to believe.

Does it ever strike you that perhaps they are on to something which you are not on? And could you please list other $300 speakers which have a much better sound than Bose as you claim?
You might be extremely well versed in the world of EE, but you're not applying any concepts in business, economics, marketing, or psychology as they pertain to Bose business prectices. Bose is a large, publicly held company. Bose's bottom line is profit. Period. Everything else comes second. You maximize profit by exploiting your core business competency. In Bose's case, this is marketing. There are other large corporations (just as Harman Int'l, otherwise known as the Evil Empire) that spend alot on marketing as well. Bose advertises FAR MORE in MANY more media outlets than their nearest competitor. If they have a choice between putting an extra $20 per speaker and making better products, or spending $20 x X # of speakers sold on advertising, they're going to go with the choice that maximizes profit. Based on how everyone is bombarded with Bose adverts no matter where you seem to look, you can guess their strategy. It's not a case of deliberatly choosing poor quality parts, it's a case of choosing where to spend your costs. Bose is a prestigous brand in the hearts and minds of the average consumer who doesn't spend but a very small percentage of their life researching the audio world. They know what they've heard. If Bose can minimize their costs per speaker and still turn the same or better profit, you'd better believe they're going to do it. As to your claim that they'd lose market share, they haven't yet. No other speaker manufacturer has tried to take them on in the national market. They have the advantage of being the first mass-produced manufacturer to put their name on the public stage in the mass media (with Paul Harvey, in the early 80s), and they were the first to really run with the sub/sat concept and build a niche on it. Being the first into a niche or a market goes along way, even if someone comes along later with a better, cheaper product. Being an EE, an analogy that should go a long way with you is Microsoft. They were the first to really run big time with the GUI. They absolutely dominate the world market. Are there better and cheaper alternatives to Windows? Why hasn't anyone been able to take a good chunk out of their market share?

Being the first in a niche, being readily available, having a first-class marketing campaign is more important to making money in today's market than providing a top-quality product (given that your product maintains a barely-acceptable level of quality).

Also, if you get into the psychology of the business, people hear what they expect to hear. I almost feel bad for having done this (almost, but not quite), but I used my time working at a mass electronics retailer doing an experiment for a psych class in college. I could sell more of speaker A than B by hyping it up before doing an A/B demo for a customer in one month. I sold more of speaker B than A by doing more to hype B before performing the same demo. By hyping, I would usually tell the customer something like "I'm going to play this speaker for you, listen to how well they image, and how clear the highs sound. Now I'm going to play this speaker for you, notice how they're not as crisp on top, and how the lower vocals don't seem as present? It's a proven fact that you can get most people to hear what you want them to hear by prepping them. This is why Bose does so well with their marketing. Who here has not heard Paul Harvey on the radio telling us how crisp and clear they are, and how well they image, blah, blah, blah. Most people go into the store thinking Bose are great, and that Bias affects them when they listen to them. I've proven how previous perceptions can impact how you perceive what you hear later. Bose understands the psychology behind it. They just have to make products that are just good enough to not be sooo bad that you can't compensate through marketing. Their board of directors are obligated to their stock holders to maximize profit. I'd contend if they spent a little more on quality drivers for their speakers, it would not increase their sales. It would hurt their profit, and it would be against their mandate as a publicly held corporation.

Whenever I'd do a fair, blind, A/B comparison without doing anything to influence the listeners bias, Bose lost to whoever I was demoing them against probably about 95% of the time. The sad fact is, I was in college, I needed to make money, and doing a fair, thorough, blind A/B comparison took quite a bit more time than telling the customer who came in and asked to hear bose that they sound great, play them for 30 seconds, and then ring them up, and move onto the next customer. I only did the blind tests whenever business was slow.

Few buisnesses are designed to loose money, profit is the most inportant part of buisness , as it is what keeps you in buisness and willing to try harder.
Amar Bose doesn't answer to anyone, and while he advertises in a way that makes sense for him, other, smaller companies use these kinds of mediums (the internet) to advertise for them. You could easily say that you'd rather have their employees working on new designs and solving customer service issues than posting here, but , to them, this advertising medium is important enough to justify their use of their time in this manner. At the end of the day, your customer needs to be happy with their purchase, and there are many customers, and many ways of making them happy.

First of all Bose is not a publically traded company. It is privately owned. And they do that so they can invest in a lot of things, primary esoteric R&D which a public company can not.

A bad product, regardless of how well it is marketted, will not survive for so long. GM/Ford are a good example. I find it hard to believe that Bose is utter crap but survives ONLY on marketting dollars. The market Bose operates is quite competitive and hence the need for offering a good price-performance value point. Cutting corners to increase their profits (as you suggest they do), is not going to build a brand which has endured for SO LONG.

Since Bose is privately owned, they are under no pressure to meet quarterly goals and CAN work with lower profit margins, as long as their brand equity does not suffer. They are much more likely to tolerate lower margins for long term brand equity compared to other public companies like Harman Intl.

More later.

I don't think it's fair to compare a Bose customer to a Microsoft customer as far as supporting their business practices go. There are plenty of alternatives to Bose out there that don't have 2nd and 3rd order effects to choosing them over Bose. Whether you like MS or not, you basically have two realistic alternatives: Apple or Linux. Linux doens't have near the driver or hardware support. You have to be a bit more savvy to successfully employ Linux without sacrificing any functionality, and there are far fewer software platforms available to you on Linux than MS. Apple also doesn't have as large of a offering on software available through it, and you're more restricted when it comes to hardware, especially for your DIYers. Doesn't mean either are inferior, but for your common user, there are 2nd and 3rd order affects that will deter them from the alternatives. You can easily chose something other than Bose with no further ramifications.

------------------------

You are probably using this forum as your bit of free marketing, creating FUD (fear, uncertainly and doubt) as a weapon against Bose to sell whatever you are peddling today.

It's been tried before. If you sell a good product at a good price, hopefully you'll get some customers. Stop trying to prove that people buying Bose are ill-informed and just plain naive. It's you and those like you on this forum that need a little wake up call. The fact that Bose excels in a free market with lots of competition is due to excellent all round execution - that starts with the product. Not marketing alone. No product can survive for long on marketing alone - No, nada, never. Not for 30 years or so that Bose has been around....wake up and start living in reality.

Stirred a little hornets nest...did I? I bet the average IQ of these so called Bose haters is probably lower that the average Bose buyer. It's just a hunch, but from what I read here, you guys just don't seem to be that smart.

On this forum I have read:

1. No high, no lows - must be Bose....which is contradicted by another who says
2. Only highs and lows and terrible mid ranges and then...
3. Terrible Home theatre system - sould barely understand the dialogs...and yet again
4. Dialogs sounded excellent, but eveything else was muddled.

All I can say to anyone interested in buying a system. Just listen to it and make up your mind. Just as a gentleman here is so proud that a couple of his buddies did not buy Bose, I have a couple of buddies who did indeen buy Bose after listening to them...I bet there are many more in the second boat...

Speakers are an exception, and people need to stop comparing them to cars. Obviously a car with 500 horse power is way better than a car with 250, but a speaker that can handle 500 watts is in no way shape or form any better or worse or even louder than one that can handle only 250. It’s much more complex than raw statistics. America knows a lot more about cars than they do about acoustics.. and who is to tell you what you are missing in sound, its not like you can see it?

And bro, if you want me to break down the 301's and really get into why I think they suck i will, but i think its a waste of time on this board, don't you? bottom line, I would guess about 9 out 10 speakers for the same price universally sound better.

You might be extremely well versed in the world of EE, but you're not applying any concepts in business, economics, marketing, or psychology as they pertain to Bose business prectices. Bose is a large, publicly held company. Bose's bottom line is profit. Period. Everything else comes second. You maximize profit by exploiting your core business competency. In Bose's case, this is marketing. There are other large corporations (just as Harman Int'l, otherwise known as the Evil Empire) that spend alot on marketing as well. Bose advertises FAR MORE in MANY more media outlets than their nearest competitor. If they have a choice between putting an extra $20 per speaker and making better products, or spending $20 x X # of speakers sold on advertising, they're going to go with the choice that maximizes profit. Based on how everyone is bombarded with Bose adverts no matter where you seem to look, you can guess their strategy. It's not a case of deliberatly choosing poor quality parts, it's a case of choosing where to spend your costs. Bose is a prestigous brand in the hearts and minds of the average consumer who doesn't spend but a very small percentage of their life researching the audio world. They know what they've heard. If Bose can minimize their costs per speaker and still turn the same or better profit, you'd better believe they're going to do it. As to your claim that they'd lose market share, they haven't yet. No other speaker manufacturer has tried to take them on in the national market. They have the advantage of being the first mass-produced manufacturer to put their name on the public stage in the mass media (with Paul Harvey, in the early 80s), and they were the first to really run with the sub/sat concept and build a niche on it. Being the first into a niche or a market goes along way, even if someone comes along later with a better, cheaper product. Being an EE, an analogy that should go a long way with you is Microsoft. They were the first to really run big time with the GUI. They absolutely dominate the world market. Are there better and cheaper alternatives to Windows? Why hasn't anyone been able to take a good chunk out of their market share?

Being the first in a niche, being readily available, having a first-class marketing campaign is more important to making money in today's market than providing a top-quality product (given that your product maintains a barely-acceptable level of quality).

Also, if you get into the psychology of the business, people hear what they expect to hear. I almost feel bad for having done this (almost, but not quite), but I used my time working at a mass electronics retailer doing an experiment for a psych class in college. I could sell more of speaker A than B by hyping it up before doing an A/B demo for a customer in one month. I sold more of speaker B than A by doing more to hype B before performing the same demo. By hyping, I would usually tell the customer something like "I'm going to play this speaker for you, listen to how well they image, and how clear the highs sound. Now I'm going to play this speaker for you, notice how they're not as crisp on top, and how the lower vocals don't seem as present? It's a proven fact that you can get most people to hear what you want them to hear by prepping them. This is why Bose does so well with their marketing. Who here has not heard Paul Harvey on the radio telling us how crisp and clear they are, and how well they image, blah, blah, blah. Most people go into the store thinking Bose are great, and that Bias affects them when they listen to them. I've proven how previous perceptions can impact how you perceive what you hear later. Bose understands the psychology behind it. They just have to make products that are just good enough to not be sooo bad that you can't compensate through marketing. Their board of directors are obligated to their stock holders to maximize profit. I'd contend if they spent a little more on quality drivers for their speakers, it would not increase their sales. It would hurt their profit, and it would be against their mandate as a publicly held corporation.

Whenever I'd do a fair, blind, A/B comparison without doing anything to influence the listeners bias, Bose lost to whoever I was demoing them against probably about 95% of the time. The sad fact is, I was in college, I needed to make money, and doing a fair, thorough, blind A/B comparison took quite a bit more time than telling the customer who came in and asked to hear bose that they sound great, play them for 30 seconds, and then ring them up, and move onto the next customer. I only did the blind tests whenever business was slow.
-----------------------

Long and pointless. There are several incorrect assumptions here:

1. A company will invest in R&D for long term profitability and competitive edge. So it is long term profitability that drives a companies valuation not current.

2. A company with unreliable and poor products cannot hope to charge a premium. If Bose products did not meet the customers expectations for quality, they would fail for sure - no matter how much they advertise.

3. A comparison is not always fair, just because it is blind. For instance, it is proven that people tend to favor louder and deeper speakers in a test environment, but that is not necessarily how they listen to it at home. I don't want to get into this, but companies know how to play up to comparison tests. For instance, many cheaper Plasma vendors will have their default setting very bright to attract buyers.

Anyway, too late to go on....but your comments highlight why those interested in buying products should not take the preferences of forum commenters like you that are totally/irrationally biased against a product/company.

-----------------------

Long and pointless. There are several incorrect assumptions here:

1. A company will invest in R&D for long term profitability and competitive edge. So it is long term profitability that drives a companies valuation not current.

2. A company with unreliable and poor products cannot hope to charge a premium. If Bose products did not meet the customers expectations for quality, they would fail for sure - no matter how much they advertise.

3. A comparison is not always fair, just because it is blind. For instance, it is proven that people tend to favor louder and deeper speakers in a test environment, but that is not necessarily how they listen to it at home. I don't want to get into this, but companies know how to play up to comparison tests. For instance, many cheaper Plasma vendors will have their default setting very bright to attract buyers.

Anyway, too late to go on....but your comments highlight why those interested in buying products should not take the preferences of forum commenters like you that are totally/irrationally biased against a product/company.


Long and pointless? I didn't see anything coherent in your rebuttals. 1. Bose's R&D, if you've followed the progress of their speakers for the last 10 years, follows packaging. Their speakers have not evolved. The proof is in their product lineup. 2. I never claimed their products are unreliable. Poor in the speaker world is subjective, and auditory perception can be biased through aggressive marketing. 3. In the speaker world, when evaluating sound quality, a blind A/B comparison is the fairest one that can be done in a store at the time of purchase. Please enlighten me a fairer way for that to be done in a store. You're the irrational biased one...don't be mad at me because I bring compelling points against the brand you purchased. I'm not irrational, and if anything, I should be biased FOR them, as Bose helped get me through college.

First of all Bose is not a publically traded company. It is privately owned. And they do that so they can invest in a lot of things, primary esoteric R&D which a public company can not.

A bad product, regardless of how well it is marketted, will not survive for so long. GM/Ford are a good example. I find it hard to believe that Bose is utter crap but survives ONLY on marketting dollars. The market Bose operates is quite competitive and hence the need for offering a good price-performance value point. Cutting corners to increase their profits (as you suggest they do), is not going to build a brand which has endured for SO LONG.

Since Bose is privately owned, they are under no pressure to meet quarterly goals and CAN work with lower profit margins, as long as their brand equity does not suffer. They are much more likely to tolerate lower margins for long term brand equity compared to other public companies like Harman Intl.

More later.
They're registered as a corporation, I made the erroneous assumption that they were publicly traded. My mistake.

Esoteric R&D? how much have their speakers evolved over the last 10 years? Very little. Check out their flagship speakers, the 901s. How much have those evolved since the 1970s? You want to tell me they're dedicating their R&D to building better speakers, when their flagship model hasn't hardly changed since the 70s? I never said they were utter crap, you're putting words in my mouth. They are overpriced, and lag quality-wise behind a large majority of comparably priced competitors. I always referred to how they fare against competitors in blind tests, I never flat out made any statement about their lines. I've seen nothing from their products over the last 10 years that suggest they're willing to work with lower profit margins for brand equity. Maybe they were in that mode 10-20 years ago, but they aren't doing that now. They already have brand equity.

------------------------

You are probably using this forum as your bit of free marketing, creating FUD (fear, uncertainly and doubt) as a weapon against Bose to sell whatever you are peddling today.

It's been tried before. If you sell a good product at a good price, hopefully you'll get some customers. Stop trying to prove that people buying Bose are ill-informed and just plain naive. It's you and those like you on this forum that need a little wake up call. The fact that Bose excels in a free market with lots of competition is due to excellent all round execution - that starts with the product. Not marketing alone. No product can survive for long on marketing alone - No, nada, never. Not for 30 years or so that Bose has been around....wake up and start living in reality.

Stirred a little hornets nest...did I? I bet the average IQ of these so called Bose haters is probably lower that the average Bose buyer. It's just a hunch, but from what I read here, you guys just don't seem to be that smart.

On this forum I have read:

1. No high, no lows - must be Bose....which is contradicted by another who says
2. Only highs and lows and terrible mid ranges and then...
3. Terrible Home theatre system - sould barely understand the dialogs...and yet again
4. Dialogs sounded excellent, but eveything else was muddled.

All I can say to anyone interested in buying a system. Just listen to it and make up your mind. Just as a gentleman here is so proud that a couple of his buddies did not buy Bose, I have a couple of buddies who did indeen buy Bose after listening to them...I bet there are many more in the second boat...


Son,
If you want to try to correllate intelligence with Bose customers vs Bose haters, you're just going to make a fool out of yourself. Audio is soooo subjective there's no way to put any kind of scientific principle into it. The very notion is just stupid. And what the heck do you think I'm peddling? I'm in the military, we don't sell anything. The opening of your post makes about as much sense as your claim that intelligence is probably directly proportional to one's opinion on the quality of Bose speakers.

Also, if you think I'm trying to prove that bose customers are misinformed and naive, you've missed the boat completely. I'm trying to prove that their business practices are, in my opinion, sleazy. People can be manipulated when it comes to perception through coaching, regardless of intelligence. It's been proven. What I'm trying to prove is that Bose does this, intentionally, and they charge a premium for it. That's why I have so much disdain for their company. You're the one knocking people for their Bose preference, not me. You're just taking my posts personally.

As an example of esoteric R&D, here is a link Bose Suspension System (http://www.bose.com/learning/project_sound/suspension_challenge.jsp) .

Bose also funds a bunch of startup in areas like software defined radios (as secure as it can get).

Bose did a lot of research on human perceive sound, a long time ago when them came up with the idea of direct/reflecting technology. From a purist point of view, the whole idea is the exact anthithesis of what you would want. But in a non-ideal home environment it worked well enough for Bose to become famous.

They must be doing something right and different to come up with the satellite concept or the Wave radio products, before anyone else did successfully. What stopped the other audio giants from doing what Bose did? Why not hire Rush Limbaugh or whoever your favorite talk show host is, to tout your speaker system. Does Bose hold a copyright or patent on innovative marketting and distribution schemes?

When Bose came out with their LS systems, their unique selling proposition was to replace the rack of hi-fi audio-gear and the giant speakers with something truly unintrusive and which the average consumer can operate. They did an excellent job in that and the number of copy-cats on the market prove that.

I personally do not like the cube-based systems since I had the option of going with a larger system, and did not want to compromise on the sound quality or video quality. Clearly, there are better value for money available from the sound quality perspective. There are also more diverse options available from the video quality perspective too. However, from the perspective of sleekness, ease of operation, unintrusiveness, resale value and overall sound experience, Bose LS is not a bad value. The market has a lot of segments, and Bose serves a large middle-market segment very well. A lot of wives sleep happier knowing that they have a sleek Bose system in their living room. For a lot of men, that itself is a lot of value :D . And hooking up a LS system, in many ways, is easier than getting the VCR clock to stop flashing 12:00.

And I am still waiting for that list of $300/pair speakers with a 5 year warranty, which sound so much better than the crap Bose 301s.

While I think CR's evaluation of speakers leaves much to be desired, you are mischaracterizing the Suzuki incident. CR's testing of the Suzuki was fully detailed and their methodology was explained. Suzuki just didn't like the unfavorable rating and publically stated that malice was CR's intent. After appeals and having the case tossed back down the court system, the suit was eventually dismissed. Both parties apparently had to kiss each other and make nice publically. However, the Suzuki was a turd and anyone who took the vehicle for a test ride and put it through some emergency maneuvers would be hard pressed to rationalize the vehicle as inspiring either quality or a sense of security. BTW, CR wasn't the only organization to label the Samurai for what it was.

CR has also been sued by Bose which while unsuccessful, did make its way to the Supreme Court. They were also recently sued by Sharper Image after CR reported that Sharper Image's Ionic Breeze had only the slightest impact in reducing airborne particulates. Sharper Image withdrew their suit and paid CR over 1/2 million in large part because their lawyer said their air purifiers (is that ever euphamistic!) were selling briskly.

Combined with the fact that they don't publish any technical specifications and actively make it hard for shoppers to direct comparisons between their products and other offerings, it is clear that they are actively working to prevent informed evaluation of their product.
That's true ehlarson. It's also true of cable companies, companies that market tube based gear, hi-end niche players, and even comparatively mainstream companies.

BayAreaFan said...The speakers are not a linear system and the religious belief in the curves is misplaced.There is a correlation between FR and listener preferences. I've a paper by Sean Olive of Harmon if you're interested in reading about it.

Now I happen to think that Bose is overpriced given the materials of construction. What I will grant them, and grant them royally, is their ability to understand their market and package their product most effectively. More than a few companies could stand to take a lesson from that.

As an example of esoteric R&D, here is a link Bose Suspension System (http://www.bose.com/learning/project_sound/suspension_challenge.jsp) .

Bose also funds a bunch of startup in areas like software defined radios (as secure as it can get).

I fail to see how either of those have anything to do with improving speaker sound quality.

They must be doing something right and different to come up with the satellite concept or the Wave radio products, before anyone else did successfully. What stopped the other audio giants from doing what Bose did? Why not hire Rush Limbaugh or whoever your favorite talk show host is, to tout your speaker system. Does Bose hold a copyright or patent on innovative marketting and distribution schemes?

I already acknowledged their contribution in the sub/sat market. As a matter of fact, I credited alot of their success to being the first to run with the concept (though they did not create the concept, they were the first to really run mainstream with it) and develop a niche market out of it. However, they haven't done anything to sonically improve that system since I first heard it in 1996 (10 years ago). The drivers are the same, cabinets look different, really nothing as far as sonic improvements in a decade. As far as why haven't other companies been able to copy their success in marketing? Good question. I don't have the answer. Maybe because they can't afford to keep up with the rest of the industry if they dedicate enough to R&D to rival them (just a shot in the dark)?


When Bose came out with their LS systems, their unique selling proposition was to replace the rack of hi-fi audio-gear and the giant speakers with something truly unintrusive and which the average consumer can operate. They did an excellent job in that and the number of copy-cats on the market prove that.

The LS is based around the acoustimass speakers. Again, what have they done to improve the speakers? Maybe my criticism was a little misplaced. They do alot of R&D. I just have yet to see in the last 10 years where they have actually improved any of their speaker concepts. Their R&D seems dedicated to the application of audio technology, rather than improving their ability to reproduce sound.

I personally do not like the cube-based systems since I had the option of going with a larger system, and did not want to compromise on the sound quality or video quality. Clearly, there are better value for money available from the sound quality perspective. There are also more diverse options available from the video quality perspective too. However, from the perspective of sleekness, ease of operation, unintrusiveness, resale value and overall sound experience, Bose LS is not a bad value. The market has a lot of segments, and Bose serves a large middle-market segment very well. A lot of wives sleep happier knowing that they have a sleek Bose system in their living room. For a lot of men, that itself is a lot of value :D . And hooking up a LS system, in many ways, is easier than getting the VCR clock to stop flashing 12:00.

I hate Bose as a company, and I think their products are overpriced. But, I never denied that their products are unique, do a decent job filling their niche, and are properly targeted at their audience. I also never said they sound like crap (just that they aren't quite as good sonically as many of their competitors for the money, and in my experience as a salesman, that is backed up by blind tests I had done). That doesn't mean their products aren't going to make some people happy. I still contend that today, sound quality is not that important to Bose, as they have done nothing to improve the sound quality of their speakers in a decade. I also believe that they intentionally manipulate people's perception through their marketing, then they do not allow retailers and customers to do blind A/B tests on their speakers in stores. That tactic is dishonest, I don't know how anyone can stand up on here and defend that company (although no one's defended these tactics) and it's practices.

And I am still waiting for that list of $300/pair speakers with a 5 year warranty, which sound so much better than the crap Bose 301s.
Paridigm Atoms, for quite a bit less than $300? Ascend makes some in that price range that are better. Just a couple off the top of my head...I could come up with 20 models easily if I wanted to take the time. The 301 has not changed (other than cosmetically) in 10 years (or maybe longer). If you think the rest of the industry combined couldn't come up with a better product at the price point in 10 years, I would suggest you're mistaken.

Long and pointless? I didn't see anything coherent in your rebuttals. 1. Bose's R&D, if you've followed the progress of their speakers for the last 10 years, follows packaging. Their speakers have not evolved. The proof is in their product lineup. 2. I never claimed their products are unreliable. Poor in the speaker world is subjective, and auditory perception can be biased through aggressive marketing. 3. In the speaker world, when evaluating sound quality, a blind A/B comparison is the fairest one that can be done in a store at the time of purchase. Please enlighten me a fairer way for that to be done in a store. You're the irrational biased one...don't be mad at me because I bring compelling points against the brand you purchased. I'm not irrational, and if anything, I should be biased FOR them, as Bose helped get me through college.
------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry if you find it hard to understand.Let me make it clearer for you:

1. R&D is in the self interest of a company. So Bose naturally has a self interest to continue to improve their products, or they will fail.

2. Because investors are rational, they will want companies to invest in R&D. In the case of Bose, the owners of Bose will want to maintain a competitive edge.

3. A side by side comparison is fair, when both sets are set up without un due advantage to another. Large speakers with higher output have an unfair advantage in larger store room floow type set-ups, which do not reflect how the will perform in everyday listening. So if you may not be best served in such a comparison. However, if that works for you, then all power to you!

4. Bose cannot be making the worst products and still be the #1 vendor with a highly loyal customer base. It's irrational that the worst product with the cheapest components with the highest price would also have the most loyal customers.

I sense so called high end audio vendors who only wish they were in the position of Bose, trying to create FUD (Fear, uncertainty and Doubt) and use this forum as their free publicity forum.

I have read through all your comments and they reflect a general poor understanding of business, economics, and technology. I am not a student of psycology, so I cannot comment on that.

BTW: I have bought a home for several hundreds of thousands dollar worth, did not like it and moved on. The same for cars where I have spent tens of thousands. So, to assume that I am defending Bose, just because I own it is not true. If I thought they were terrible or for that matter not worth the money, I would move on pretty easily.

I 're-started' this debate on this forum because of the preponderance of 'so-called' audiophiles on this forum that are trying to use this forum as their own private marketing tool. While I am not a technical expert on the field of acoustics, I understand that the notion that the very worst product , that sells at the highest price with no innovation and also has the most loyal customer base does not make sense from a business and economic perspective.

So there are arguments like, people buy Bose without listening to other systems. Maybe, (I highly doubt it), but we buy lots of products that we are satisfied with once we are comfortable with wiithout looking at everything else. I for one spent around 2 months evaluating various systems. I ended up buying two, setting them up and then returning one.

The other arguments against Bose are that they use aggressive marketing. Being in marketing myself, I can tell you that you cannot maintain market leadership over a long period of time without the right product. Product-Placement-Price-Packaging are the 4 fundamental Ps that must be in synch. So you can't have a Yugo and sell it as a Lexus for very long (if at all). You can't just fool people all the time. It's just not possible, as much as you think everyone else is stupid. Bose is not a market leader in the US alone, but do very well internationally as well - without late night commericials.

Where do you think you make more sense than me?

I don't claim to be right all the time, but your arguments are not rational and cannot explain why Bose is preferred by so many, and more importantly why people who buy them, tend to stay with them.

Son,
If you want to try to correllate intelligence with Bose customers vs Bose haters, you're just going to make a fool out of yourself. Audio is soooo subjective there's no way to put any kind of scientific principle into it. The very notion is just stupid. And what the heck do you think I'm peddling? I'm in the military, we don't sell anything. The opening of your post makes about as much sense as your claim that intelligence is probably directly proportional to one's opinion on the quality of Bose speakers.

Also, if you think I'm trying to prove that bose customers are misinformed and naive, you've missed the boat completely. I'm trying to prove that their business practices are, in my opinion, sleazy. People can be manipulated when it comes to perception through coaching, regardless of intelligence. It's been proven. What I'm trying to prove is that Bose does this, intentionally, and they charge a premium for it. That's why I have so much disdain for their company. You're the one knocking people for their Bose preference, not me. You're just taking my posts personally.
--------------------------------------

Bro,

I think you have answered your own delimma. Sound is soooooo subjective that people who buy Bose actually like the sound!

I understand your problem with sleazy Bose practice. I'm sure you feel the same way with a lot of defense contractors since you are in the miliatry. Folks who are probably ripping the American tax payers of billions of dollars and costing the lives of our soldiers, with little or no accountability. I bet there are much more sleazy outfits that Bose. I live in the DC metropolitan area and am somewhat familiar with what goes on here. What matters is that no one is forcing you to buy Bose at all!

As a patriotic American, I salute your contribution to the well being of all of us. You are more noble than I. I did not mean that you specifically were peddling audion systems, but I have seen posts here by other audio vendors, bashing Bose. In any case, this is a very small and insignificant debate. I was stirring the pot on this forum.

Good luck to you. I wish our biggest problem right now was finding the best AV system!

Wow.

jehricho:
Thank you for the list of speakers (Paradigm Atom, Ascend). Though I have not heard these speakers, one big problem is that these speakers are hard to find or listen to. This is unlike Bose which are available in a ton of places and can be ordered of the phone or the internet.
And if I walk into a Paradigm dealer, it is very unlikely that I will be encouraged to invest my dollars in the Atoms. It is just not worth the salesman time. It is likely I will be pushed up to a Monitor or something. This is primarily a marketting/distribution issue and not a product quality issue, but it does make a difference in the overall value being provided by the product. I can listen to the 301s in a variety of places and pick it up if I like it, and then return it if I dont. Not as easy to do with Paradigm or Ascends. And Ascend is not an accurate comparison since they do not have any middlemen, and have a lower cost structure than Bose's distribution network.

Bose's biggest appeal with its Acoustimass systems is that they are exceedingly simple, unobtrusive, exceedingly well styled and don't really offend. There is a sizeable marketplace of people who are intimidated by audio, don't want wires all over the place, don't want to have to spend three hours reading the owner's manual to figure what to hook to what, don't want anything that takes up more than minimal space in their homes, have no interest in specs, and are willing to pay for these characteristics. Oh, and a little style wouldn't hurt either. They want something they can take out of a box, maybe connect one or two things and turn it on and listen. They don't really care if it is the greatest sound available. It is good enough. It is not that they are either ignorant or naive about audio. They are totally uninterested. They just want to hear some music that they can recognize as music. They generally don't listen critically and if something is missing they don't notice and don't much care. Bose essentially markets to and makes lots of money from the anti-audiophile.

Bose isn't the only company that is having enormous success with this market. The iPod strikes me as coming from the same place. Does an iPod with its little ear buds playing highly compressed music really sound good?. I don't think so. Does it produce music that is easy to carry around and doesn't sound outrageously bad? Is it incrediby simple to use? Does it look nice? Is it unobtrusive? Yes to all of those.

Would I want to own either Bose or an iPod. Nope, and I don't. But I understand how the public can love both products and the products can make Amar Bose and Steve Jobs
rich(er).

Yeah, I know you can use lossless compression with an iPod and buy better phones, but how many people do? That gives the iPod a slight advantage over Bose, but that's not my point.

In the Bose and iPod market space all of the discussions about frequency response, quality of materials, etc. is totally irrelevant. Style often trumps substance, like it or not.

People slam bose a lot. So do I for that matter. However, I completely agreee with thier reply
I was going to say, not a whole lot to disagree with there.

I'd still like to see them provide a frequency response figure, or even better a graph of the frequency response.

Ditto. I agree with their reply but would love to see FR graphs. I suspect they are far from flat and that's at least part of the reason they don't want to show them.

I think the reason is because they don't want to *in any way* offer themselves for comparisons to other speaker manufcaturers. It would be an admission that the others are actual competitors.

I think the reason is because they don't want to *in any way* offer themselves for comparisons to other speaker manufcaturers. It would be an admission that the others are actual competitors.
Kind of like how they restrict retailers from setting their speakers up next to other brands so as to offer the possibility of an easy A/B comparison?

Yeah. It would be admitting that the competition actually has something to offer. By not acknowledging them in any way, particularly by providing any sort of data that implies there is any way to compare at all, they set themselves apart from all this other "audiophile, techie" gear.

I wonder if those Linn 'single speaker' demos I used to get were a form of the same thing...

Kind of like how they restrict retailers from setting their speakers up next to other brands so as to offer the possibility of an easy A/B comparison?
Kind of like Kellogs, General Mills, Coke, Pepsi mandating what shelf space their products will occupy? Besides, what store do you know of that has their speakers set up in such a manner as to facilitate a proper evaluation?

Kind of like Kellogs, General Mills, Coke, Pepsi mandating what shelf space their products will occupy? Besides, what store do you know of that has their speakers set up in such a manner as to facilitate a proper evaluation?


Ummm....most of them. Any self respecting high-end shop will move speakers together and do A/B comparisons if you ask to audition set ups that are in different rooms if you ask. As much as everyone rags on CC and BB, they're usually set up for A/B demos on most of their speakers too.

Kind of like Kellogs, General Mills, Coke, Pepsi mandating what shelf space their products will occupy? Besides, what store do you know of that has their speakers set up in such a manner as to facilitate a proper evaluation?
All of em.

Even my local Circuit City has a listening room with all of its speakers on a push-button selector system.....

.... except Bose.

You call that a listening room?

All of em.

Even my local Circuit City has a listening room with all of its speakers on a push-button selector system.....

.... except Bose.
Mine includes Bose, too.

You call that a listening room?
Not really. :D But it's where you can compare speakers...sort of. :rolleyes:

You call that a listening room?

It might not be a great listening room; however, if you're doing A/B comparisons, both sets are subjected to the same subpar listening conditions. In a way, I kind of like that, because listeners are not subjected to the "best case," only to be disappointed when they get home and find out they won't sound as good when they get home. I'm sure that's not intentional on their part, but it is fair and in many cases, realistic.

With all due respect, even subpar is being kind.

Kind of like Kellogs, General Mills, Coke, Pepsi mandating what shelf space their products will occupy? Besides, what store do you know of that has their speakers set up in such a manner as to facilitate a proper evaluation?
It is understandable why Bose want's to do this from a display/visual perspective, but unlike food there are more variables that the surrounding can incur that might alter the performance. Unfortunately even in most stores the listening area is less than ideal, but even still by having all the speakers set up in the same room in a similar way you can begin to draw some conclusions about their differences and even the most rudimentary auditioning room like what's found in CC would be enough to show Bose for the garbage it is.

I guess Jehrico basically covered the same thing I am saying. Those listening rooms give you a chance to A/B the product and see what you like best. Obviously you'll never know until you get home but it wouldn't take much time to realize that the Bose really doesn't sound as good as any of the other speakers they sell. That at least lets customers make the honest decision "ok it doesn't sound as good but am I buying for sound or looks or size?"

All the CCs I've been in had listening rooms, of which Bose has never been a part of. In fact the Bose systems are usually along a wall apart from everything else. Even Best Buys, most of which don't seem to have listening rooms, still keep most of their speakers arranged together for A/B purposes. Bose is around the corner in another area entirely.

Bose are OK, most of the speakers you guys like would sound just as bad to me as Bose.

Actually getting most of the sound from a single driver is a legit idea and has some definate virtues (and faults). There's an entire single-driver cult out there that would sniff at the plastic cone-tragic dome speakers favored by many here.
--------------

Some speakers (mainly large ones) don't really care about how they are set up. The much smaller Bose speakers need to be set up much more carefully to get the best sound.

I'm sure even if the speakers are not exactly in the same place, you could still walk around and listen to all of them. That's how we test drive cars right? they are not all in the same dealer?

Buy whatever you like the most, using whatever comparison makes sense to you. A lot of people buy Bose and more people (I guess) are satisfied with their Bose products than competitors. So, I guess in the end its about customer satisfaction and Bose does well there. They are clearly satisfying their customers well.

It is understandable why Bose want's to do this from a display/visual perspective...

In the case of their direct/reflecting models, they just might have a legitimate reason: Those speakers have to have space around them to function as designed. This can't be done in the cheek by jowl set-up most retailers employ.
...All the CCs I've been in had listening rooms, of which Bose has never been a part of...
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this may be true of some CC's, but not all of them. The CC by my house displays Bose right next to all their other brands. The BB by my house used to have Bose in its listening room, too (yes, it has one!), although I don't recall seeing them there recently so I'm not sure it they still carry Bose (I haven't really been looking).

Neither store has nor has ever had a separate display area for Bose.

In the case of their direct/reflecting models, they just might have a legitimate reason: Those speakers have to have space around them to function as designed. This can't be done in the cheek by jowl set-up most retailers employ.
That is true, however that's why there's a return policy. Any speaker might sound like crap once you get it home and in your regular listening environment (although the chances of this working against Bose might be greater).

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this may be true of some CC's, but not all of them. The CC by my house displays Bose right next to all their other brands. The BB by my house used to have Bose in its listening room, too (yes, it has one!), although I don't recall seeing them there recently so I'm not sure it they still carry Bose (I haven't really been looking).

Neither store has nor has ever had a separate display area for Bose.
So what? Some do, some don't. I haven't seen every CC but all I'm saying is the ones I have seen in several states had at least one listening room. None of them are particularly good listening rooms but they're better than nothing by a long shot.

As I understand some BBs even have listening rooms, however I've never seen one.

Any speaker might sound like crap once you get it home and in your regular listening environment

If you have heard them somewhere and they sounded good, you know what they are capable of, so fix the room. Otherwise you are using speakers as a form of room correction, and we re-arrange or switch rooms, or move too often to "match" speakers to one particular environment.

If you Bose-supporters out there are saying measurements and specifications doesn't matter then why do we even have them? Why does almost every other speaker manufacturers spend extra time and effort if those things don't mean anything? That will just waste their time & effort, not to mention money spent that can be turned into profit.

Measurements and specifications are there so that we can COMPARE and MEASURE a product's performance against other products. Bose and those el-cheapo speaker offerings from Best Buy, Walmart, Circuit City are the only audio companies that do not do this. It is true; they do not do this because they don't want people to compare their products with products from other brands. This is why they delibrately have taken steps to isolate themselves from their competition. At the Best Buy that I used to work at, we were never allowed to play anything on Bose demo beside the demo discs from Bose themselves and if I remember correctly, those discs do not have any music demo other than movie scenes.

Do you know how big are their so-called Acoustimass bass modules drivers/woofers are? 5.25 inches!!! That is right, only 5.25" for woofer in a sub? Many entry-level speakers from other companies are already that big with many being bigger (eg. 6.5-inch, 7-inch, 8-inch). They don't have to go all out and use 18-inch woofers but at least something in the vicinity of 8-inch or 10-inch. Sound is about moving air and when it comes to low frequencies (as in subwoofer) this is absolutely crucial. Why do we need a sub? It is because we need something that can move huge quantity (loudness) of slow-moving air. It really defeat the purpose of having a sub when you have something that has a diameter of small paper dish since speakers of those size cannot move as much air as something bigger.

I would like to point out is that Bose uses some of the worse materials to build their speakers. I mean comon now for a $1k and beyond setup, they cannot even use a better material than "treated" papers for most, if not all, of their speakers. I was dissappointed after I realized this back from when I was working at Best Buy. Almost every other speaker companies uses a different, (and better IMO), for their speakers, even the more expensive ones in their Magnolia Home Theater. The only time where "treated" papers were seen was in very few subwoofers. Even the very basic thing such as cosmetic they cannot get it right. I've seen much better finish on many other speaker products costing much less than Bose's. If they are into hype and marketing, at least spend a little bit more of their profit and make their speakers visually more appealing.

Bose knows how to prey on the un-informed and/or lazy customers and they do it well. By hyping up their products through marketing, they are spreading their names out to those who are unfamiliar with other brands in audio. More people shop at local electronic giants such as Best Buy, Circuit City, Walmart, they are sure to grab attentions from those shoppers. Since they are usually the most expensive at these retailers, people will trick themselves into thinking that they are actually that good. With careful marketing, flashy displays and demos, and well-trained salesman, it is no wonder that many fall into this trap, especially with the hefty price tag since we all know that many people associate expensive with being the best as in the case of AMD vs Intel for those of us who are up-to-date with computer chips but let's not get into that. Those satisfied customers are, many times, trying to defend themselves for having made a huge purchase. Many are not likely to admit that they've been mis-informed and got ripped off because that would just destroy their ego.

Bose has the advantage over many of its qualified competors and that is money from profit. It is very hard for quite a few good audio manufacturers to push their product to a local retailer since they do not have the funds to. Also, quite a few find that it is unnecessary because that process will add more cost to their products thus means profit for retailers and not the companies themselves nor their customers. This is why many of these brands are not as popular as Bose, since they are only available in certain audio stores and online or through special mail-order. Bose knows this and they are profiting from this because an average Joe will just go down to one of these local retailers for any electronic needs. He's not likely going to know of any REAL audio store to go to. Many of the times even if he does know, he would have to drive much farther than the distant to a BestBuy or Circuit City. Do you think that an average person would spend that much effort? I don't think so.

Another thing to take away from this is that if you walk into any REAL audio stores, especially high-end ones, you will probably never find Bose products. Even if you do, many times they are just there for direct comparision to prove that they do not measure up to other products. If Bose quality is that good then why wouldn't these stores carry them? If you say that it is "because Bose are as not expensive as the other brands in those stores" then I suggest you pay a visit to a REAL audio shop. There are much better speaker brands for about the same and even less than Bose; Boston Acoustics, Monitor Audio, Energy, Klipsch Reference, Paradigm, Mirage etc... Boston Acoustics for example isn't too high-end as Krell or Martin Logan but I am pretty sure that their products can outperform Bose at a price much cheaper than Bose's. For example I am pretty confidence that my pair of CR67 bookshelves ($250 USD retail) will outperform the Bose 301($300 USD). I once had the 301s back when I first got into audio because my dad gave them to me. Just look at the built quality between the two and you can already see. I was disgusted with Bose when I found that other speaker brands do not use paper and especially for tweeters. Now that we have better speakers for cheaper, we gave those speakers away. We would throw it in the trash but my dad and I are efficient folks as we do not believe in wasting products (even if Bose is that bad, we think that it is still better than throwing it away when there are other who do not have any speakers). But don't worry we do not recommend Bose to anyone at all. Anyway, see...even my dad who is an not an audiophile moved on from them to Klipsch, Infinity, NHT, & Mirage. It is because he is smart and he wants the best bang (quality & performance) for his bucks by going with those other brands.

If you want small satellite speaker system, then I can assure you that many of these brands such as Boston Acoustics, Mirage, Cambridge SoundWorks, Polk, etc do offer these products with significantly cheaper price tags than similar Bose's offerings. Just spend a little more time & effort and you can save money while having better audio. We have no evil intentions towards you Bose-owners or soon-to-be owners ego, only trying to help. But if you guys are willing to pay for being lazy by not comparing and shopping around then it's your loss.

If you Bose-supporters out there are saying measurements and specifications doesn't matter then why do we even have them? Why does almost every other speaker manufacturers spend extra time and effort if those things don't mean anything? That will just waste their time & effort, not to mention money spent that can be turned into profit.

Measurements and specifications are there so that we can COMPARE and MEASURE a product's performance against other products. Bose and those el-cheapo speaker offerings from Best Buy, Walmart, Circuit City are the only audio companies that do not do this. It is true; they do not do this because they don't want people to compare their products with products from other brands. This is why they delibrately have taken steps to isolate themselves from their competition. At the Best Buy that I used to work at, we were never allowed to play anything on Bose demo beside the demo discs from Bose themselves and if I remember correctly, those discs do not have any music demo other than movie scenes.

Do you know how big are their so-called Acoustimass bass modules drivers/woofers are? 5.25 inches!!! That is right, only 5.25" for woofer in a sub? Many entry-level speakers from other companies are already that big with many being bigger (eg. 6.5-inch, 7-inch, 8-inch). They don't have to go all out and use 18-inch woofers but at least something in the vicinity of 8-inch or 10-inch. Sound is about moving air and when it comes to low frequencies (as in subwoofer) this is absolutely crucial. Why do we need a sub? It is because we need something that can move huge quantity (loudness) of slow-moving air. It really defeat the purpose of having a sub when you have something that has a diameter of small paper dish since speakers of those size cannot move as much air as something bigger.

I would like to point out is that Bose uses some of the worse materials to build their speakers. I mean comon now for a $1k and beyond setup, they cannot even use a better material than "treated" papers for most, if not all, of their speakers. I was dissappointed after I realized this back from when I was working at Best Buy. Almost every other speaker companies uses a different, (and better IMO), for their speakers, even the more expensive ones in their Magnolia Home Theater. The only time where "treated" papers were seen was in very few subwoofers. Even the very basic thing such as cosmetic they cannot get it right. I've seen much better finish on many other speaker products costing much less than Bose's. If they are into hype and marketing, at least spend a little bit more of their profit and make their speakers visually more appealing.

Bose knows how to prey on the un-informed and/or lazy customers and they do it well. By hyping up their products through marketing, they are spreading their names out to those who are unfamiliar with other brands in audio. More people shop at local electronic giants such as Best Buy, Circuit City, Walmart, they are sure to grab attentions from those shoppers. Since they are usually the most expensive at these retailers, people will trick themselves into thinking that they are actually that good. With careful marketing, flashy displays and demos, and well-trained salesman, it is no wonder that many fall into this trap, especially with the hefty price tag since we all know that many people associate expensive with being the best as in the case of AMD vs Intel for those of us who are up-to-date with computer chips but let's not get into that. Those satisfied customers are, many times, trying to defend themselves for having made a huge purchase. Many are not likely to admit that they've been mis-informed and got ripped off because that would just destroy their ego.

Bose has the advantage over many of its qualified competors and that is money from profit. It is very hard for quite a few good audio manufacturers to push their product to a local retailer since they do not have the funds to. Also, quite a few find that it is unnecessary because that process will add more cost to their products thus means profit for retailers and not the companies themselves nor their customers. This is why many of these brands are not as popular as Bose, since they are only available in certain audio stores and online or through special mail-order. Bose knows this and they are profiting from this because an average Joe will just go down to one of these local retailers for any electronic needs. He's not likely going to know of any REAL audio store to go to. Many of the times even if he does know, he would have to drive much farther than the distant to a BestBuy or Circuit City. Do you think that an average person would spend that much effort? I don't think so.

Another thing to take away from this is that if you walk into any REAL audio stores, especially high-end ones, you will probably never find Bose products. Even if you do, many times they are just there for direct comparision to prove that they do not measure up to other products. If Bose quality is that good then why wouldn't these stores carry them? If you say that it is "because Bose are as not expensive as the other brands in those stores" then I suggest you pay a visit to a REAL audio shop. There are much better speaker brands for about the same and even less than Bose; Boston Acoustics, Monitor Audio, Energy, Klipsch Reference, Paradigm, Mirage etc... Boston Acoustics for example isn't too high-end as Krell or Martin Logan but I am pretty sure that their products can outperform Bose at a price much cheaper than Bose's. For example I am pretty confidence that my pair of CR67 bookshelves ($250 USD retail) will outperform the Bose 301($300 USD). I once had the 301s back when I first got into audio because my dad gave them to me. Just look at the built quality between the two and you can already see. I was disgusted with Bose when I found that other speaker brands do not use paper and especially for tweeters. Now that we have better speakers for cheaper, we gave those speakers away. We would throw it in the trash but my dad and I are efficient folks as we do not believe in wasting products (even if Bose is that bad, we think that it is still better than throwing it away when there are other who do not have any speakers). But don't worry we do not recommend Bose to anyone at all. Anyway, see...even my dad who is an not an audiophile moved on from them to Klipsch, Infinity, NHT, & Mirage. It is because he is smart and he wants the best bang (quality & performance) for his bucks by going with those other brands.

If you want small satellite speaker system, then I can assure you that many of these brands such as Boston Acoustics, Mirage, Cambridge SoundWorks, Polk, etc do offer these products with significantly cheaper price tags than similar Bose's offerings. Just spend a little more time & effort and you can save money while having better audio. We have no evil intentions towards you Bose-owners or soon-to-be owners ego, only trying to help. But if you guys are willing to pay for being lazy by not comparing and shopping around then it's your loss.

-------------

1. No one here is saying specs don't matter. But they are not the only thing. Our senses experience sensations differently than a machine. The towers of the Taj Mahal are bent outwards to create the illusion of being straight. Therefore, the trick is to fool the senses into believing that it is experience the best sound.

2. Bose has one of the best support and reliability track records in the industry. They would not have the repeat customers they have if their products didn't work reliably or were perceived as being of poor quality (workmanship). The test of materials is not how expensive they are but how well they work in the situation they are intended for.

3. People buy what they like based on how they want to evaluate products.

4. No doubt your dad is smart. But many Bose buyers are smart too. I assure you of that :)

"they cannot even use a better material than "treated" papers for most, if not all, of their speakers. I was dissappointed after I realized this back from when I was working at Best Buy."


So what's wrong with paper? Some of the finest drivers made use paper cones. Evidently they didn't sell them at Best Buy though.

"they cannot even use a better material than "treated" papers for most, if not all, of their speakers. I was dissappointed after I realized this back from when I was working at Best Buy."


So what's wrong with paper? Some of the finest drivers made use paper cones. Evidently they didn't sell them at Best Buy though.
Exactly. Paper is one of those things that will confuse a lot of people. Plenty of very high end speakers use them, but plenty of cheap speakers use them too. Bose uses paper speakers, but in their case that's not anything special, it's just cheap material. They aren't exactly striving to use exotic paper cones.

It's like saying all the best sports cars are mid engined. Well a Toyota Previa minivan is midengined. So what?

Exactly. Paper is one of those things that will confuse a lot of people. Plenty of very high end speakers use them, but plenty of cheap speakers use them too. Bose uses paper speakers, but in their case that's not anything special, it's just cheap material. They aren't exactly striving to use exotic paper cones.

It's like saying all the best sports cars are mid engined. Well a Toyota Previa minivan is midengined. So what?

Really? I have yet seen a pair of high-end quality speakers that uses high-quality treated-paper speakers. Please enlighten me with a few names so I can expand my knowledge. :)

But many Bose buyers are smart too. I assure you of that :)
You forgot semi-deaf and/or uninformed.

About ten years ago, I saw the Bose Store sales show, fell for it, and was going to put Bose in my house. Some friends had bought the dual cubes a couple of weeks before, so before buying, I went over to their house with a couple of cds to listen to them. I thought they were painful to listen to-- that is, treble seemed really boosted, yet their was no air to the sound. It sounded like there was a big boost from 8-10 khz but nothing above that. Bass seemed ok, but I could always tell where the bass module was in the room.

Needless to say, I didn't buy Bose.

-------------

1. No one here is saying specs don't matter. But they are not the only thing. Our senses experience sensations differently than a machine. The towers of the Taj Mahal are bent outwards to create the illusion of being straight. Therefore, the trick is to fool the senses into believing that it is experience the best sound.

2. Bose has one of the best support and reliability track records in the industry. They would not have the repeat customers they have if their products didn't work reliably or were perceived as being of poor quality (workmanship). The test of materials is not how expensive they are but how well they work in the situation they are intended for.

3. People buy what they like based on how they want to evaluate products.

4. No doubt your dad is smart. But many Bose buyers are smart too. I assure you of that :)

Smart? To you, spending a lot of money while there are comparable or better sound-quality products available for much cheaper is smart? With so many brands in the market, I am sure there are countless of better alternatives that are inexpensive.

Of course most, if not all, speakers will last for a long time. When I said built quality I meant the material used. I'm comparing the drivers (eg. woofers & tweeters) and the outer finish. I have yet seen a Bose speaker that wows me asthetically or acoustically for that matter.

Don't even get me started again with the size of the woofers in their so-called subwoofers / bass modules again. Please don't tell me size doesn't matter when it comes to subwoofers.

Really? I have yet seen a pair of high-end quality speakers that uses high-quality treated-paper speakers. Please enlighten me with a few names so I can expand my knowledge. :)
Hmm maybe not many speakers use them but there are some good paper cones out there.

Hmm maybe not many speakers use them but there are some good paper cones out there.

off the top of my head..

Usher
Definitive
Energy
Mirage

007']off the top of my head..

Usher
Definitive
Energy
Mirage

....and fostex, about three other full range makes that I can't remember off the top of my head right now, Audax, & Peerless....

Treated Paper cones are still extremely effective as cone materials, sonically. Zero question about this... ;)

Companies making excellent drivers and/or systems using paper cones?

Iconic

GPA

JBL (and I ain't talking the Best Buy stuff Buster)

TAD

CAR

Edgar

Klipsch (I mean the REAL Klipsch, the 3-way horns, not that nasty copper colored junk)

Summa

Vifa

Morel

Lowther

Fostex

B&C

Radian


blah-blah-blah---I could go on at great length but the point is clear. If you need more convincing get Parts Express and Madisound catalogs.

I think people use plastic because it's cheap and consistent not because it's better. Exotic materials like Kevlar and carbon fiber cause as many problems as they solve, problems that are cured by passive EQ circuits in the crossover. And you thought audiophiles didn't like EQ. Or just when they know about it.

Rudy Bozak used aluminum cone mids and tweeters over 40 years ago, he damped the resonances with rubber coatings and foam "bumpers" behind the cones.

Not to mention that the four finest woofers ever devised by man----The Altec 515, 416, 414 and 406----used paper cones.

That is true, however that's why there's a return policy. Any speaker might sound like crap once you get it home and in your regular listening environment (although the chances of this working against Bose might be greater).

So what? Some do, some don't. I haven't seen every CC but all I'm saying is the ones I have seen in several states had at least one listening room. None of them are particularly good listening rooms but they're better than nothing by a long shot.

As I understand some BBs even have listening rooms, however I've never seen one.
The return policy is irrelevant to the point that I was making, which is any manufacturer has a right to ask to have their products displayed at retail in a way that doesn't denigrate them. Not that they all get it! :rolleyes:

I only mentioned the Bose display in my neighborhood CC to refute the mantra that Bose doesn't allow their speakers to be displayed so they can be compared with others. They may desire that kind of set up, but clearly they don't always get it.

I've been to dozens of CC's and BB's across the country, too. I just never cared enough about Bose one way or another to remember how they were displayed. ;) By the same token, I don't recall any "Bose only" displays either, although I wouldn't swear they weren't there.

I don't pay too much heed to retail speaker displays, even in high end audio boutiques. The environment is too different from my home. For me, the only meaningful way to audition speakers is in the room in which they will be used, and over an extended period of time. I'm well aware that we "adjust" to the speakers we listen to, but my experience has been that I'm more likely hear faults in extended listening that I might overlook in a short audition. YMMV.

My last 5 speaker purchases have been internet brands. (I have over two dozen speakers in use in my house; only the two least expensive ones happen to be Bose.) Many other people prefer to make speaker comparisons in a showroom. Neither approach is "right" or "wrong." We all do what works for us.

I'd like to take issue with just a few of the points that VirusVooDoo brought up.

1) While I'd also like to see more measurements and specifications, I'd like to see more meaningful ones. Manufacturers provide the specifications they do because they're easy, they're often irrelevent, and for marketing purposes. While it's nice to see the FR and nominal impedance of a speaker, that in itself tells little. There are no impedance and phase angle plots. There are no measurements of cabinet resonances. There are no dispersion plots. If there were, much more could be ascertained but not if the person reading it doesn't know how to interpret them. I'm sure VirusVooDoo might be challenged to obtain such information for whatever it is that he owns.

2) The Acoustimass bass module is not a sub. Nor does it pretend to be. Certainly if you want very deep bass, you'll have to look elsewhere but knowing how to effectively place a bona-fide subwoofer and then deal with the attendant room issues is not the easiest thing for people. Many people just wind up sticking the sub where the wife says. Further, many people just aren't all that interested in deep, authoritative bass reproduction. For them, something more modest is just the ticket. It sounds better than the TV speakers and that's fine by them.

3) Paper drivers are used for specific reasons. Paper itself is a misnomer as the paper is often treated with other polymeric materials, fillers, etc. in order to achieve certain characteristics such as control of driver resonances among other reasons. Inexepensiveness is not necessarily associated with paper and many companies have used paper based drivers in critically acclaimed speakers like Dunlavy's. Now, I will grant you that the cost of the Bose actual drivers is fairly modest and to me is disproportional to the selling price but that's another matter entirely.

4) Yes, Bose does prey on the uninformed customer. So do a whole lot of companies. How about Totem for selling their Beaks? How about those outfits that are selling ultrasonic tweeters? How about the ones that are selling esoteric speaker points? How about companies like Cain & Cain that make a single driver speaker but know absolutely nothing about speakers but they make a nice cabinet? How about companies that claim their speakers have certain properties that are impossible? How about companies that sell speakers with 1% tolerance resistors and capacitors with silver internal connections but don't tell you that their drivers vary by 10% or more? I am not trying to justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior. It'd be good if people learned how to recognize advertising and marketing for what it is and not peer-reviewed scientific papers. There'a a lot of companies and reviewers that deserved to be slammed with the same authority as Bose.

5) Yes, Bose does generate a profit. If you're not in this business to make a profit then either get out the market will force you out.

6) I've walked into high-end stores and stuff they push on you is nothing short of going into a NYC botanica and seeing the magic candles, saints, herbs, and other mystical do-nothing concoctions designed to get you thinking irrationally. They don't carry Bose for the same reason Tiffany doesn't carry Timex. It's a different clientele.

7) I'm sure your CR67's are fine. However, what efforts did you undertake to determine an effective placement or did you simply stick them to the walls?

Chu-Gai------Well said, well said indeed.

Amen, Chu Gai! :cool:

Kudos, Chu Gai.

Smart? To you, spending a lot of money while there are comparable or better sound-quality products available for much cheaper is smart? With so many brands in the market, I am sure there are countless of better alternatives that are inexpensive.

Of course most, if not all, speakers will last for a long time. When I said built quality I meant the material used. I'm comparing the drivers (eg. woofers & tweeters) and the outer finish. I have yet seen a Bose speaker that wows me asthetically or acoustically for that matter.

Don't even get me started again with the size of the woofers in their so-called subwoofers / bass modules again. Please don't tell me size doesn't matter when it comes to subwoofers.
-------------
Ok, I guess Bose targets the 'stupid' and loyal people as their customers. The truly wise will be educated by folks like yourself on this forum.

I am a happy 'stupid' Bose customer and I bought them after comparing them to several Bose alternatives mentioned in this forum. I tried hard not to buy Bose, but in the end decided to go with what appealed to my ears. I now believe that many of the Bose bashers here have the goal of not getting you to consider Bose. Based on your needs a Bose may or may not be the right solution, but definitely let your ears and mind do the selection. A side-by-side comparison at Tweeter is not the only way to decide. Listen to the systems (if you can) in different types of set ups and see what sounds best in what is most likely to be yours. Bring the set home and try it. If you don't like it, return it. Most stores will let you.

I mentioned in a previous post that I bought two systems and preferred the Bose and returned the other. The cost of the Bose (LS 48) was around 1,500 more.

do I wish they cost less, sure!

The return policy is irrelevant to the point that I was making, which is any manufacturer has a right to ask to have their products displayed at retail in a way that doesn't denigrate them. Not that they all get it! :rolleyes:

I only mentioned the Bose display in my neighborhood CC to refute the mantra that Bose doesn't allow their speakers to be displayed so they can be compared with others. They may desire that kind of set up, but clearly they don't always get it.

Bose does have an agreement with retailers as to how their speakers had to be set up. If their regional sales rep visits the store and notices their speakers not displayed as per their written agreement, they have certain enforcement measures in the written agreement they can enact. I don't know specifically what they are for CC, from a small retailer they could include up to terminating their agreement to retail through their store. With CC, that's not likely. I can verify this, because I worked at one of the mass retailers when they enacted this agreement. After the agreement has been in place after several years, that doesn't mean some store gets a new department manager who doesn't know any better, and puts all of the stuff together. The onus is on Bose regional sales rep to visit the stores in his area of responsibility to ensure their products are displayed in accordance with their agreement. I'd be willing to bet that most of their regional reps are good at their jobs, but also that at least a couple don't hit every store in their area, or they don't check for all of the things that they're supposed to. Just because your store has them together doesn't mean there's no formal agreement as such.

Ignorance is bliss!!!

So is understanding the market and knowing how to target it!

The wife bought twp Bose systems for the house..on for a media room (which
replaced), and one for the bedroom.

you know, the bedroom system is alright...the cubes are ceiling mounted, and the sub is stashed behaind a dresser...the system is essentially invisible, and sounds fine.

sometimes I eat a porterhouse steak, sometimes i eat a big mac.


depends on what i want.

yes, a porterhouse is clearly superior to a Big Mac, but sometimes the big mac is what you want.

similarly, Bose successfully fills a niche...it provides the market with what it wants, that is why it is successful. You know why the bass is crappy on bose systems....because a good subwoofer would be to big..and a primary feature of the Bose is its small footprint and stylish appearance. while this may sound like sonic heresy to most AVS'ers, your wife/girlfriend thinks that is perfect...they don't want a giant sub messing up their room, and they don't really care about the walls rattling during Master and Commander......

so what do i want? I'vce got big, wall shaking stuff in the home theater, and the Bose cubes in the bedroom....and i like them both, for very different reasons....

So is understanding the market and knowing how to target it!

The funny thing is that rich audiophiles are just as susceptible to marketing (probably moreso!) than Bose folks. Bose people may get hit hard, but at least they're not buying "magic pebbles" or "wire bridges" and crap ;)

I'd like to take issue with just a few of the points that VirusVooDoo brought up.

7) I'm sure your CR67's are fine. However, what efforts did you undertake to determine an effective placement or did you simply stick them to the walls?

Aren't the 301s also bookshelf speakers? Wasn't I comparing those against my CR-67s? They [the CR-67s are actually more compact and easier to place than the 301s.

I'd like to take issue with just a few of the points that VirusVooDoo brought up.

3) Paper drivers are used for specific reasons. Paper itself is a misnomer as the paper is often treated with other polymeric materials, fillers, etc. in order to achieve certain characteristics such as control of driver resonances among other reasons. Inexepensiveness is not necessarily associated with paper and many companies have used paper based drivers in critically acclaimed speakers like Dunlavy's. Now, I will grant you that the cost of the Bose actual drivers is fairly modest and to me is disproportional to the selling price but that's another matter entirely.

4) Yes, Bose does prey on the uninformed customer. So do a whole lot of companies. How about Totem for selling their Beaks? How about those outfits that are selling ultrasonic tweeters? How about the ones that are selling esoteric speaker points? How about companies like Cain & Cain that make a single driver speaker but know absolutely nothing about speakers but they make a nice cabinet? How about companies that claim their speakers have certain properties that are impossible? How about companies that sell speakers with 1% tolerance resistors and capacitors with silver internal connections but don't tell you that their drivers vary by 10% or more? I am not trying to justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior. It'd be good if people learned how to recognize advertising and marketing for what it is and not peer-reviewed scientific papers. There'a a lot of companies and reviewers that deserved to be slammed with the same authority as Bose.

5) Yes, Bose does generate a profit. If you're not in this business to make a profit then either get out the market will force you out.



That's exactly my point as well as many others. Because the difference between total revenue and total cost (meaning profit) is a lot more than any other companies'. Of course every company are out there to earn a profit in anyway they can, or through mass marketing as in Bose's case. But many equivalent or even better products do not cost as much as Bose's stuff and do not ripped off the consumers as much as Bose as their profits are not as high as Bose's. Those companies are consistently competing against one another through pricing and bring out better products like Klipsch and Boston Acoustics, which keep the price low while having new and improved products. We haven't seen anything new from Bose for quite a while and I don't think their prices are as competitive as these other companies. Their companies' slogan is Better Sound through Research is all crap when they haven't brough out new speakers or even change / improve their current lines of speakers.

Their companies' slogan is Better Sound through Research...

I think their slogan outta be changed to "Better Sound through Marketing". :D

Many here take the sensible position that speaker selection is a purely subjective decision and that one should always buy what one prefers.

UNLESS someone prefers Bose evidently. Hypocrisy.

That's exactly my point as well as many others. Because the difference between total revenue and total cost (meaning profit) is a lot more than any other companies'. Of course every company are out there to earn a profit in anyway they can, or through mass marketing as in Bose's case. But many equivalent or even better products do not cost as much as Bose's stuff and do not ripped off the consumers as much as Bose as their profits are not as high as Bose's. Those companies are consistently competing against one another through pricing and bring out better products like Klipsch and Boston Acoustics, which keep the price low while having new and improved products. We haven't seen anything new from Bose for quite a while and I don't think their prices are as competitive as these other companies. Their companies' slogan is Better Sound through Research is all crap when they haven't brough out new speakers or even change / improve their current lines of speakers.
---------
first of all, how do you know Bose's profits are higher? Second, the more important number is margin per unit sold, that will tell you the profit made for each unit as opposed to total profit which a company that through sheer volume will earn more of. So, I am not sure at all Bose earns any more per unit than any of the other high-end low volume sellers.

Auto manufacturers sell much higher value items and advertise much more than Bose. How is the advertising done by auto companies diffeent from what Bose does? Are you upset with the late night informercials? Those are usually for their lower priced items like the Wave Radio and Quiet Comfort headsets.

I have not found $for instance the $ 279 Klipsh ipod player to sound better than the 299 Bose, or the $450 Cambridge CD radio to sound better than the $500 Bose Wave. And the $300 Quiet Comfort headsets are far superior to Sony's new $250 active noise cancelling headsets. In this case the prices are comparable (same ball park for similar products), although Bose spends a lot more on advertising and in my opinion the Bose is both a better looking and sounding system.

The sets that people complain about, like the Lifestyle series are seldom advertised via informatials. I've been able to hear all the LS systems at CC to determine if it works for me.

Bose, is a classic American success story. Here is an American company that has withstood competitive pressure to thrive in a very competitive market and guess who slams them most vigorously - Americans! Trust me, all the other competitors are trying every gimmick in their book to sell their systems, but it does not seem to work as well as what Bose does. I see Bose's success in audio as being similar to Apple's iPod.

It appears the main problem that audiophiles or should I say 'Bose vigilante's' on this forum have is that they feel the success of Bose is unjustified and therefore the throngs of Bose customers must be either stupid rich folks (at least not as smart as them) or the 'evil Bose Corporation' is preying on their goodness. Trust me, most Bose customers actually like what they buy and seem happy.

Anyway, it looks like most of the typical anti-Bose myth have been pretty well debunked in this thread by now. To me there appear to be no reason why you should not consider Bose for your audio needs. There are lot's of ways to try them out with little or o risk to you. Bose also happens to have one of the most generous reurn policies, and given their small footprint are pretty easy to load and return if you don't like....

I promise this is my last email on this thread. Glad I was able to stir things up a little here :)

---------
Anyway, it looks like most of the typical anti-Bose myth have been pretty well debunked in this thread by now. To me there appear to be no reason why you should not consider Bose for your audio needs. There are lot's of ways to try them out with little or o risk to you. Bose also happens to have one of the most generous reurn policies, and given their small footprint are pretty easy to load and return if you don't like....


I know I shouldn't, but I'm going to poke the hornets nest again. I have not seen one single statement in this thread that debunks any of the anti-bose stuff that I have posted here. For one example, I've stated that Bose lost 95% of the blind A/B tests that I ever did with comparable speakers, and it was pointed out that speakers sound different in homes, or whatever. Nevermind the same can be said for the [usually lower priced] alternatives they routinely lost to.

Bottom line is, the sound is subjective, some people will like them and be happy with them, and that's fine. But, the average potential buyers should not allow the incessant marketing and hypothetical claims that the company makes in its ads to alter their perception about their sound quality before they start shopping. They should subjectively listen to them against at least a few offerings from other companies rather than buying into the "If it's Bose, it must be the best" philosophy that exists in the masses who do not spend the time and effort to follow audio. If they do that and they choose the Bose, more power to them, I'm glad they found something that makes them happy. Based on my experience selling this stuff in the mid 90s, I believe the vast majority of prospective buyers would choose other alternatives if they approached buying/auditioning speakers in an open minded manner that most people here (Bose loyalists and haters alike) recommend.

That's exactly my point as well as many others. Because the difference between total revenue and total cost (meaning profit) is a lot more than any other companies'. Of course every company are out there to earn a profit in anyway they can, or through mass marketing as in Bose's case. But many equivalent or even better products do not cost as much as Bose's stuff and do not ripped off the consumers as much as Bose as their profits are not as high as Bose's. Those companies are consistently competing against one another through pricing and bring out better products like Klipsch and Boston Acoustics, which keep the price low while having new and improved products. We haven't seen anything new from Bose for quite a while and I don't think their prices are as competitive as these other companies. Their companies' slogan is Better Sound through Research is all crap when they haven't brough out new speakers or even change / improve their current lines of speakers.

I have to say, this is one of the most entertaining threads I have seen in a while and it's a really old one at that. How do you know how much profit there is for any of these companies? Profit is not derived just from the cost to manufacture as compared to the wholesale. There are things like overhead, executive compensation, R & D, and yes, ADVERTISING. Just becuase something is not worth a lot in the sum of the parts does not mean it is cheap to make.

I know I shouldn't, but I'm going to poke the hornets nest again. I have not seen one single statement in this thread that debunks any of the anti-bose stuff that I have posted here. For one example, I've stated that Bose lost 95% of the blind A/B tests that I ever did with comparable speakers, and it was pointed out that speakers sound different in homes, or whatever. Nevermind the same can be said for the [usually lower priced] alternatives they routinely lost to.

Bottom line is, the sound is subjective, some people will like them and be happy with them, and that's fine. But, the average potential buyers should be not allow the incessant marketing and hypothetical claims that the company makes in its ads to alter their perception about their sound quality before they start shopping. They should subjectively listen to them against at least a few offerings from other companies rather than buying into the "If it's Bose, it must be the best" philosophy that exists in the masses who do not spend the time and effort to follow audio. If they do that and they choose the Bose, more power to them, I'm glad they found something that makes them happy. Based on my experience selling this stuff in the mid 90s, I believe the vast majority of prospective buyers would choose other alternatives if they approached buying/auditioning speakers in an open minded manner that most people here (Bose loyalists and haters alike) recommend.

Personally, I have had more or less the opposite experience. I was an AM 10 owner until I decided to upgrade to bigger speakers, but I first listened to a lot of other sat systems from Paradigm, BA, Def Tech, and Klipsch. The only one that sounded big time better than Bose were the BA Micros and that was it. Non of the others were like WOW, I have to get these in my house. The difference was just not that noticeable and all cost between $800 and $1000. BTW, the BA sub with the micros was worse than the Bose Bass Module at high volume. The thing was bottoming out all over the place during Pearl Harbor.

"Those companies are consistently competing against one another through pricing and bring out better products like Klipsch and Boston Acoustics, which keep the price low while having new and improved products. "

Klipsch? Improved products? You're kidding, right? They brought out their best product in the late 1940s. Their best products are their oldest, not their newest.

"Those companies are consistently competing against one another through pricing and bring out better products like Klipsch and Boston Acoustics, which keep the price low while having new and improved products. "

Klipsch? Improved products? You're kidding, right? They brought out their best product in the late 1940s. Their best products are their oldest, not their newest.

It's true that Klipsch's top-of-the line Heresy models were unrival by some of the newer stuff they have today. But those are more like high-end home theater design specifically for dedicated home-theater applications, not for standard living room right as they are huge speakers. I was referring to their entry-level, midrange, and somewhat high-end lines such as the Synergy and Reference (not THX2) series.

Anyway, the bottom line is that many times sound-quality is subjective and in the free-world people are free to make any kind of purchase with their own money, even if it is more expensive than comparable products. Those of us who are bothered by Bose is because we feel that quite a few of their products are a bit over-priced and the fact that they use all sorts of marketing strategies and non-conformist behaviors do not make them look any better but rather worse in our eyes.

This is off-topic but I heard the old Altec speakers were really good also. I wonder why they stop making home theater speakers and went into computers, especially when they were highly regarded back in the old days or so I was told by a few people.

Virus---Well the Heresy is the bottom of Klipsch's "real" line and IMO (and I've owned them) a pretty wretched speaker with a tinny, upper midrange tonal balance that makes it sound like a skilsaw. The Cornwall and Klipschorn, larger speakers from the line, have a much more robust and pleasing tonal balance and are fine speakers.

As for Altec, the REAL Altec, well IMO nobody made better speakers; before, during or since. I have three sets of vintage Altecs now and another set on the way. Altec was a victim of poor management and corporate raiding and shenanigans. Eventually the conglomerate that owned Altec sold the right to use the name Altec for consumer goods to a car audio company, Sparkomatic, which used the name on crummy home speakers and later computer speakers.

The real Altec carried on making pro-sound gear only but when Telex bought the company that owned Altec (and Altec competitor EV) they killed Altec off and kept EV going, EV (after also dropping out of the consumer market) having invested in the new high power gear needed for new markets while Altec hadn't.

Bill Hanuschek was Altec's last engineering honcho and he bought the Altec production equipment and started a company called Great Plains Audio and now makes brand new "Altec" gear under the GPA name. Bill also repairs most Altec speakers regardless of the age, he makes the parts needed on the original machinery.

Virus---Well the Heresy is the bottom of Klipsch's "real" line and IMO (and I've owned them) a pretty wretched speaker with a tinny, upper midrange tonal balance that makes it sound like a skilsaw. The Cornwall and Klipschorn, larger speakers from the line, have a much more robust and pleasing tonal balance and are fine speakers.

As for Altec, the REAL Altec, well IMO nobody made better speakers; before, during or since. I have three sets of vintage Altecs now and another set on the way. Altec was a victim of poor management and corporate raiding and shenanigans. Eventually the conglomerate that owned Altec sold the right to use the name Altec for consumer goods to a car audio company, Sparkomatic, which used the name on crummy home speakers and later computer speakers.

The real Altec carried on making pro-sound gear only but when Telex bought the company that owned Altec (and Altec competitor EV) they killed Altec off and kept EV going, EV (after also dropping out of the consumer market) having invested in the new high power gear needed for new markets while Altec hadn't.

Bill Hanuschek was Altec's last engineering honcho and he bought the Altec production equipment and started a company called Great Plains Audio and now makes brand new "Altec" gear under the GPA name. Bill also repairs most Altec speakers regardless of the age, he makes the parts needed on the original machinery.

Well I don't know too much about Klipsch's heritage model and Heresy is the only name that comes to my mind when mentioning Klipsch and old/heritage. But my point was never to emphasize about it or any great heritage model from Klipsch.

So you say beside from the cosmetic (the look) the REAL Altec speakers is unrivaled by many products even by today's standards? If that is true, I will have to hunt a pair down or so to satisfy my wants.

"So you say beside from the cosmetic (the look) the REAL Altec speakers is unrivaled by many products even by today's standards?"

That's what I think. Note that is my opinion and not an overall statement of fact.

Not all the real Altecs were special, the large ones that were home speakers using Altec's motion picture theater and studio monitor drivers are the ones to get. And many Altec enthusiasts just bring theater speakers into the house; gray utility cabinets, exposed horns and all.

check the old Altec stuff here www.audioheritage.org

Warning, if you dive into this site you might not come out for a couple of days.

VirusVoodo:

This is regarding specifications and curves.
As I had written earlier, the frequency response curve is an excellent design tool since it captures one important impact of speaker design. However, since a speaker is not a linear system, there is no guarantee that the speaker will be able to reproduce similar flat curves when a combinations of frequencies are being played at the same time (as in real music). You can not measure that since there are infinite combinations! That is why the religious love for specs and curves is grossly misplaced. You have to listen to speakers; no published spec and curve will capture that.

As a nation obsessed with junk statistics, we feel that be getting a glimpse into some charts and curves is great and gives us a lot of insight. In a lot of ways the marketting departments play with us. For example, the contrast ratios and refresh times of LCD panels are measured differently by all manufacturers, to a point that they are almost meaningless. You have to watch them in person to separate the wheat from the chaff. Similarly for speakers, you have to listen to them, in YOUR own room, with YOUR own ears, to figure out what works and what does not.

We have talked earlier that given Bose' profit margin and knowledge about audio (4-5 decades and counting) it is unlikely that they delibrately chose cheaper materials at a significant loss of audio quality. Their design engineers need to balance long term reliability, audio quality and costs. At their gross margins, raw material costs are the least important variable. It costs a lot more to repair a speaker than make a new one. Similarly, poor audio quality will do a lot of damage to their biggest strength, their Brand Equity. However, a $10 increase in the Cost of Goods bill, will have a very managable impact. They can just increase the MSRP by $10 (which is about 3% for the 301) without a significant loss of market share. Hence it is wrong to claim that they use inexpensive materials, just to boost their profits, without regard to the sound quality.

Bose are not accurate speakers. But they offer a warm, enveloping, out of box simplicity, good performance, for a reasonable price (like the $300 301s), with good warranty (5 years) and good resale value (still worth $100 after 10 years).

VirusVoodo:

However, a $10 increase in the Cost of Goods bill, will have a very managable impact. They can just increase the MSRP by $10 (which is about 3% for the 301) without a significant loss of market share. Hence it is wrong to claim that they use inexpensive materials, just to boost their profits, without regard to the sound quality.



Just a note here. A $10 increase at wholesale will normally be about $20 at retail or maybe a little less. Most maintained markups are in the 45% area (45% of the total price being the retail MU)

I have no idea what Bose' profits are. They're into a whole lot more things than many other companies including headphones, professional sound applications in both the pro music and large venue areas (stadiums, malls, etc.), car audio, radios, etc. As far as nothing new, I'd take issue with that. Peruse their offerings from 5 years ago to today. Yes, their slogan is Better Sound through Research. Don't underestimate Bose' research in either sound or marketing. You ought to see their facility and then come back and say that. Now, if I saw some of the facilities of other speaker vendors (I won't name names) you might see nothing more than a garage with some HS kids putting things together.

Markeing is Research. Get that through your heads. If you want to be successful, then you'll learn how to market. 'Course, your product costs will go up because you've got to amortize and make the marketing profitable. That's just the way it goes.

Now if you want to take issue with Bose and state that their products are overpriced and not proportional to the cost of materials that's one thing. However, before you get out on that limb, you'd better consider a few things. The cost of a speaker is far more than the costs of the parts. You've got to add a bunch of things like...

R&D expenses
Marketing Expenses
Advertising Expenses
Payroll (don't forget about taxes, pensions, 401K's, health insurance, etc.)
Taxes
Accountants
Lawyers
Shipping
Warehousing
Inventorying spare parts
Shipping
Returns
Electricity
Heating
Cooling
Insurance
Workman's Comp.
Packaging

And the list goes on. Don't forget to add those.

I can't debunk your blind tests jericho76 but then you haven't provided any details as to how these were carried out.

I went and Listened to the Lifestyle system it was nice so afterwards I told the Represetative what I had and he told me not to change because my system would give me better sound and more versatility and cost half as much.

I have 4 Bose 301's series with a pair of Bose 161's and Bose center channel and Def subwoffer and it costs just around 1,400.

Thats what I would do if your room allows for it.

DD's

...I've stated that Bose lost 95% of the blind A/B tests that I ever did with comparable speakers...Bottom line is, the sound is subjective...
No one can debunk your tests, as they are yours, and as you have noted, the results are subjective. You are to be commended for your endeavor, as few of us have ever expended the effort to attempt a true blind speaker evaluation. But the outcome applies only to you.

Scientific tests would have to be conducted by professionals under carefully controlled, level equalized, double-blind conditions with a large number of isolated subjects. That's impossible for most of us. It has been done by labs, but many "golden-eared audiophiles" have disliked the results, as they have often been used to debunk many of our most cherished audio myths.
... the average potential buyers should not allow the incessant marketing and hypothetical claims that the company makes in its ads to alter their perception about their sound quality before they start shopping.
I couldn't agree more, at least in theory. Unfortunately, virtually all of us are guilty of this to some degree on audio products. Manufacturers work hard to create an aura about their offerings, and most of us are influenced to some degree. Marketing takes many forms, and includes what we read on the internet and are told by our peers or by a audio boutique salesperson as well as formal advertising. A great deal of our perception of audio products stems from our expectations. We tend to hear what we expect to hear.
...They should subjectively listen to them against at least a few offerings from other companies rather than buying into the "If it's Bose, it must be the best" philosophy...

Agreed. But the same must be said about the "If it's Bose, it must be bad" counter philosophy that has pervaded this thread.

Agreed. But the same must be said about the "If it's Bose, it must be bad" counter philosophy that has pervaded this thread.

As much as I dislike Bose, that's a very good point. I should have included that myself in my post above to be fair.

How about "If it's Bose, you've been had"

Just a note here. A $10 increase at wholesale will normally be about $20 at retail or maybe a little less. Most maintained markups are in the 45% area (45% of the total price being the retail MU)

They do not have to pass it through to retail. No retailer will dump Bose if they squeeze the margins from 45% to 42% of whatever.

Anyway, the point is that in general for most American manufacturers, the cost of the raw materials is not that important. This is especially true in the audio market, where people often spend hundred or even thousands of dollars and a few percentage point changes in pricing is not going to affect demand in any meaningful way.

Hi All, I have been thoroughly amused in reading the Bose bashing. They certainly deserve our collective contempt. I had a similar discussion with Bose a while back, early in my A/V learning curve. My first clue that something was fishy, was that the guys in the store giving demo's knew nothing about the system. Easy to write off Good Guys to be ignorant ( "I don't know, I just work here"), but I found the same problem at a Bose outlet in a mall as well, which could only be interpreted as stonewalling to hide something. Coupled with the fact they would not let me play any of my own source material, my curiosity sparked. I spent quite a while trying to squeeze the info our of Bose, from different directions. I finally called them as a potential buyer, and had to give them some of my personal info (making sure I was not an industry spy is what they told me) and they got back in touch with me eventually. I really wanted the info, so I was very polite. What I learned was shocking, and amusing.

Freq response on the Series III Double Cube Speakers is 200-14K Hz ! That is right, an earth shaking two hundred Hertz to an ear splitting fourteen thousand Hertz, and the Acoustamass Module is from 50-400HZ. They run at 6 ohms. I forgot the sensitivity and power handling, but they were not as pathetic (after hearing the freq response, it was hard to pay attention to anything else, as I was fighting back laughter while trying to remain sincere sounding)

This is why they do not publish the specs, they are quite laughable, at any price, especially they price they sell for! True they are mainly targeting idiots, but they assume everyone to be a sucker, and that bothers me. People trust big names. They run a very deceptive campaign, that is much better suited in politics, not the audio industry. This speaker system should only be sold at stores that sell furniture, since so much more attention was paid to the asthetic appeal than the sonic qualities, that in my eyes they are just very expensive decorations. A neat idea, but this little thing called physics gets in the way, which is obviously an ongoing inconvenience for Bose.

My2cents--Sisu1a

Great - way to go noob - as your first post you resurrect an 8 month old Bose thread...

>Freq response on the Series III Double Cube Speakers is 200-14K Hz ! That is right, an earth shaking two hundred Hertz to an ear splitting fourteen thousand Hertz, and the Acoustamass Module is from 50-400HZ. They run at 6 ohms. I forgot the sensitivity and power handling, but they were not as pathetic (after hearing the freq response, it was hard to pay attention to anything else, as I was fighting back laughter while trying to remain sincere sounding)<

I guess that's why they say "no highs, no lows, must be Bose." That explains it.

>Great - way to go noob - as your first post you resurrect an 8 month old Bose thread...

Hey Sisu1A- welcome to the forum. don't make the mistake thinking that everyone on the forum is a jerk like this guy. Some folks will actually converse with you. For the record, thanks for resurrecting this thread. I had never seen the specs on Bose, just lots of mob-mentality bashing with no figures to back it up. Very revealing once you see that.

Thanks for posting this, now the mob has some weapons!

Hey Sisu1A- welcome to the forum. don't make the mistake thinking that everyone on the forum is a jerk like this guy. Some folks will actually converse with you. For the record, thanks for resurrecting this thread. I had never seen the specs on Bose, just lots of mob-mentality bashing with no figures to back it up. Very revealing once you see that.

Thanks for posting this, now the mob has some weapons!
I am surprised that you never came across this info in over a year on this forum. Here is a link with some more info:
http://www.intellexual.net/bose.html#number1

Good thing is that author not just bashes Bose, he also gives you a bunch of alternatives.

I was thinking about this just today. Bose may be marketing an overpriced, under-achieved product, but at least they don't specify frequency response or anything else.

Many of the HTiB systems I see just say 20-20k and I was wondering how true that could possibly be. A coworker has a $200 Sony system that he swears is just as good as the more expensive units he has never heard of, and produced a spec sheet with figures that apparently don't mean squat!!!

It just can't be possible to reproduce an entire audible range with mid-range sized woofers and no tweeters. It just can't be!!

I was thinking about this just today. Bose may be marketing an overpriced, under-achieved product, but at least they don't specify frequency response or anything else.

Many of the HTiB systems I see just say 20-20k and I was wondering how true that could possibly be.

At least they don't specify it? You mean at least they don't do it and flat-out lie about it, right?

The HTiB that say 20-20K likely don't have +/- 30 dB tacked on the end, or any sort of range. The fact that Bose doesn't specify anything doesn't make them better since their aim is deception. For the high price they ask, they try to make people believe the specs are good (or at least the sound is good).

For people who are older and have hearing loss in the upper frequency ranges, the lack of HF response may be an advantage. Bose isn't the only one who is questioning or designing speakers that treat the upper frequency range as largely irrelevent.

>I am surprised that you never came across this info in over a year on this forum.

I skip most of the Bose threads, because after reading a few, they were all the same- the subject line grabbed my attention.

>For people who are older

That explains the Bose-Paul harvey sponsorship connection!

This is why they do not publish the specs, they are quite laughable, at any price, especially they price they sell for! True they are mainly targeting idiots, but they assume everyone to be a sucker, and that bothers me. People trust big names. They run a very deceptive campaign, that is much better suited in politics, not the audio industry. This speaker system should only be sold at stores that sell furniture, since so much more attention was paid to the asthetic appeal than the sonic qualities, that in my eyes they are just very expensive decorations. A neat idea, but this little thing called physics gets in the way, which is obviously an ongoing inconvenience for Bose.

I don't like Bose either and I have sold them in the past (obviously when I was at Tweeter) but before you laugh so hard, get 5 friends a Bose cube system , a set of floorstanding speakers , a pair of Bookshelf speakers with a sub, and some graph paper. Audition all three sets blind with music you are familiar with and draw the FR graph, and pick those you prefer in order and then compare results. Note: no talking or looking over the others shoulders at notes and graphs. The results may surprise you. Of course , now that you've seen the Bose graph, you will be trying to pick out the Bose and then draw the graph you remember seeing.

It should be said that Bose knows enough about what sounds "good" to people to keep them from being returned very often. They do a lot of direct marketing to further reduce direct comparative analysis for those that may hear their shortcomings when compared to differant speakers. Bose does know, where marketing research has shown them, people have less susceptability for noticing losses in certain ranges. No , it doesn't mean it's right, but they are building for the masses.

Hello again all, sorry about bringing up such a sore old subject (being a noob and all), but I feel we are doing very important work here. Of course we all know that bose (they don't deserve a capitol letter anymore) blows. But, by keeping threads like this fresh, with accurate information, there are lots of people who are going to read this and thus possibly make an informed decision, which seems like one of the goals of a site like this.

I am very entertained by these threads, probably because I was so close to becoming one of the victims of the bose campaign. The system they offer can look very attractive if you are trying to save space in a setup, like I was in my small studio apt. Luckily I am pretty frugal large about purchases, especially audio equipment, and did more homework. Learning how close I came to terminal buyer's remorse, I was embittered and feel I need to do what I can to help unmask the scheme and help others not to make the mistake of buying one of these crappy systems for what we can all agree is way too much money. What is common knowledge among audiophiles, is not among the general consumers and bose knows this. I feel it is our duty, to keep info fresh and accessible, to keep bose--and any other company who dares--in check. Who knows, if bose gets big enough, they may buy your favorite brand company (you know, if you can't beat'em, buy'em). We should not let our elitism as audiophiles help sell more bose products.

Anyways, I very much appreciate the thorough specs found in the review posted by axs a few posts ago. Thanks, very informative, I will keep it handy for future reference. It was years ago that bose unsuccessfully tried to get me, and I have learned many a thing about the finer points of audio/video since those dark days so lang ago, a great deal from sites like this. Everyone has to start somewhere though.

BTW speaker wise, I am a big fan of Ohm Acoustics, and have Pro-250's (Ohm Walsh Series, Sound Cylinders) for my mains, running the center phantom (the Ohms do a remarkable job of imaging and have no x-overs in the critical freq range, making speech sound absolutely authentic) and Ohm Walsh 2xo's for my rears. I currently just use an integrated amp (Integra DTR 7.4) with 7.1 capability, but just use it in a four channel config (with my phantom center of course), running my current sub high level (Earthquake Magma/S.L.A.P.S. combo in a homemade enclosure, slave powered by a Hsu Research 250 watt plate amp, which has a 24db/octave x-over), which will soon be replaced by a Sunfire True MKII. My video is from an Optoma EP751 projector, ceiling mounted.

Singing off, Sisu1a

Ban bose posting from this site, in bose's wet dreams!!!

This speaker system should only be sold at stores that sell furniture, since so much more attention was paid to the asthetic appeal than the sonic qualities, that in my eyes they are just very expensive decorations. A neat idea, but this little thing called physics gets in the way, which is obviously an ongoing inconvenience for Bose.

My2cents--Sisu1a

I'm not a bose supporter but I'm always surprised at how the same laws of physics that prevents bose from sounding good does not apply to Orb speakers. Which, in my opinion are also overpriced, but they seem to be the darling of the crowd here.

>I'm always surprised at how the same laws of physics that prevents bose from sounding good does not apply to Orb speakers. Which, in my opinion are also overpriced, but they seem to be the darling of the crowd here. <

This post made me laugh at loud. Thanks for pointing that out!

I'm not a bose supporter but I'm always surprised at how the same laws of physics that prevents bose from sounding good does not apply to Orb speakers. Which, in my opinion are also overpriced, but they seem to be the darling of the crowd here.
I thought about that too, but it seems like my Gallo Nucleus Micros have a much nicer driver than the Bose satellites. They're larger at 3", which give them a better extension down low to 150 Hz or so at +\-3 dB (120 claimed), instead of the Bose 400 Hz (and yet the Micros reach 18 kHz too). I think this is where materials make the difference.

I'm not a bose supporter but I'm always surprised at how the same laws of physics that prevents bose from sounding good does not apply to Orb speakers. Which, in my opinion are also overpriced, but they seem to be the darling of the crowd here.


I have been dying to pull the plug on my home theater for a while now. The reviews I have read of the Orbs are fantastic, but I can't see how. I want the Antiqued Copper Orb's BAD for the look and style. But with the lack of a tweeter I can't see them being anything more than Bose with expensive drivers. IMO, they did their research like Bose, discovered what the average person wants to hear when watching movies and built a system around those results, which makes them a research and marketing company. Right? I hope I am wrong because I lack the room for floor standing speakers and don't feel like cutting huge holes in my walls and ceiling.

I have been dying to pull the plug on my home theater for a while now. The reviews I have read of the Orbs are fantastic, but I can't see how. I want the Antiqued Copper Orb's BAD for the look and style. But with the lack of a tweeter I can't see them being anything more than Bose with expensive drivers. IMO, they did their research like Bose, discovered what the average person wants to hear when watching movies and built a system around those results, which makes them a research and marketing company. Right? I hope I am wrong because I lack the room for floor standing speakers and don't feel like cutting huge holes in my walls and ceiling.
Why not order the ORBs and audition them for yourself? Return them if you're not happy with them. You'll be only out of shipping costs. Trust the only opinion that counts - yours.

You would think I would have noticed that, especially since it is plastered all over their page. I am going to do that. I can't believe I never noticed that.

>For people who are older<

That explains the Bose-Paul harvey sponsorship connection!

No...

...I've heard mutliple radio jocks do COMMECIALS for BOSE (since they're being PAID).

I bought a Bose accoustimas 16 speaker system and was completely disgusted with it when it first arrived. I bought these to replace my Cerwin Vega Speaker system which included a 15" 200 Watt powered sub that weighed in at 75 Pounds. I considered sending the Bose speakers back (one month to try them out) so I started looking around at the reviews and found that either they are hated or they are loved. There didn't seem to be any in between. I purchased a Sony surround amp that was just under $300.00 to match up with the Bose speakers from a local Circuit City. In my findings, reading reviews on the internet, I discovered that these speakers excel only with a better amplifier. The mistake that some people make is that they look at the size of the satellites (small) and the sub-woofer is powered so why would you need a better, more powerful receiver. Believe me you do. I bought a Pioneer VSX-1016TXV surround receiver (THX certified) and these speakers came alive. I have read all kinds of things about the Bose subwoofer saying that three 5 1/4" speakers are not even subwoofers. I don't know how they do it and I don't care what the specs are but this sub creates much lower and tighter bass than the huge Cerwin Vega speaker system I gave to my sister along with the Sony receiver. The Pioneer receiver I bought was top rated by consumer reports as was the Bose Accoustimas 16 speaker system.

hogwash

I bought a Bose accoustimas 16 speaker system....

I think most of us can agree Bose creates some outrageous speaker designs. Add to that high levels of digital circuitry and they have a convenient device built to sound good based on surveys done on the consumer level. Slap on the Bose name and add about 50% to the profit level.

The problem is, for the same money you can get a product that sounds significantly better and for substantially less money, you can buy a product that sounds competititve.

4. Bose cannot be making the worst products and still be the #1 vendor with a highly loyal customer base. It's irrational that the worst product with the cheapest components with the highest price would also have the most loyal customers.They can make the worst-sounding speaker and still be #1, because people buy Bose mostly for reasons other than sound quality. Just like people buy minivans for reasons other than their 0-60 acceleration.

Of course, some people buy Bose thinking they're getting better sound quality than other brands at comparable prices ... but 95% of them have never heard other brands at comparable prices!

I wouldn't call Bose customers loyal. Bose attracts lots of first-time customers, but I don't think many of them buy Bose again after hearing other brands.

plazamn you can defend them all you like. Bose represents the worst audio dollar investment on the market....This is undisputable. For aesthetics factor and other reasons people buy speakers they are probably great and serve a need to many people. It does not change the facts however. Please stop using the tired old argument that the stuff must not be so bad because of their success. It is an insult to the industry, this forum, and to speaker companies who are more concerned about SQ than smoke,mirrors, marketing, and profit.

plazamn you can defend them all you like. Bose represents the worst audio dollar investment on the market....This is undisputable. For aesthetics factor and other reasons people buy speakers they are probably great and serve a need to many people. It does not change the facts however. Please stop using the tired old argument that the stuff must not be so bad because of their success. It is an insult to the industry, this forum, and to speaker companies who are more concerned about SQ than smoke,mirrors, marketing, and profit.

Actually, Bose really aren't bad speakers unless you are talking to an audiophile, like the people who read this forum.

Lex, I keep hearing that Bose is ONLY hated by Audiophiles. Or that only audiophiles can tell the difference or would appreciate another speaker. What I want to know is why is Bose always a black and white thing when it comes to that? Is it only audiophiles who want the best sound for their dollar? Is it only a "audiophile" who would be able to tell the difference between a Bose and Gallo sat? I dont understand this logic yet I always see it.

There is no question that Bose serves a purpose for certain people. I know you picked up a Bose System for your mom and I would certainly probably recommend Bose for anyone where SQ was low on the priority list while ease of use was top.

But, this site is for people who want to learn about the best bang for their audio dollar. Something that Bose is dead last in. So you are correct in that Bose are not bad for many people who don't care about and wouldn't know good SQ from bad SQ (which is subjective anyway)....but what the FORUM wants to stress is that when SQ is a factor they would actually be dead last....Not just because of the inherent problems with the gear...but the dollars invested in it. When you combine the two..Bose is the absolutely worst SQ product on the market. Again, combining the two factors - Price and SQ. And they are not very high in SQ to begin with and I have extensive experience with the company and products..

Anyway, I agree..Bose isn't bad for folks who don't care...or care to know...That is why they are so successful. They can cater to the millions who are not "in the know." The reason Bose is hated here is simpily because they are against just about everything this forum is about.

So basically, the Bose haters can guarantee that any speaker/system made by Bose (present) will sound noticeably worse than say....this?

Better Than Bose? (http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=4810671)

Forget the brand, features, specs, looks, or the price...just say this will sound insert number here X better.

This would be an interesting blind test for seasoned audio consumers. And some good marketing for the folks at durabrand lol.

So basically, the Bose haters can guarantee that any speaker/system made by Bose (present) will sound noticeably worse than say....this?

Better Than Bose? (http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=4810671)

Don't be "ig-nent"...

...compare the $3K-$4K Lifestyle system to hand-picked components (A/V receiver, DVD player, 5 speakers, subwoofer, etc...) that equals the same price.

...compare the $1 speaker system to the SVS package (example).

So basically, the Bose haters can guarantee that any speaker/system made by Bose (present) will sound noticeably worse than say....this?

Better Than Bose? (http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=4810671)Come back when you find a new Bose 5.1 system that sells for the same or less than that other brand you linked to.

Lex, I keep hearing that Bose is ONLY hated by Audiophiles. Or that only audiophiles can tell the difference or would appreciate another speaker. What I want to know is why is Bose always a black and white thing when it comes to that? Is it only audiophiles who want the best sound for their dollar? Is it only a "audiophile" who would be able to tell the difference between a Bose and Gallo sat? I dont understand this logic yet I always see it.

There is no question that Bose serves a purpose for certain people. I know you picked up a Bose System for your mom and I would certainly probably recommend Bose for anyone where SQ was low on the priority list while ease of use was top.

But, this site is for people who want to learn about the best bang for their audio dollar. Something that Bose is dead last in. So you are correct in that Bose are not bad for many people who don't care about and wouldn't know good SQ from bad SQ (which is subjective anyway)....but what the FORUM wants to stress is that when SQ is a factor they would actually be dead last....Not just because of the inherent problems with the gear...but the dollars invested in it. When you combine the two..Bose is the absolutely worst SQ product on the market. Again, combining the two factors - Price and SQ. And they are not very high in SQ to begin with and I have extensive experience with the company and products..

Anyway, I agree..Bose isn't bad for folks who don't care...or care to know...That is why they are so successful. They can cater to the millions who are not "in the know." The reason Bose is hated here is simpily because they are against just about everything this forum is about.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the bass from the "subwoofer" is actually just boomy, bloated upper bass. I've had demos of a fully installed Bose system and the bass module just produces one hell of a mess of sound, parping, high frequency bass. The rest of the soundstage from the Jewel's is horrible, a 360 ' mess of bipole like sound.

They're not better than my £100 Creative Labs FPS-1000. In face the Creative's are better, the CL sat speakers have better build quality, and they use standard spring clip binding posts.

Bose is fancied by yuppies with more money than sense, and just want a brand name. Slap on a designer tag and add a 0 to price, and you get gullible fools snapping them up.

So basically, the Bose haters can guarantee that any speaker/system made by Bose (present) will sound noticeably worse than say....this?

Better Than Bose? (http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=4810671)

Forget the brand, features, specs, looks, or the price...just say this will sound insert number here X better.

This would be an interesting blind test for seasoned audio consumers. And some good marketing for the folks at durabrand lol.


Compare a system equal in price to the Bose. For the same price as Bose Lifestyle I can buy.

Mid range 5.1 av amplifier, £300 Yamaha or similra
Budget (but quality) 5.1 system, Monitor Audio Radious 90
Learning remote
And still money to spare for DVD's

No contest really, the Bose are WAY overpriced. The £4500 "top of the range" is a joke, you can buy a very nice complete audio system for that. I would feel physically sick if I was duped into a Bose purchase, only to find a mate spent half the price, and build/components/sound/connectivity/upgradbility is far superior to my Bose system.

For people who are older and have hearing loss in the upper frequency ranges, the lack of HF response may be an advantage. Bose isn't the only one who is questioning or designing speakers that treat the upper frequency range as largely irrelevent.


Just wondering, what is your definition of older?

Take a look at the FR of music on something like True RTA. I have done so many times. Most music that I have "looked at" rolls off at 40 Hz at the low end and around 14 kHz at the high end.

I have speakers that have a 25 kHz spec for the high end. I kinow that I can't hear pure tones above 15 kHz (generated with True RTA) at normal playback volume levels.

That being said, speakers that can play to say 25 kHz should be capable of playing cleaner (and perhaps louder) at 15 kHz than a speaker that has an upper limit of 15 kHz.

Lex, I keep hearing that Bose is ONLY hated by Audiophiles. Or that only audiophiles can tell the difference or would appreciate another speaker. What I want to know is why is Bose always a black and white thing when it comes to that? Is it only audiophiles who want the best sound for their dollar? Is it only a "audiophile" who would be able to tell the difference between a Bose and Gallo sat? I dont understand this logic yet I always see it.

There is no question that Bose serves a purpose for certain people. I know you picked up a Bose System for your mom and I would certainly probably recommend Bose for anyone where SQ was low on the priority list while ease of use was top.

But, this site is for people who want to learn about the best bang for their audio dollar. Something that Bose is dead last in. So you are correct in that Bose are not bad for many people who don't care about and wouldn't know good SQ from bad SQ (which is subjective anyway)....but what the FORUM wants to stress is that when SQ is a factor they would actually be dead last....Not just because of the inherent problems with the gear...but the dollars invested in it. When you combine the two..Bose is the absolutely worst SQ product on the market. Again, combining the two factors - Price and SQ. And they are not very high in SQ to begin with and I have extensive experience with the company and products..

Anyway, I agree..Bose isn't bad for folks who don't care...or care to know...That is why they are so successful. They can cater to the millions who are not "in the know." The reason Bose is hated here is simpily because they are against just about everything this forum is about.



You sum up what this site is about.

It is pretty much dominated by audio snobbery and marketing ploys!

Anyhow, every time I read about people who have concerns about how others spend their own money I always laugh. Audio is not an investment - it is a pure expense. Audio SQ is a big scam to large extent. Sure buy better speakers, better electronics, then you find out your room is the major problem as far as SQ is concerned. The solution is then to make your room look like a recording studio with extensive sound treatments.

The bottom line is, most people do not have dedicated listening rooms, so a lot of this SQ talk is meaningless.

I sometimes wonder how much money people who post on this forum "invest in" illegal substance use and abuse. Now is that a good "investment" of your money?

Actually, Bose really aren't bad speakers unless you are talking to an audiophile, like the people who read this forum.



Unless you have a friend in the audio business or you have read the online bashing of Bose you would definitely never know Bose is bad at all. Its a well marketed Brand like anything else. The haters of Bose are just like the haters of Microsoft. Like Microsoft Im sure Bose will exist even with all the hate from the audiophile.

You know what is really funny is that some of those Bose bashers probably buy Monster products or they buy really overpriced speaker wire/ AV cables. Now that is the real joke ;)

I'm not an audiphile.

But why can't people just kick back listen to music anymore? I mean it used to be that people just listened to the music not the equipment. I mean speakers are never going to sound good enough for 1000 bucks but peole sure pay that much for a pair of speakers that sound like any other speaker.

You sum up what this site is about.

It is pretty much dominated by audio snobbery and marketing ploys!

Anyhow, every time I read about people who have concerns about how others spend their own money I always laugh. Audio is not an investment - it is a pure expense. Audio SQ is a big scam to large extent. Sure buy better speakers, better electronics, then you find out your room is the major problem as far as SQ is concerned. The solution is then to make your room look like a recording studio with extensive sound treatments.

The bottom line is, most people do not have dedicated listening rooms, so a lot of this SQ talk is meaningless.

I sometimes wonder how much money people who post on this forum "invest in" illegal substance use and abuse. Now is that a good "investment" of your money?

yeah, i seriously don't give a **** if people waste their money on audio ********. if people like their bose systems, good for them. i don't give a ****, they are happy. it is only when i am attacked when i get into arguments.

also, poor room acoustics is why i like headphones. sure, they don't have an accurate soundstage with stereo recordings, and they lack visceral impact, but i'm sure it sounds better than great bookshelf speakers in my crappy room.

Is it me or are all you "Super Audiophiles" missing the real point of why Bose is so popular? It's not the sound they reproduce, it's not the quality of the product, it's not how they compare to others and it's certainly not price! Keep in mind the consumer percentages and types of buyers in the Home Theatre market. I would guess that 80% of all Home Theatre buyers have little to no knowledge of sound reproduction qualities or even care much about it. 10% may care some but still do not have the knowledge or ability to make a good decision on they're sound system and then you have the 10% who are Audiophiles or AVS Forum members. So lets do the math here and better understand what Bose is doing here. Do you think a large succesful and very profitable company is going after the 10% audiophile or are they going after the 90% of the market! They are in it for the money, not to be rated no#1 by a bunch of shut-ins who rule the world of sound.
I give Bose credit for creating a marketing and product sceam that works incredibly and is percieved by there customer (the 90%) as being a top rated product. BTW, I am in the 10%. Also, the point the original OP made about the pricing and size of the Satelite speaker (SMALL) is hard to beat. Of course you can blow it away with bookshelfs and / or floor standing setups. But the fact still remains there are not alot of choices for people who want tiny speakers that give decent sound at a reasonable cost! Bose obviously has it's market figured out and is very happy earning 600% profit on barely average sound while keeping most of there customers happy.

Is it me or are all you "Super Audiophiles" missing the real point of why Bose is so popular? It's not the sound they reproduce, it's not the quality of the product, it's not how they compare to others and it's certainly not price! Keep in mind the consumer percentages and types of buyers in the Home Theatre market. I would guess that 80% of all Home Theatre buyers have little to no knowledge of sound reproduction qualities or even care much about it. 10% may care some but still do not have the knowledge or ability to make a good decision on they're sound system and then you have the 10% who are Audiophiles or AVS Forum members. So lets do the math here and better understand what Bose is doing here. Do you think a large succesful and very profitable company is going after the 10% audiophile or are they going after the 90% of the market! They are in it for the money, not to be rated no#1 by a bunch of shut-ins who rule the world of sound.
I give Bose credit for creating a marketing and product sceam that works incredibly and is percieved by there customer (the 90%) as being a top rated product. BTW, I am in the 10%. Also, the point the original OP made about the pricing and size of the Satelite speaker (SMALL) is hard to beat. Of course you can blow it away with bookshelfs and / or floor standing setups. But the fact still remains there are not alot of choices for people who want tiny speakers that give decent sound at a reasonable cost! Bose obviously has it's market figured out and is very happy earning 600% profit on barely average sound while keeping most of there customers happy.


Spot on..........Bose knows their market,and they do a good job providing products they want. I am one of the ones Bose send surveys too to gather info on people lifestyles. Its pretty impressive the info they are inquiring about............With that said, don't think Bose engineers are not audiophiles,many of them are.........(there is one who is a Linnophile)......One Bose engineer Feng used to post on here regularily posted he had Aerial speakers at home. So they do know their stuff.............Its just that they are designing products geared towared audiophiles.........So be it,money to be made is not in catering to audiophiles but to the the common person.

ellmech: Great post. The only question I have about it is do you really think that 10% of HT owners are audiophiles? If it were as large as 1%, I would be surprised.

Jim

ellmech: Great post. The only question I have about it is do you really think that 10% of HT owners are audiophiles? If it were as large as 1%, I would be surprised.

Jim

(I know I'm coming into this discussion very late, but I discovered it looking for some information and found it and interesting read.)

I think it's much less than 1%.

Here's my favorite Bose story. I have a Aerial Acoustics 7.1 system consisting of 10Ts, CC3 (eventually to be replaced with a CC5), and SW12 in the front, SR3s on the side, and LR3s in the rear of a HT room that's 12.5'x23' (all purchased used except for the CC3), with monoblocks all around. The 10Ts, SW12, and LR3s are in the Santos Rosewood finish. I'll never forget the time someone came into the room and told me "Now all you need is a Bose system." True story.

I found this as well, and it's very informative (I can't post URLs yet, so please forgive the format):
www.
intellexual.net
/bose.html

So there are arguments like, people buy Bose without listening to other systems. Maybe, (I highly doubt it),

They may listen to other systems, but they tend to be other cheap systems. I've had several people tell me over the years that Bose Lifestyle speakers are great, but not one of them had spent any time listening to good alternatives in a real audio store.


The other arguments against Bose are that they use aggressive marketing. Being in marketing myself, I can tell you that you cannot maintain market leadership over a long period of time without the right product. Product-Placement-Price-Packaging are the 4 fundamental Ps that must be in synch. So you can't have a Yugo and sell it as a Lexus for very long (if at all). You can't just fool people all the time. It's just not possible, as much as you think everyone else is stupid.

Actually, in some cases, you can. Typically what happens is that people who don't know audio equipment listen to a Bose system and it wows them. It wows them because they aren't familiar with good audio equipment, or they're unduly influenced by the size of the speakers ("good for their size" is not the same as good). They listen to other cheap lifestyle systems, possibly under worse conditions, but brand recognition will almost give the Bose the edge. The better sub-satellite systems aren't at Best Buy for them to audition. So they buy the Bose, set them up at home, and never do an A-B comparison with anything else. They keep working, so their owners can enjoy the bliss born of ignorance indefinitely. The biggest flaw in your Yugo/Lexus analogy is that in this case, the vast majority of the people buying the Yugo don't know that cars like Lexus even exist. Another flaw is that most people know something about cars. Most people know nothing about audio equipment.

I don't claim to be right all the time, but your arguments are not rational and cannot explain why Bose is preferred by so many, and more importantly why people who buy them, tend to stay with them.

I think it's quite rational. You have a product category about which the average consumer knows virtually nothing. I don't know a single person who could tell me where I could find a serious A/V dealer unless they heard about it from me, or name a single alternative to Bose off the top of his head. People know two brands in audio by reputation: Bose and Monster Cable, and both are because of their marketing. Speakers are not like cars. Most people have a car. Our friends have cars. Our coworkers have cars. We ride in other people's cars, probably dozens of different cars in our lifetimes. We look at lots of cars when we go to buy a new one and we see dozens of cars every time we go to the grocery store. We research them on the web and in Consumer Reports. We hear people talk about their new cars and when their cars break down. Virtually none of this happens with speakers. The kind of people who buy Bose know virtually nothing going in when they're in the market for speakers, don't do a lot of looking or research, and then don't compare them to anything else much after they buy them. Buying an expensive brand that's marketed well and has lots of fans has a way of clouding your objectivity.

My dad has an expensive Bose system.

He does most of his TV watching with it off and the TV speakers on, because he has trouble understanding dialog with the Bose system unless it's turned way up.

There is one thing that most of you are overlooking. People buy Bose systems, not because of the way they sound, but because they want to "keep up with the Jones'." Just like the new BMW or Merc in their driveway was purchased to impress their friends, their Bose systems function in the very same way. Hell, most of my friends and family don't even turn the damn things on most of the time, even when they are watching movies. But they are the envy of the neighborhood, because they have "the Bose set up," which was their whole goal in the first place.

Now that you say that....None of my friends listen to theirs either. (sorry about the email I sent...wasn't paying attention)

If Bose would reduce their profit and sell their products based on the quality of the components...I would probably buy one.

They just market their products in a league they haven't been in for 15 years.

--------------

Some speakers (mainly large ones) don't really care about how they are set up. The much smaller Bose speakers need to be set up much more carefully to get the best sound.

:confused: Is that a joke? That goes directly against what Bose even stands for...ease of use and simple setup, etc. I highly doubt your going to find many Bose owners sitting around with their SPL meters calibrating an Acoustimass system. If I have to break my nuggets to setup cube speakers that cost $4000 and advertise ease of use, I think I'll go ahead and pick up that pair of bookshelf speakers (insert brand here) for $300 and be done with it.

An opinion is an opinion, but the note also contains one incorrect statement, and at least one logical fallacy.

1) Frequency response measurement isn't a free-for-all. There is an accepted way to measure response. Granted that it isn't easy to translate measurements into in-room performance, but they're saying that there's no good way to compare measurements. That's a lie.

2) That the more expensive system will sound better than the less expensive system with identical specification. That's what they (and the boutique cable sellers) would *like* you to believe, but it ain't necessarily so. There's no necessary correspondence between price and performance. That's a self-serving oversight.

This missive encapsulates why people despise Bose and other peddlers of snake-oil.

Could not have said it better myself. Bose is among my top hated companies of all time. Their statement on frequency response exemplifies why they are such a horrible company. They know if they publish their specs then everyone will see how awful their speakers are. It's ridiculous, to say the least, that FR does not matter, just shows how incompetent they are. Can they honestly say how low a subwoofer goes in sub sonic frequencies does not matter?

I keep reading this from other people and I have to keep asking myself, where are these sat systems that *sound* better than bose for less money? I just went out this weekend to look for some outdoor speakers and I was hoping to find the new Rocket outdoor speakers (I guess these are internet only) so I went to two high end HT stores (Harvey and Audio Breakthroughs) and while I was there, I listened to these really small Paradgim sats almost identical to Bose, with an SVS sub. It sounded good and was also about $2500 for 7 sats and the sub. I also listened to ascends small speakers (not really sats, but they were small) and Klipsch. The only ones that were cheaper than Bose were the Klipsch, but they were still $800 and they didn't really blow me away. The Ascends were also in the $1500 range with a Velodyne. So I ask. Where are these cheaper than Bose sat speakers set ups that sound so good for less money?
Disclaimer
This is not comendation of Bose. I am not arguing about the materials they use or the specs on the speakers as compared to others. I am just asking what small sat speaker set ups are cheaper and sound better?

BTW, I ended up buying Klipsch KHO-7's for the front of the house and 4 Yamaha outdoor speakers for the back. Best buy was remodleing their store and I got them for 60% off

Are you f**king JOKING? Where are the sat systems that sound better?! Hell, even my Klipsch Promedia 5.1's that cost me $350 DESTROY any Bose system. I could go on all day listing systems that KILL anything Blose offers for a fraction of the cost. I seriously can't believe you even asked this question... wow.

Bose are OK, most of the speakers you guys like would sound just as bad to me as Bose.

Actually getting most of the sound from a single driver is a legit idea and has some definate virtues (and faults). There's an entire single-driver cult out there that would sniff at the plastic cone-tragic dome speakers favored by many here.

The absurdity of this post is staggering... wow...

These threads are always good for a laugh. I love seeing all the idiotic Blose supporters who want to justify their sh*tty taste in speakers as well as the Blose marketers. This reminds me of people that say Micro$oft makes good software. Too funny.

Could not have said it better myself. Bose is among my top hated companies of all time. Their statement on frequency response exemplifies why they are such a horrible company. They know if they publish their specs then everyone will see how awful their speakers are. It's ridiculous, to say the least, that FR does not matter, just shows how incompetent they are. Can they honestly say how low a subwoofer goes in sub sonic frequencies does not matter?

If they were priced like let's say Orb's, would you like them more? Orb publishes pretty meaningless specs too.

Single vs Multiple Drivers

We can compare and name speakers until our face turn blue but if our definition of "good" is different for each person, we can never understand each other. Before we can define the terms, we at least need to understand the basics of loudspeaker sound reproduction.

When a cymbal, a bass drum and a guitar are clanging, kicking and plucking away, in the exact same moment in time, a wide spectrum of musical frequencies, possibly from 20-20,000 hz, reach our ear simultaneously. Our ears can easily discern the timing of each instrument, the dynamics and how each is played. The cymbal will have a sweet and delicate natural decay as it fades away. The drum may give a kick in our gut and rumble the room until it rolls off. The guitar gives a spectrum of sound from the finger plucking to the twang to the eventual drop to lower frequency. All that happen in unison over a short span of time per note.

To reproduce the >= 20,000 hz range, a radiator needs to vibrate extremely fast. If it is too big, too much power will be required, the material may crack or disintegrate easily. Given the power needed and the material's stress factor, a tweeter is normally smaller and extremely stiff. This is so only a reasonable amount of power is needed to control the tweeter.

For midrange, while its frequency is lower, it has to address wide dynamics, so it also has to be stiff but necessarily larger. This is also where most of the sweetness of music is presented, so a good mid-range is a must.

For bass, it has to move a lot of air to generate that nice low frequency note. There is no way around this. Good bass is not all loud and rumbling, it also must produce the last octave of musical note that our ears can detect, down to 20 hz at least and may be sub-20. So there needs to be a large radiator to move the air, and yet sufficient damping and power to control how to move, when to move and in sync with the other musical frequency.

This is just to produce all the frequencies associated with a single moment in time in a band's performance.

Next is the timing issue. The cymbal is playing in time with the guitar and the drum. Ideally, a loudspeaker should reproduce the cymbal's frequency and all its transients in perfect time with the guitar and the drum, exactly and precisely as the band was playing them.

A poorly designed speaker system can easily send the cymbal sound first before the mid-range and if the woofer control is poor, we will hear the bass way after the cymbal and guitar! We are no longer hearing precisely and exactly how the band played, we have lost the performance characteristics of the music and of the soloist in the band! Is it still "music"? Well, sort of. Will it sound "bad"? Not always. Is it true to the performance? Absolutely NOT!

A well designed speaker system will work hard not only to ensure correct frequency reproduction, but also the time and phase is absolutely as close to perfect as possible. Only then will it be able to come close to reproducing exactly what the band was doing when it made the recording. A speaker system like that sounds absolutely involving and life-like not because of volume but because of the richness of musical tones and timbres that we can all hear.

This means the speaker has to have Cross-Over circuit to accurately and smoothly distribute the frequencies to the correct driver and also to drive each driver in step with the others. The less the time lag, the less the difference between the drivers, the better. This is the never-ending quest of high-end audio companies. A weak crossover messes up the musical information no matter the quality of the drivers. A set of bad drivers cannot do justice to top notch crossover. So even multiple driver speaker system cannot boast absolute 100% accurate reproduction, but they can come really close. So close that our ears can hear it, our heart can feel it and we get up and boogie.

Can a single driver do all of the above? No. Not with today's approach of using a radiator, a surround, some sort of magnetic voice coil and so on. It is simple physics and material science. How does a single radiator reproduce the sound frequency of the cymbal, guitar and drum in that precise moment in time? moment to moment?

While the cymbal clashes, the kick drum is also kicking and the guitar string just got plucked, so how does a single radiator hurry up and vibrate to produce the high frequency range of that cymbal clash, then hurry up to produce the drum then hurry up to produce the rich mids of the guitar? All at the same time? It cannot. So designers make compromises. The compromise is one of dragging out the reproduction. If the high gets to the radiator first, it vibrates for the high first, then the mids or bass and then whatever is left. There is no other way to do it. It is simple logic and science.

THis means, by design, single full-range radiator system cannot accurately reproduce music signals. It necessarily must radiate in some sort of sequence. So we are guaranteed to hear either cymbal first, then guitar, then bass or bass first, then guitar and then cymbal or any one of 6 possible combinations.

If a manufacturer pays great attention to details in design and material, I am sure a single radiator will not be too overtly objectionable but its limitations will be readily obvious and apparent. If it favors the ability to capture the sweet delicate airy decay of the cymbal, it will not be able to produce the necessary rich mid-range or its dynamics. In this case, forget about the bass. At worst, we will hear disembodied and disjoint sound. If it favors mid-range, then we can forget about airy high and the final octave. If it favors bass, then we can forget mid-range and highs. The manufacturer has to make the choice where to compromise and it will be a compromise, there is no way around it.

Now when we are talking non-critical listening with $10-$90 dollar desk-top computer or game boxes, who cares precisely how each instrument may sound and how it may be keeping time with the other instruments in a band, right? When we start talking about $1000 speaker system, $4000 speaker system, we are talking serious dollars and we should and must demand matching performance. It is highly unlikely that a $4000 single-radiator speaker system can hope to match a well-conceived $4000 multi-radiator, either 2- or 3-way, speaker system.

If you buy my logic above, then at least we can agree that there are compromises being made in single-driver system. Now we can start talking about "good" and it is clear that it ends up being personal tastes. SOme people may want absolute accuracy and will pay for it. They may grab the Thiel SCS4, CS3.7 or the Vandersteen 5A or Quatro.

Some people don't care about accuracy in the full spectrum and just want something that sounds mellow and pleasant and looks nice in their homes, so they go for form over function. In that case, any brand will do nicely in anyone's home to meet anyone's needs. If I just want some pleasant noise in the background, and I like the Bose looks, and I am willing to pay $4000 for it, well then kudos to me!!!

If I want absolute accuracy across the whole spectrum, and I am willing to pay $4000 for it, I may grab the beautifully designed high-end, audiophile-grade Thiel SCS4 at $990 each and promptly "die" and go to "audio heaven", kudos to me too.

As long as consumers know what their money is buying, it is fair. WHen friends and family ask, what I do is explain the above to them and then ask them to come over, listen to my system using their favorite tracks and then go listen to Bose. If they still decide on Bose, it is their choice.

For kicks I recently sent the following letter to Bose:

I'm in the market for either bookshelf or floorstanding speakers. As an educated shopper and audio enthusiast, I insist on having as much factual information as possible with which to make my decisions. Indeed, I've been to various reputable speaker manufacturers' websites (e.g., Tannoy, Klipsch, Wharfedale, etc.) and have easily found the specifications for the speakers I review. Your website, however, lists only weights and sizes under speaker "specifications." This is wholly unacceptable. Where are your frequency responses, impedance ratings, input power ratings, sensitivity ratings, crossover frequencies, etc.? These figures are, of course, ESSENTIAL to the educated, online shopper.

Where you market yourself as one of the world's finest speaker manufactuers, it is totally nonsensical that this information is not readily available to consumers. Please send me a catalog and data fully disclosing the specifications (i.e., not just the weight and size) of your speaker line so that I can make an informed decision.

And I received the following response from Bose:

Thank you for your interest in Bose Corporation.

We appreciate the difficulty that consumers face when choosing loudspeakers. Information provided by manufacturers can often be confusing, and it may suggest a basis for comparing speaker performance that is unrelated to the speakers' performance in your listening environment. Furthermore, a speaker's response in a lab (or even a calibrated living room) does not always suggest that you will achieve that response in your room.

There is a great deal of variety in response-measuring techniques. Most of these techniques neglect how a listening room and the speakers' placement in that room can affect the response. On top of that, there is no clear and easy methodology for comparing responses. Our feeling is that response curves are a poor customer tool for comparing two speakers. For this reason, Bose (R) elects not to publish curves.

Bose recognizes that listening to a speaker in an audio store can only approximate the performance that a customer might achieve at home. Only when a speaker is installed in a listening room can the customer learn what its actual performance is. That's why Bose designs speakers using a combination of laboratory measurements and real-world evaluation methods in homes that represent a broad range of sizes, shapes, and constructions. We want to ensure that our speakers sound good in the listening environment that really matters; yours.

Taking a car for a test-drive cannot tell you what it will be like to live with that car. Similarly, a brief audition of a speaker can only begin to tell you what you might experience in your home. The common thread is that you are the customer, and you are the one seeking an enjoyable experience. You can compare speaker specifications and read reviews, but this will not tell you what you will experience in your own home. You can ask your friends what they like, or read testimonials from Bose customers to learn about their experiences and this may suggest that your experience might be similar.

Ultimately, your ears are the only equipment that can adequately compare speakers for you. We can only do the best we know how, using proven research and decades of design experience. We are confident that our speakers' performance compares favorably with the many high-quality speaker products available today. Our customers have consistently expressed their satisfaction with, and enjoyment of, Bose speakers and systems over the years. We hope that you will have an opportunity to reach the same conclusion.

:rolleyes: :D

Wow, they are more pathetic then I could have ever imagined. A speakers specs are incredibly important, they are such a f_cking JOKE. They won't post them because they know how horrible the specs of their speakers are. I have seen someone do measurements of the FR of their speakers, and it was some of the worst I have EVER seen. I guess Bose also elects to ignore the laws of physics and the fact that the drivers and enclosures they use are not physically capable of reproducing a full frequency range. 2" tange band paper drivers and 5.5" "subwoofers" can NOT reproduce even remote accurate sound. Are those morons really trying to say that a subwoofer's FR does not matter? Are they JOKING?! That is arguably the most important factor in an HT subwoofer. Bose is just a white van speaker that is sold in stores.

Their example of the test driving of a car is pathetic at best. Do they not realize that the specs of the car are incredibly important to making an informed decision? I guess their theory is, the LESS you know about a product's specs, the better...? Oh and to the poster above, NO, Bose is not worth it no matter how you look at it. Even my Klipsch Promedia 5.1 system destroys any Bose system, and it only costs $350. No sane person would chose Bose, a lot of other HTiB's KILL the Bose speakers, and they are small and nice looking as well. There is NO logical reason to buy Bose.

I bought a Bose accoustimas 16 speaker system and was completely disgusted with it when it first arrived. I bought these to replace my Cerwin Vega Speaker system which included a 15" 200 Watt powered sub that weighed in at 75 Pounds. I considered sending the Bose speakers back (one month to try them out) so I started looking around at the reviews and found that either they are hated or they are loved. There didn't seem to be any in between. I purchased a Sony surround amp that was just under $300.00 to match up with the Bose speakers from a local Circuit City. In my findings, reading reviews on the internet, I discovered that these speakers excel only with a better amplifier. The mistake that some people make is that they look at the size of the satellites (small) and the sub-woofer is powered so why would you need a better, more powerful receiver. Believe me you do. I bought a Pioneer VSX-1016TXV surround receiver (THX certified) and these speakers came alive. I have read all kinds of things about the Bose subwoofer saying that three 5 1/4" speakers are not even subwoofers. I don't know how they do it and I don't care what the specs are but this sub creates much lower and tighter bass than the huge Cerwin Vega speaker system I gave to my sister along with the Sony receiver. The Pioneer receiver I bought was top rated by consumer reports as was the Bose Accoustimas 16 speaker system.

Ok, I am sorry, but I just have to call bullsh*t on this post. You are, without question, lying. I know for a fact (physics) that the Blose speaker system could no way in hell EVER outperform a Cerwin Vega system with a 15" subwoofer. Unless you are nearly deaf. We do not take kindly to Blose supporters or marketers around, so please LEAVE.

I'm not an audiphile.

But why can't people just kick back listen to music anymore? I mean it used to be that people just listened to the music not the equipment. I mean speakers are never going to sound good enough for 1000 bucks but peole sure pay that much for a pair of speakers that sound like any other speaker.


I guess there is something wrong with wanting music to sound accurate and detailed? And do you realize how effing ridiculous it is to say all speakers sound the same...? Wow... that's probably the single most ignorant statement I have read on this site...

Wow, they are more pathetic then I could have ever imagined. A speakers specs are incredibly important, ... There is NO logical reason to buy Bose.

Wow, thanks for posting this. Now I can show this to friends and family. It is incredible that a corporation can carry deception this far.

I actually have nothing against single-radiator design, I just have immense difficulty with Bose's misleading and outright deceptive marketing leading many in my family to plunk down 1000's for their junk.

Thanks!

I have no idea what Bose' profits are. They're into a whole lot more things than many other companies including headphones, professional sound applications in both the pro music and large venue areas (stadiums, malls, etc.), car audio, radios, etc. As far as nothing new, I'd take issue with that. Peruse their offerings from 5 years ago to today. Yes, their slogan is Better Sound through Research. Don't underestimate Bose' research in either sound or marketing. You ought to see their facility and then come back and say that. Now, if I saw some of the facilities of other speaker vendors (I won't name names) you might see nothing more than a garage with some HS kids putting things together.

Markeing is Research. Get that through your heads. If you want to be successful, then you'll learn how to market. 'Course, your product costs will go up because you've got to amortize and make the marketing profitable. That's just the way it goes.

Now if you want to take issue with Bose and state that their products are overpriced and not proportional to the cost of materials that's one thing. However, before you get out on that limb, you'd better consider a few things. The cost of a speaker is far more than the costs of the parts. You've got to add a bunch of things like...

R&D expenses
Marketing Expenses
Advertising Expenses
Payroll (don't forget about taxes, pensions, 401K's, health insurance, etc.)
Taxes
Accountants
Lawyers
Shipping
Warehousing
Inventorying spare parts
Shipping
Returns
Electricity
Heating
Cooling
Insurance
Workman's Comp.
Packaging

And the list goes on. Don't forget to add those.

I can't debunk your blind tests jericho76 but then you haven't provided any details as to how these were carried out.

Oh PULEASE, Bose makes a sh*t-ton from ripping off the uninformed. They are greedy and have shady business practices to say the least. I am really sick of you scumbags defending this awful company. What next, are you gonna defend Wal-Mart, too? Those "High School kids in a garage" you speak of from smaller, less popular speakers companies, can run circles around the monkeys at Bose. Take SVS, for example, their systems cost less then Bose yet they blow them out of the water in every way imaginable. There are countless speakers companies that have better R&D, FAR superior sound quality, better customer service, better build quality, you name it. DIY speaker builders can also build systems for a fraction of the cost of Bose that would run circles around them.

Just STOP defending this awful pathetic white van speaker company and their disgusting practices. There are other speaker companies that have integrity and take pride in making the best speaker possible for the best price possible, Blose is NOT one of them. That is why I discourage people from buying them, why would you chose not to go with a company that gives you amazing performance for the price and has excellent customer service? You would have to be clinically insane to go with Blose knowing that there are FAR better options, for much less money.