Why the criticism of Bose? - Page 13 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 361Likes
 
Thread Tools
post #361 of 496 Old 08-05-2015, 12:48 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
psgcdn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Prov. of Quebec, Canada
Posts: 4,828
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 206 Post(s)
Liked: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by wgerman View Post
If you want to know the frequency behind Bose drivers just go the source. On Bose's Pro site one can read frequency graphs all day long. Shock, a lot of Bose paper drivers go up to 16K,19K and yes 20K.

http://worldwide.bose.com/pro/en_us/...kers/page.html

They provide specs to those who know how to use them, professional installers and engineers.
Picked one at random:

http://worldwide.bose.com/pro/en_us/...iew=data_table

A 15 lbs, 89-dB sensitivity speaker using four 4.5-inch drivers...
Long-Term Power Handling 120 W (480 W peak)Maximum SPL @ 1 m 115 dB SPL (121 dB SPL peak)
Footnote says: Maximum SPL calculated from sensitivity and power handling specifications, exclusive of power compression.

That's rubbish. The math doesn't even add up: 89 dB at 1W yields 115.8 dB at 480W
And no way there's no compression.

psgcdn is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #362 of 496 Old 08-05-2015, 01:01 PM
Member
 
Pro-People's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 102
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Hurts View Post
Even cheap plastic lasts a loooooooooog time! Cheap untreated paper cones last for decades so not a problem. If you want problems, get the Bose series that used foam surrounds and you'll have reliability problems.

Speakers will last for decades if you don't blow them up. Intercom speakers are very inexpensive but last 25 to 50 years before they "wear out". Last year I replaced the bees wax capacitors in a pair of Frasier speakers from 1968, after 46 years they needed it. I've seen 25 year old boomboxes in garages still cranking out the tunes 8 hours a day for decades.

Bose stuff does break, take a Bose 901, bridge a Carver M1.0t and play the 1812 Overture through it--the 8Hz sonic boom will launch those cones out of the gap and they don't come back. (no EQ box used) I was given a pair of Bose 101s and took them apart, the thin plastic boxes were buzzing so I used plumber's putty to stiffen them up, a bit of pillow stuffings to clean up the sound an done. Since I enjoy treble and bass response, I gave them away to be used for background music.

Most of the people on this forum have home theater systems--the Bose cube stuff will not work for that if you want to meet THX standards. It is not an impossible standard to meet, I had a Logitech 5.1 powered system for $300 that did meet the minimum standards. The great thing about a standard is you pass or fail...easy to understand. You can look on the THX website and they will tell you what the standards are, what they mean and how to meet them.

They have their niche', the smallest speakers possible to give low SPL sound that is better than TVs and boomboxes--just don't expect much more than that and you'll be fine.
My point here is that the bose drivers don't wearout for much so long even you drive hard. Many people tried the bose to turn knob of amps to full volume but seem the drivers can handle, even its subwoofer virtually there is no distortion. I think there is some circuit inside that controls the speaker system when the volume turned up.


THX is another sound technology. Bose has its own technology. Just like Yamaha, they've turned down already THX certification long time ago as they have their own too.
Pro-People is offline  
post #363 of 496 Old 08-05-2015, 01:08 PM
 
Swolephile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,262
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 896 Post(s)
Liked: 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pro-People View Post


THX is another sound technology. Bose has its own technology. Just like Yamaha, they've turned down already THX certification long time ago as they have their own too.
....
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	images (88).jpg
Views:	64
Size:	4.2 KB
ID:	871082   Click image for larger version

Name:	download (96).jpg
Views:	48
Size:	4.2 KB
ID:	871090  
KMFDMvsEnya and Black adder like this.
Swolephile is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #364 of 496 Old 08-05-2015, 01:12 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 379
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by woody888 View Post
To be fair, it is safe to say that most Bose owners are not audio "enthusiasts". Therefore, you can argue they do not listen to music as frequent as AVS'ers, nor do they listen at a volume level that is typical of an enthusiast. I would think most Bose owners would listen at the sound level of background music.

I'd love to see how Bose would do at say, 90dB, even in a short timeframe. I'd love to see how those cheap a$$ paper stuff holds up.
I used to listen to my Bose accoustimass and 701s so loud, the entire barracks could hear it, for hours at a time. When I got out of the Army, I threw house parties all the time that drew the cops, they were so loud. Those speakers still work as well today as they did in 1995. Nothing on them has blown or deteriorated. The direct/reflecting design does add spaciousness to the sound quality. That said, using the term "sound quality" is kind of an oxymoron with the speakers; the bass could be lower and the highs could be higher on all of them, and of course the 3" drivers on the Accoustimass don't really qualify as a midrange or a tweeter, and the bass module doesn't qualify as a subwoofer. I learned this just a few months after I dropped $2,000 on the set up, when a friend bought some 12" Cerwin Vegas. Anyway, they have durably served their purpose and survived much punishment for 20 years. Now, its time for me to upgrade to some real quality.

Last edited by pcfriedrich; 08-05-2015 at 01:17 PM.
pcfriedrich is offline  
post #365 of 496 Old 08-05-2015, 01:18 PM
Member
 
Pro-People's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 102
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Hurts View Post
What of Uncle Amar?
He did well to steal the Popular Electronics open source "stereo 16", cut the amount of speakers in half and roll.
http://www.roger-russell.com/columns/columns.htm#sweet

Noise cancelling headphones were invented in the 1950's so you can forget Bose.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise-...ing_headphones

The AM-5 speakers came out in 1985 and no, Bose was not the first with small speakers or "bass modules". The subwoofer was invented in 1968 by Infinity and JBL had a speaker system with a subwoofer in the 1970's. By the early 80's, there were quite a few subwoofer manufacturers available long before Bose "invented" it.

My brother has a Bose speaker and a friend of mine has one of their radio things. Although my brother's Bose are not what I like, he is happy since I added a (non Bose) powered 12" subwoofer to get the lows he demands.

Next time you go to an arena concert or sports stadium look at the brand on the speakers... look at the brands at your local theater (speakers behind the screen)

Then ask yourself why they use the "other brands".
So you are talking about those who tried before who did not come to success commercially, because theirs doesn't respond to the times. Here I am talking about the commercial success of the products. So Bose was the firsts of the above.


Even the NASAs and US Military Armed Forces, they contracted Bose to supply all their noise cancelling headgears.
Pro-People is offline  
post #366 of 496 Old 08-05-2015, 01:27 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Zen Traveler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,088
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 688 Post(s)
Liked: 686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pro-People View Post

THX is another sound technology. Bose has its own technology. Just like Yamaha, they've turned down already THX certification long time ago as they have their own too.
Fwiw, THX is a company that sets Industry standards in Movie Theaters and Homes while giving licenses to companies whose products adhere to those standards.

Yamaha and Bose market their own products and my guess is that Yammi comes close to those standards in the home and may even surpass them in some instances, but I can't see how Bose possibly can with the products I've come across.

That said, I'm not bashing Bose and have friends who seem to be pleased with their purchase and that is cool as well. Then again, comparing their speakers to mine is like comparing apples to oranges in a Home Theater setting.
Zen Traveler is offline  
post #367 of 496 Old 08-05-2015, 01:27 PM
 
Bill Fitzmaurice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 15,491
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 5770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pro-People View Post
Even the NASAs and US Military Armed Forces, they contracted Bose to supply all their noise cancelling headgears.
Yes, they're well known for getting the absolute best deal on everything they buy.
Look, if you want to buy Bose, do it. Just don't expect anyone who actually has an understanding of sound reproduction gear that extends deeper than what they see in an advertisement to give you any encouragement.
countryWV likes this.
Bill Fitzmaurice is offline  
post #368 of 496 Old 08-05-2015, 02:07 PM
Member
 
Pro-People's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 102
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zen Traveler View Post
Fwiw, THX is a company that sets Industry standards in Movie Theaters and Homes while giving licenses to companies whose products adhere to those standards.

Yamaha and Bose market their own products and my guess is that Yammi comes close to those standards in the home and may even surpass them in some instances, but I can't see how Bose possibly can with the products I've come across.

That said, I'm not bashing Bose and have friends who seem to be pleased with their purchase and that is cool as well. Then again, comparing their speakers to mine is like comparing apples to oranges in a Home Theater setting.
You really can't see it how, you must hear it. Bose is the one on top in terms of sales, others behind. Almost (if not) all consumers are very satisfied with the products and I didn't see yet anyone returning bose to the store. I only see in the internet claimed that he returned the bose to the store, and he is bashing so much about the whole bose in general.


When you heard the bose sound, it seams very pleasing to the ear. It uses the surrounding walls to reflect most of the sounds rather than direct. This is bose philosophy. That's why using sophisticated audio measurements, bose give poor results. But the one who measure cannot understand why he is hearing a very pleasing sounds comfortable to ear.


By reflecting most of the sound into the surrounding walls, it can easily said that the sound is not focus. But you can hear stereo sound almost anywhere within the room. For acosutimass, they are abled to appear the low frequencies sound to be coming from the cubes, but actually it was from the Bass Module. This is breakthrough!.. I know low frequency is non directional, but bose is different, it virtually disappears the bass module. I heard also a lot of high end competitors small speakers like def tech pro1000, jbl, b&w, logitech, paraqdigm, creative, but when you turn on the sound, you can pinpoint where the subwoofer is located.
Pro-People is offline  
post #369 of 496 Old 08-05-2015, 02:13 PM
Member
 
Pro-People's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 102
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post
Yes, they're well known for getting the absolute best deal on everything they buy.
Look, if you want to buy Bose, do it. Just don't expect anyone who actually has an understanding of sound reproduction gear that extends deeper than what they see in an advertisement to give you any encouragement.
Yes correct. I am not telling to people to buy Bose. We are discussing here constructively about comparison of sounds, prices and technology between brands.
Pro-People is offline  
post #370 of 496 Old 08-05-2015, 02:17 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
cctvtech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,100
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 90 Post(s)
Liked: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pro-People View Post
I know low frequency is non directional, but bose is different, it virtually disappears the bass module.
Forgive me if I sound confused but are you saying Bose low frequencies are different from other speakers' low frequencies?

Be seeing you!
cctvtech is offline  
post #371 of 496 Old 08-05-2015, 02:32 PM
Member
 
Pro-People's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 102
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pro-People View Post
So you are talking about those who tried before who did not come to success commercially, because theirs doesn't respond to the times. Here I am talking about the commercial success of the products. So Bose was the firsts of the above.


Even the NASAs and US Military Armed Forces, they contracted Bose to supply all their noise cancelling headgears.
Those arena's and big stadiums, they can't afford Bose because bose is essentially expensive than others. They can save more money to other brands than bose. Once upon a time, the largest mosque in the world in Saudi Arabia had contracted Bose to install their systems in this whooping large religious venue. The Vatican in Rome have installed Bose in the church and so to other churches around the world. One church goer have commented that the voice of the priest seem to very clear that they can easily understand. Another comment was that even when you are seated in front of the speaker, though it is loud, you can still bear the sound pressure.


Something that bose made difference.
Pro-People is offline  
post #372 of 496 Old 08-05-2015, 02:51 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
GreySkies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bucks County, PA
Posts: 3,991
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 622 Post(s)
Liked: 442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pro-People View Post
When you heard the bose sound, it seams very pleasing to the ear.
No it doesn't.
GreySkies is offline  
post #373 of 496 Old 08-05-2015, 03:00 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
KMFDMvsEnya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SLC, UT
Posts: 1,708
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 311 Post(s)
Liked: 624
Yea unfortunately you continue to conflate success with quality, the two are not mutually exclusive.

The US Military got snookered on the whole Bose fiasco which cost dearly both in acquisition then replacement since gear kept breaking, along with not actually doing the job. Never mind the fact the US military complex is not particularly well known for always making the right decisions about various hardware such as the nearly complete utter failure of the F-35 program that is one of the most delayed and ineffective weapons platforms ever designed and 'implementing'; which unfortunately does not excel with any of its intended roles.

Or perhaps name recognition through superior marketing has more to do with those limp examples of large venue installations.

The reasons why most large venues do not bother with Bose gear is because they under perform while being more expensive to superior products.

I have heard the line array speakers in an excellent sound treated orchestral hall, that temporarily replaced some other monitors, and the things sounded extremely poor in comparison to the older monitors and the replacements for the Bose.

It is perplexing to the degree that Pro-people aka Pro-Bose is desperately attempting to defend Bose with erroneous superficial arguments and examples.

Politics is like a corral, no matter where you are you'll always be shoveling it.

Last edited by KMFDMvsEnya; 08-05-2015 at 03:20 PM.
KMFDMvsEnya is offline  
post #374 of 496 Old 08-05-2015, 03:04 PM
Member
 
Laika's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 97
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 49 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pro-People View Post
Those arena's and big stadiums, they can't afford Bose because bose is essentially expensive than others. They can save more money to other brands than bose.
Do you have any evidence to back up the above statement or is it more of a feeling?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pro-People View Post
Another comment was that even when you are seated in front of the speaker, though it is loud, you can still bear the sound pressure.
I would not consider that a positive, that well could indicate less than full range, with Bose it likely does.

If you like the speakers that's great, who am I to say you "Don't like them", but with many of your unfounded claims you come off more as a Bose rep than a audiophile.
Laika is offline  
post #375 of 496 Old 08-05-2015, 03:30 PM
 
Bill Fitzmaurice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 15,491
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 5770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pro-People View Post
Those arena's and big stadiums, they can't afford Bose because bose is essentially expensive than others. They can save more money to other brands than bose.
Sorry, but with every new post it's more and more obvious that you have no clue what you're talking about. Big arenas and stadiums use speakers from the likes of JBL, EV, Martin, Meyer and others that run in the range of $5k-$10k each, and it's not unusual for them to have main arrays of ten to twenty of them per side, along with an equal number of subs that run from $3k-$5k each. Multi-million dollar systems aren't uncommon. They're installed by professional sound companies that know what they're doing, and since that's the case they don't consider Bose.
If you want to offer a totally subjective opinion, such as 'I like how my speakers sound', that's all well and good. But if you want to offer an expert opinion a prerequisite is that you must first become an expert.
Quote:
with many of your unfounded claims you come off more as a Bose rep
If you look at his post history all of them are shilling Bose. If it swims like a duck, flys like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Last edited by Bill Fitzmaurice; 08-05-2015 at 03:46 PM.
Bill Fitzmaurice is offline  
post #376 of 496 Old 08-05-2015, 04:00 PM
Advanced Member
 
motrek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 568
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 444 Post(s)
Liked: 162
http://web.archive.org/web/201301210....net/bose.html

This seems to be the go-to article for hating Bose but, according to my understanding, the "Cold Hard Numbers" section is fatally flawed.

Look at the frequency response graph--the author doesn't seem to understand that the output of the speakers is additive. He sees the dip at ~200Hz and thinks this translates to a dip in overall output. But if you ADD the output of the subwoofer as it rolls off to the output of the satellites as they ramp up, it seems they would produce a pretty flat overall frequency response graph for the system as a whole.
motrek is offline  
post #377 of 496 Old 08-05-2015, 04:24 PM
Advanced Member
 
motrek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 568
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 444 Post(s)
Liked: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by dukedallas2005 View Post
Love how all the "experts" bash one brand vs. another but in the same breath they listen to 99% of their music as garbage MP3 format or streamed online low quality music. Whats lost in all of this is the fact that sadly all of our music content has been compacted into formats that lose the fidelity and depth of the true music. Thank you Apple for compacting a 80MB .wav song into 80kb and selling it to the masses as an alternative.
Sure, some fidelity is lost with lossy audio compression.

Does that mean we should all just give up and listen to everything on a Jambox unless it's uncompressed 24 bit 88 kHz?

You first.
motrek is offline  
post #378 of 496 Old 08-05-2015, 04:32 PM
 
shadyJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,743
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1330 Post(s)
Liked: 1358
Quote:
Originally Posted by motrek View Post
http://web.archive.org/web/201301210....net/bose.html

This seems to be the go-to article for hating Bose but, according to my understanding, the "Cold Hard Numbers" section is fatally flawed.

Look at the frequency response graph--the author doesn't seem to understand that the output of the speakers is additive. He sees the dip at ~200Hz and thinks this translates to a dip in overall output. But if you ADD the output of the subwoofer as it rolls off to the output of the satellites as they ramp up, it seems they would produce a pretty flat overall frequency response graph for the system as a whole.
A real problem with the way the Bose system is structured is that you will want speakers that can play lower than 200 and a sub that can play higher than 200. You don't want your speakers coughing up blood at their crossover point, or a sub that get really ragged at its upper end response. While those speakers and that sub may be able to stretch to meet that point, their THD might be extremely high there. This isn't even mentioning the fact that 200 Hz is a terribly high crossover point with lots of problems that are not resolved by the Bose system.
shadyJ is offline  
post #379 of 496 Old 08-05-2015, 04:33 PM
Advanced Member
 
motrek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 568
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 444 Post(s)
Liked: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by tritiumglo View Post
Every time I try to play a file on an Apple, it wants to convert it to the Apple format. Maybe Apple should just play the file instead of transforming it into something they can control.

Have a peek at this while your at it: http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/artic...sic-collection
Then don't use Apple software to play your files. OS X and iOS have huge selections of 3rd party software.

Some people seem to think that if you're using an Apple device, you have to use all of Apple's bundled software and services that come with it. I don't understand where they get this idea.
motrek is offline  
post #380 of 496 Old 08-05-2015, 04:39 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 198
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Disclaimer: I have not read through most of this thread. I have owned Bose products.

Bose are the epitome of form over function, style over substance. There's nothing particularly wrong with the way they sound, but you can get something that sounds just as good (but doesn't look as nice) for half the price if not less.

They are the equivalent of Apple with the iphone. The iphone is a perfectly capable phone, there are no missing features or obvious shortcomings, but you can get a Samsung/LG/other-Android phone much cheaper that will function equally well, it just won't look as sleek. That is Bose.

There is nothing wrong with people wanting to pay extra for the style/fashion rather than the core function of the item, as long as they are honest with themselves about the reasons for spending that extra cash.

If you're happy paying extra for Bose for the aesthetics then no problem, go right ahead (if I had a bigger budget I might do the same), if you think you're paying extra for better sound quality you are gullible and deluded by marketing.
Ormy is offline  
post #381 of 496 Old 08-05-2015, 04:44 PM
Advanced Member
 
motrek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 568
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 444 Post(s)
Liked: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadyJ View Post
A real problem with the way the Bose system is structured is that you will want speakers that can play lower than 200 and a sub that can play higher than 200. You don't want your speakers coughing up blood at their crossover point, or a sub that get really ragged at its upper end response. While those speakers and that sub may be able to stretch to meet that point, their THD might be extremely high there. This isn't even mentioning the fact that 200 Hz is a terribly high crossover point with lots of problems that are not resolved by the Bose system.
200Hz is going to be very directional due to human physiology. There's nothing Bose can do about that, I agree that it's undesirable, and I wouldn't buy such a system.

Other than that, I don't know that any of your other criticism is justified. I haven't seen any evidence that Bose's subwoofer or satellites struggle at 200Hz.
motrek is offline  
post #382 of 496 Old 08-05-2015, 05:01 PM
Advanced Member
 
motrek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 568
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 444 Post(s)
Liked: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ormy View Post
...
They are the equivalent of Apple with the iphone. The iphone is a perfectly capable phone, there are no missing features or obvious shortcomings, but you can get a Samsung/LG/other-Android phone much cheaper that will function equally well, it just won't look as sleek. That is Bose.
...
The Apple analogy has come up a few times in this thread and it is not good.

iPhones have always been exceptional products that are measurably better than the competition in most ways.

For example, check out Anandtech's review of the iPhone 6. This is a well-regarded tech web site that shows that the iPhone has a faster processor, better battery life, better display, better camera, and better audio quality than almost all of its competition.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8554/the-iphone-6-review

The problem is that Android phones are marketed based on a particular handful of specifications where they do better than the iPhone.

For example, it's common for Android phones to have displays with more pixels, and their marketing pushes that heavily, with the idea that more pixels = better screen. Never mind that the iPhone pixels are already so small that they're not distinguishable from normal distances.

Other display specifications and measurements aren't discussed, e.g., viewing angles, black levels, contrast, white point, color gamut, color accuracy, greyscale accuracy, backlight evenness, etc. The iPhone screens are far superior according to most/all of these criteria, but Android manufacturers will obviously never tell you that.

Anyway, I'm getting off on a tangent here, but the point is that Apple isn't selling snake oil. Their products are provably excellent and shouldn't be used as an example of customers being duped by marketing.
jpco and dsrussell like this.
motrek is offline  
post #383 of 496 Old 08-05-2015, 05:11 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Elihawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Iowa City, Iowa
Posts: 6,031
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1905 Post(s)
Liked: 2035
Quote:
Originally Posted by motrek View Post
http://web.archive.org/web/201301210....net/bose.html

This seems to be the go-to article for hating Bose but, according to my understanding, the "Cold Hard Numbers" section is fatally flawed.

Look at the frequency response graph--the author doesn't seem to understand that the output of the speakers is additive. He sees the dip at ~200Hz and thinks this translates to a dip in overall output. But if you ADD the output of the subwoofer as it rolls off to the output of the satellites as they ramp up, it seems they would produce a pretty flat overall frequency response graph for the system as a whole.
you really think the additive graph would be flat!? They is a huge gap between where the sub drops off and the speakers pick up (a freq where our ears are pretty good) and the graph is terrible at the high end, no suprise since it has no tweeter...
Not a terrible FR response graph, but far from good either! Like I said in a early part of this post, the FR is likely as good as other small, tweeter-less satellite systems which cost a lot less!

Set up #1: EMP e5Ti, e5Ci, and EMP e5Bi surrounds, Outlaw LFM1 Plus sub, SVS NSD SB12 sub, Marantz Slimeline 1504 AV receiver
Set up #2: Def Tech SM450, CLR2002, SLS Qline surrounds and EMPtek10i10i sub, Denon 1910 AV receiver
Set up #3: Philharmonics- BMR in a 2.0 system, music only, Yamaha RXV-363 AV receiver
Elihawk is offline  
post #384 of 496 Old 08-05-2015, 05:22 PM
Advanced Member
 
motrek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 568
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 444 Post(s)
Liked: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elihawk View Post
you really think the additive graph would be flat!? They is a huge gap between where the sub drops off and the speakers pick up (a freq where our ears are pretty good) and the graph is terrible at the high end, no suprise since it has no tweeter...
Not a terrible FR response graph, but far from good either! Like I said in a early part of this post, the FR is likely as good as other small, tweeter-less satellite systems which cost a lot less!
Since the graph is logarithmic, adding the lines together isn't straightforward.

But, look at where the lines for the sub and satellites cross over, at ~200Hz. They meet at -7 dB.

Since -10 dB is perceived as half as loud, adding two -7 dB lines is going to get you roughly back up to 0, if not a bit above, right?

I wasn't thinking about the top end, that doesn't seem great. But the article makes a big deal about the apparent suckout at ~200Hz which I'm pretty sure doesn't actually exist.
motrek is offline  
post #385 of 496 Old 08-05-2015, 05:40 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,172
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 676 Post(s)
Liked: 136
I think I have formed the hypothesis that @Pro-People has a Bose product (or more than one) and the hypothesis that @motrek has an iPhone. I subscribe to neither reality and would hypothesize that both are seeking validation for their choices. Which is OK, as long as it is out in the open that this is what is going on.
The whole subject this threadnought boils down to is this: The reason certain groups of people do not like Bose, is because Bose does not reproduce sound as accurately as is expected relative to cost. Then Bose markets itself in such a way that people are tricked into expecting accurately reproduced sound, though Bose is careful not to make themselves targets for lawsuits. For all the other markets Bose taps into, where the customers aren't essentially scammed in terms of what the customer expects, is not the issue.

EDIT: FYI, adding two lets say 90db lines gives 93db not 100db. So a -6db dip is 75% lower energy level. Speakers really have to be -3db at 13khz or above, because instruments actually go that high. Above that, well, people argue about where exactly the edge between the atmosphere and space is to this day.
KMFDMvsEnya likes this.

Last edited by ronny31; 08-05-2015 at 05:46 PM.
ronny31 is offline  
post #386 of 496 Old 08-05-2015, 06:01 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Zen Traveler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,088
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 688 Post(s)
Liked: 686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pro-People View Post
You really can't see it how, you must hear it. Bose is the one on top in terms of sales, others behind. Almost (if not) all consumers are very satisfied with the products and I didn't see yet anyone returning bose to the store. I only see in the internet claimed that he returned the bose to the store, and he is bashing so much about the whole bose in general.

I am sorry if I missed it but are you an Industry Insider or do you work for Bose? I am not one on here bashing them but how can you make the blanket statement "Almost (if not) all consumers are very satisfied with the products and I didn't see yet anyone returning bose to the store."

If that claim can be backed up you really do have a Miracle Speaker.
Zen Traveler is offline  
post #387 of 496 Old 08-05-2015, 06:02 PM
Member
 
nfafan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 52
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 4
Our Bose Lifestyle system is bone-stoopid easy to use, and for WAF purposes of ease of use, looks, adequate sound, brand cachet - that is fine for the job. My Onkyo 5.1 AVR-based sound system may as well be a nuclear power plant by comparison.
nfafan is offline  
post #388 of 496 Old 08-05-2015, 06:10 PM
Member
 
Pro-People's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 102
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Bose Acoustimass

DESIGN - sleek and elegant, virtually disappears in the living room. Ease of connecting wires as it is properly labeled. Very neat when installed.

PRICE - if u think it is expensive, then it is. If u think it is just right price, then it is. You are the judge.

SOUND - pleasing to ears and comfortable for long period of listening without hearing fatigue. Stereo sound presence almost everywhere within the room. Bass module virtually disappears as the sound appear to come from the tiny cubes.

PERFORMANCE - performed intelligible sound at very low and high volume. Bass module seem don't have distortion and can place the module anywhere within the room without compromising the bass output.

AUDIOPHILE TEST - give poor results using testing equipment. The system depends only on hearing test by the consumer if failure or passed.

DURABILITY - equally the same with other high end products of same price range. I have seen 1990s acoustimass but still sound good and bass kicking until today.

SALES - consistently no. 1 top selling compact surround sound system until today as compared to other high end home speaker system. High resale value. Most people will say wow if you have this bose in your house. This is maybe due to strategic marketing of bose.
Pro-People is offline  
post #389 of 496 Old 08-05-2015, 06:11 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,172
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 676 Post(s)
Liked: 136
I also have the hypothesis that there are people that want to listen to music and people that want to hear music. When I listen to music, it usually takes my full attention.

EDIT: FYI, price is not an individual thing, something is expensive or not relative to what else is available. If the customer is tricked into buying A instead of B because the customer did not know about B, C and D and the rest of them, its part of the marketing game, but its still dubious to trick customers in this way. Don't get me wrong, if you pick any product there's probably something else equally good compared to price, so may as well throw a dice between the comparative choices, but Bose is usually far below many other options in price/performance ratio, even if the customer does not know it.
High sales is not an argument for performance, its the "many people believe in God therefore he is real" -argument.
"the past product (acoustimass) was good, therefore this completely new product which has no part in common with the other product, is also good" - is also not a good argument. I can't sell manure on the basis that what the horse gave out previously was a steed.

Last edited by ronny31; 08-05-2015 at 06:18 PM.
ronny31 is offline  
post #390 of 496 Old 08-05-2015, 06:16 PM
Member
 
Pro-People's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 102
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Liked: 13
almost (if not all) consumers - I mean I am referring to those who bought bose product.
Pro-People is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Closed Thread Speakers

Tags
blose

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off