or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Oh Gag, Bose Commercial
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Oh Gag, Bose Commercial - Page 2  

post #31 of 432
Chu Gai, you beat me to it.
Pulliamn, I have to say, you are really making yourself look like an ass. I can understand not liking Bose, but to make these kind of statements, then shown that a bose bashing article actually shoots down your claim and continue to try justify it is like my 8 year old telling me she didn't eat the chocolate cake with brown frosting all over her mouth. Now please, you asked for freq. measurements to prove my claim that Bose hits 40hz and I gave it to you. Give us the proof that the speaker in my Zenith RPTV tops 40hz to 13K Hz.
post #32 of 432
One of the wheels fell off my chair at work today but I didn't start a thread about it. :)
post #33 of 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by lexa695
Chu Gai, you beat me to it.
Pulliamn, I have to say, you are really making yourself look like an ass. I can understand not liking Bose, but to make these kind of statements, then shown that a bose bashing article actually shoots down your claim and continue to try justify it is like my 8 year old telling me she didn't eat the chocolate cake with brown frosting all over her mouth. Now please, you asked for freq. measurements to prove my claim that Bose hits 40hz and I gave it to you. Give us the proof that the speaker in my Zenith RPTV tops 40hz to 13K Hz.
You are the one who tried to define quality as making noise at 40hz, not me. Does the article say "Bose sounds better that average TV speakers?" If so, I missed that part. What it did say is that Bose speakers sound similar to an antique boombox that was cheap when new. Also, do any TV speakers entirely leave out the 200-280hz range?
As for finding out the FR of TV speakers, Zenith doesn't have those specs on their website (yes, I looked), and neither do the other 3 or 4 TV manufacturers I tried. I have definitely personally heard TV speakers with better overall sound than Bose, however.
post #34 of 432
Bose's target demographic isn't you. It's for an older person who wants better sound than they can get from their TV speakers. It's for an older person who wants to watch movies with a greater degree of realism by doing 5.1 or whatever. It's for a person who wants to feel secure by buying it in an established store and then taking it home and setting it up themselves, 1, 2, 3. Over and done. The absolute smallness holds great appeal for them. It's for an older person whose sensitivity to high frequencies has diminished with age.

Yes, we're all right that it's overpriced for the cost of the components. And? Yes, we're all right that it doesn't do 20 Hz. That's not important to everyone. Yes, we're all right it doesn't have high frequency extension. There's not much musical energy up there anyways and losing or rolling off the top octave (actually less than an octave) isn't all that big a deal if you factor in the hearing losses that many of us have up there. Yes, we're all right that you can't blast it. Not everyone wants their music blasted and for those who have Bose, the very fact that it's unobtrusive may lend itself well to background music at gatherings in one's home where some lite jazz or Sinatra creates the backdrop.

Music is but one aspect of what's important for people and it doesn't necessarily have to rank way up there for them. If I go into your homes, will your furniture, dinnerware, appliances, or clothing measure up?

Years ago, when I bought my house, a friend of mine, Sal, came over. Sal's got a Bose but this isn't about the Bose. Sal brought over simply outstanding provolone, olives, mozarella, and prosciutto imported from Italy from one of those nice salumeria's in Brooklyn. Can't find that in any of the stores where I live. The importance he placed on that outweighed what he placed on musical reproduction. But it's not about the food. Sal drove up in a big ass Caddy. A boat. The side and rear windows were tinted. Now Sal made good money. He worked for the City, but that's not where he made his good money. Sal, you see, also worked for the family being involved in the numbers. I asked Sal, why he drove that monstrosity? I mean, it's big, hard as hell to park in NYC, lousy on gas, not a car that could be considered performance, and all that. I told him he could probably just buy a Beemer since money wasn't a problem. He took me outside and opened the rear door, pointed, and said that's why. I still didn't get it. He said, the reason he bought the car was because of the room in the back seat. I still didn't get it. He said his girlfriend, Vivian, about 15 years younger or so, 100 lbs on a 5' frame, with as Bob Segar said, "points of her own, sitting way up high", would come over every day at lunch. They'd go into the parking lot, get in the back and do (name your most depraved sexual acts you've ever done or wanted to) it in the back seat. He said, you just can't do that in the Camry your drive Chu. Besides, I'm Italian. Why the **** would I drive anything but a Caddy or Lincoln?

So, we buy the things for the reasons that are important to us. You've got your B&W's PULLIAM. What about your shoes? Sal had his hand made. It's a different demographic.
post #35 of 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM
You are the one who tried to define quality as making noise at 40hz, not me.
You're making this up. Where did I ever say Bose was quality.



Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM
Does the article say "Bose sounds better that average TV speakers?" If so, I missed that part. What it did say is that Bose speakers sound similar to an antique boombox that was cheap when new.
Actually the article says this:

It performs similarly to a $500 Optimus-Radio Shack surround sound system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM
Also, do any TV speakers entirely leave out the 200-280hz range?
Most 3" TV speakers probably don't even go down that low.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM
As for finding out the FR of TV speakers, Zenith doesn't have those specs on their website (yes, I looked), and neither do the other 3 or 4 TV manufacturers I tried. I have definitely personally heard TV speakers with better overall sound than Bose, however.

Then you need to get your ears checked. No TV speaker can reproduce the low end any 5.25" woofer can no matter who makes it, be it Bose or SVS. It has nothing to do with Bose and everything to do with physics. It is impossible for the tiny TV speakers to move the same amount of air a 5.25" speaker can.
post #36 of 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by lexa695
You're making this up. Where did I ever say Bose was quality.




Actually the article says this:

It performs similarly to a $500 Optimus-Radio Shack surround sound system.



Most 3" TV speakers probably don't even go down that low.




Then you need to get your ears checked. No TV speaker can reproduce the low end any 5.25" woofer can no matter who makes it, be it Bose or SVS. It has nothing to do with Bose and everything to do with physics. It is impossible for the tiny TV speakers to move the same amount of air a 5.25" speaker can.
The woofers in my brother's RPTV are bigger than 5.25". They are also 2-way speakers, meaning they have real tweeters (unlike Bose.)
post #37 of 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM
Also, do any TV speakers entirely leave out the 200-280hz range?
I fail to see how the 200-280hz range is "entirely left out" based on the graphs. At its worst point, both the sub and the sat are down 6dB (which of course since both are putting out a signal at this frequency, adds together to not be such a massive hole). Distortion could definately be a problem though. Then again with the vast majority of TV speakers, I doubt it is any better. Either way, no TV can do surround sound, and having owned an RPTV in my day, I still have yet to hear any that can give a verifiable punch, even if it is as weak as that of a Bose module. As far as quality goes, while everybody knows Bose stinks for the money, the drivers they use are still more than likely a grade up from the trash used in TVs. I just can't see Sony for example using better drivers in their TVs than they do in their standard loudspeaker line.
post #38 of 432
Ooooohhhh...real tweeters that cost, what? $2? Orbs have 3" 'full range' drivers. Why don't they get a bad rap too?
post #39 of 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefano-M
As far as quality goes, while everybody knows Bose stinks for the money, the drivers they use are still more than likely a grade up from the trash used in TVs. I just can't see Sony for example using better drivers in their TVs than they do in their standard loudspeaker line.
TV speakers are generally terrible, and I rarely listen to them (if I do, it is at somebody else's house.) Still, it just really doesn't take much at all to be better than Bose.
post #40 of 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai
Ooooohhhh...real tweeters that cost, what? $2? Orbs have 3" 'full range' drivers. Why don't they get a bad rap too?
Actually, I have wondered about this myself. Same with the HSU ventriloquist line.
post #41 of 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM
The woofers in my brother's RPTV are bigger than 5.25". They are also 2-way speakers, meaning they have real tweeters (unlike Bose.)
Tell your brother he should think about upgrading. The only TV I have seen in the last two years when I bought a new TV for the bedroom that has speakers that large was a Sony Grand Wega, and the large speakers were actually in the stand, not the TV. Now go and tell me how great Sony speakers sound.
post #42 of 432
Probably because they're less money and don't have the stigma associated with a large successful company?
post #43 of 432
Quote:
I have definitely personally heard TV speakers with better overall sound than Bose, however.
Name three.
post #44 of 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schadenfreude
Name three.
My 34" HD tube Philips, my friend's older 36" standard tube (Sanyo, I think), and my brother's RP Hitachi.
post #45 of 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by lexa695
Tell your brother he should think about upgrading. The only TV I have seen in the last two years when I bought a new TV for the bedroom that has speakers that large was a Sony Grand Wega, and the large speakers were actually in the stand, not the TV. Now go and tell me how great Sony speakers sound.
I have tried to get him to buy a separate sound system. The TV itself is not what I would have bought, but it is a huge screen (quantity>quality to him, I guess.) The speakers are in the base.
post #46 of 432
First off, if that's truely your opinion, I think you should do a side-by-side with others present....it would probably make them question your criteria for what equates to "better" in your mind.
Also, how good are the rear speakers and the surround decoding in those sets ?
post #47 of 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schadenfreude
First off, if that's truely your opinion, I think you should do a side-by-side with others present....it would probably make them question your criteria for what equates to "better" in your mind.
Also, how good are the rear speakers and the surround decoding in those sets ?
Admittedly, comparing two varieties of crap (which is really what comparing TV speakers and Bose amounts to) is harder than comparing things that are at least decent.
Neither of the tubes have anything but "virtual" surround. The RPTV does have some little surround "speakers", but those might actually be worse than Blose. (He has never hooked them up.) Is awful sound all around really better than awful sound in front, though?
post #48 of 432
Just to get things back on track, the validity of my comparison is not the real issue here. The real issue is that Bose speakers are worthless junk priced as if they were worth having.
post #49 of 432
you know in fairness to the commercial (if it's the 1-2-3 system with the sound engineer recommending them) they do say SEVERAL times that you will get better sound than from your TV SPEAKERS. I have no doubts that this is true--none whatsoever.

they also never claim to be better than a surround sound setup--they say it RIVALS 5.1 systems.

the bose bashing on these forums is so assine--who cares--really who cares.
post #50 of 432
I've always had a soft spot for Bose. I bought a pair of 901s in the late sixties. I spoke personally to Dr. Amar Bose about the famous review in Consumer Reports. While I was a starving graduate student I built (reverse engineered) another pair of 901s except mine were in white oak with white grill cloth. The ex-wife got the real 901s. I got the ones I made. I think I won out on that deal.

The original 901s were great speakers in their day - the days of vinyl LPs and stereo. Their obvious flaw was that they were quite difficult to place in most people's living room. Competitive speakers like the AR3 could be put in a bookcase and be relatively unobtrusive. The Bose 901s usually were mounted on free standing pedestals. I used to hang mine from the ceiling with mono-filament. In any case there was no hiding them because they had to be set out in the room in front of a wall with no obstructions.

901s had really excellent bass response and power handling. They were a high performance design that was very inconvienient to mount in most domestic settings. Bose then apparently reversed his field. Now Bose products are low performance designs with poor bass and poor power handling. However they are very, very easy to integrate into your decor and to install.
post #51 of 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM
Just to get things back on track, the validity of my comparison is not the real issue here. The real issue is that Bose speakers are worthless junk priced as if they were worth having.
The real issue became your credibility to make any claim. I have heard some large RPTV's which had fuller sound than some Bose setups, but they were not surround. Most TV speakers are garbage and very tinny. Especially w/ the new thinner designs.

Chu,
That was a great story. I am sure it meant something, but I am not smart enough to have all the answers like so many AVSers. It did make me hungry and tonight I will put the backseat of my non-Lincoln to the test if the girlfriend obliges.

I wonder if Bose adding a little tweeter on the top would alleviate criticism. I doubt it.

The Orbs sound like junk.

The HSU VT12 actually sounds good. They feel cheap. I think they get away w/ it b/c they crossover pretty high to the center channel. They are a mess to wire though.

Personally, I think one needs at least a bookshelf w/ 1 5.25" driver and tweeter to avoid major compromises in SQ.
post #52 of 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rinx
Kinda like the idea that 24 track digital equals better sound than tape. :D
What, it doesn't? That's news to me. Thanks for the tip Sensei. :rolleyes: Obviously digital recording does not give you the pleasant distortion that is characteristic of tape recording -- but it is verifiably more accurate.

But nevermind that -- would you suggest I drag a huge, expensive 24-track 2" tape machine around to my gigs with me along with my sound system instead of the nice little 3U digital machine I'm using now? Yeah, that'll go over great with my clients. Of course I'll have to charge more because I'll need another helper and a bigger van... The geniuses we have here on this forum... :rolleyes:
post #53 of 432
Thread Starter 
Ok boys, you are right I should never has posted this thread it was a knee jerk reaction, when I have been spending every day for the last six months or so trying to learn and research and make the best sounding and viewing HT I possibly could with limited funds and no energy to do this stuff myself.
Seeing something so misleading that will in fact appeal to older persons such as myself, those who are trying to get something nice for themselves just really upset me, and since I happen to be on here at the time I posted as such.

Sorry, I did not mean to start another argumentative thread.
post #54 of 432
Quote:
Is awful sound all around really better than awful sound in front, though?
Well, "awful" sound is not neccesarily a description I would agree with. When I think "awful", I think AM transistor and static, yet surprisingly people bought them...when I think "awful" I think mp3's at 96k off those little fold-out, unamplified speakers running off the headphone output.


Quote:
Personally, I think one needs at least a bookshelf w/ 1 5.25" driver and tweeter to avoid major compromises in SQ.
I used to feel the same way , but as some have got better with new 4" driver designs and some subs do a better job blending higher, I actually have seen some small bookshelf speakers and even, dare I say , satelittes that sound ok when set up properly.
post #55 of 432
Have you come up with some tentative selections McCall?
post #56 of 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by goatwuss
"Top of the line klipsch speakers"

Are you talking about Klipschorns or the LaScalas?
:D

He didn't say flagship, he said top-of-the-line. Could be Synergy line, Reference line, Heritage line.

The La Scala isn't top of a line, even if way more expensive than the top-of-the-line Reference.
post #57 of 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThomasV555
The real issue became your credibility to make any claim.
You are so full of s**t that your eyeballs are floating. The really sad part is that you are just parroting what other idiots have said. :rolleyes:
post #58 of 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM
You are so full of s**t that your eyeballs are floating. The really sad part is that you are just parroting what other idiots have said. :rolleyes:
Yeah, so many TV's out there come with surround sound speakers, have 100 watts or more power, come with a seprate bass module, have center channel sound so voices even if some of it comes from the bass module are more distinguishable, and can give a rumbling effect, we should really be hanging on your every word. Just the fact that you think a Bose system is worse than standard TV speakers and you are actually trying to defend that postition makes me think I can't possibly take anything you are saying seriously. I have at one time owned a Bose set up and I am very familar with what they sound like. There is no comparrison to TV speakers, and if you think there is, then you are tone deaf. And go ahead, try and tell me I'm the one that is tone deaf, because I can point to a Juliard hearing test that claims the opposite.
post #59 of 432
So your assumptions are 1) five worthless speakers are somehow better than two worthless speakers and 2) a "rumbling effect" (with almost no relation to actual bass sound) is better than nothing.
In reality, only the unpowered speakers that run on a headphone jack (as mentioned above) are worse than Blose.
post #60 of 432
You know that Cat food commercial that goes meow meow meow...meow meow meow, everytime I look at your name and post total I think of it.

post post post post post post what like 35 40 times a day...dude get a life.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Oh Gag, Bose Commercial