I just found this post on CNET in reference to a link posted in this thread.
Someone posted a study about Bose that is found at: http://www.intellexual.net/bose.html
This particular responder had the following to say about the study and I wonder how some of you feel:
this review highlights an even more dismal level of technical ignorance than the previous one you were impressed enough by to send me. I don't have the time or the space to correct all this guy's misunderstandings, but here are a few examples:
Here goes a list with 8 items that I didn't copy for the sake of making this readable.
OK, at the end of the day, all that really counts is the listening tests. So let's skip past all this stuff, and the usual Bose-is-an-evil-company platitudes, to..... the listening tests. He must have actually set up the equpment and listened to it compared to something else, right? No, of course not. What does he think this is, an audio review?
This whole thread was found at: http://forums.cnet.com/5208-7596_102...hreadID=143951
I have no affiliation with any of this info or sites I just found it an interesting read since many love to bash Bose and this was one of those threads.
Personally I had rid myself of my Accoustimas 10 system of 9 years in favor of a Energy RC system. The difference is night and day and I would NEVER recommend a Bose system to a friend.
The responder's reply to the Intellexual's article is just noise disguised with technical terms he seems not to understand.
I'm only going to go over 2 of his points -very briefly- because the rest is just the same.
1. the speaker cone is a support mechanism between the transducer and the frame; what counts is the diameter of the active area of the transducer.
He is very confused . The speaker cone or diaphragm IS the transducer. The support mechanism is the SURROUND, usually made from rubber or foam.
2. he states that Bose uses two drivers in each satellite to ''compensate'' for the lack of a mid-range/HF split & crossover; the two issues are completely unrelated. The dual drivers are used with a mechanical pivot to adjust the sound dispersion pattern to fit the room and speaker location (which, by the way, is a pretty ingenious, simple, and useful feature in the real world...) but he does not seem to have figured this out and instead criticizes the enclosure design for (get this) not being made of ''real wood''
Did he really read the article? The author didn't say that at all! He said that some people might erroneously think this is a 2-way design because each satellite is composed of 2 cubes with 1 driver each. He then goes on to set the record straight noting that there is no crossover circuit and that the 2 drivers are actually fed the same signal! He goes one step further by observing that this should not be confused with a line array either.
The rest of his list is just more of the same. I'm going to use his own word: pathetic.
The only thing valid is his closing statement. By all means, let's audition and compare!!!!
Simple: Other speakers that sound better can be had for less money if only the buyer took the time go listen and compare.
There are lots of 'popular' brands that are well known yet not as good as their competitors.
HT: Yamaha RX-V565 | 3 X Energy Take FPS, 2 X VS Surround, 2 X Take LCR | DIY Subs: SDX12 APR15 & TRIO12 Dual APR 12's | 47" LCD
Music: Yamaha RX-V863 | 2 X Energy RC-70 | MA RXw12 Sub
Bathroom: 2 X Energy Take LCR
Car: Sony Xplod HU, Xplod 6X9s, Kenwood 4"s, Alpine 12" Type-S, Rockford Amp,...