AVS Forum banner
  • Our native mobile app has a new name: Fora Communities. Learn more.

My opinion on Bose sats vs others

815 Views 8 Replies 6 Participants Last post by  Clepto
I have recently decided to upgrade my Bose Accoustmass 10 series III set up with another sat setup. I listened to Boston, Paradigm, Def Tech, Mirage, and Klipsch. All the speakers I listened to were no more then 7" in hight. After doing all this listening, I decided that upgrading from Bose to another sat system was just not worth it. The only one that had a noticeable difference that was large enough to consider an upgrade was Boston Micro 110. They did a much better job with highs than the others. In Pearl Harbor, when ther bullets hit the hull of the ship, the sound was piercing. I almost ended up buying the Micros but I decided, if I am going to cough up about $1000 on a new Sat system, let me listen to some bigger speakers in this range. As I went larger, this is where the noticeable difference really was. I ended up doing some drywall work in my room to accomodate Def Tech ProCinema 100's and a Pro C2 center. I am very happy with this upgrades sound and the wife even decided it looked good once I had finished (she was sweating a bit when she saw how much bigger the 100's were than the Bose arays). My conclusion was, there are few other sat systems that actually have a large advantage on Bose. Yes, I think some others sounded better, but not that much. Most of these used really small C's also which probably didn't do such a good job below 150-120 hz. As a matter of fact, I'd say only the Bostons and maybe the mirage which were set up like crap were worth the jump (Mirage set up would have been a lot more than $1000 but I spent more anyway.)

My conclusion was, if you have a Bose system and are thinking about upgrading to another sat system, you may want to wait until you can afford or accomodate some larger speakers.
See less See more
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Yes the Boston Micros are wonderful. But why were they so expensive for you? My local Best Buy is selling a Boston Acoustics package that includes 5 Micros, a Boston Acoustics brand receiver and separate DVD player for $750. Not sure if a sub was included but wouldn't have been surprised if it was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeLee
Yes the Boston Micros are wonderful. But why were they so expensive for you? My local Best Buy is selling a Boston Acoustics package that includes 5 Micros, a Boston Acoustics brand receiver and separate DVD player for $750. Not sure if a sub was included but wouldn't have been surprised if it was.
You're correct, the Boston system which comes prepackaged was about what you said and it comes with a decent entry level sub which was way too small for my room, so we priced it out with doing 5 110's and 4 110's with the sat center and added a Supercube II (which I now own and love it). I guess the SC II rasied the bar a bit.
What surprised me was how much the Micros weighed. I installed a set for a co-worker back in 1996. I don't know if they were called the Micros back then but they were same sized speakers. When I picked up one of the Micros this past sunday at Best Buy, I was caught off guard by the heft. The center channel was even heavier. Meaty little suckers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lexa695
I almost ended up buying the Micros but I decided, if I am going to cough up about $1000 on a new Sat system, let me listen to some bigger speakers in this range. As I went larger, this is where the noticeable difference really was.
This is an interesting post. I have an old Acoustimass system (dual cubes l&r and the pathetic sub) that I got for next to nothing twelve years ago when I got out of college. My friends and I all thought I was "The Man" for having such a bitchin' system. They sounded great to me in my apartment -- now I'm in my first (slightly larger) property, and they didn't cut the mustard anymore. I started reading this forum and auditioning -- now I see what's doin'.


Anyway, what's interesting about your post is that I discovered the same thing: most satellites are better, but not "I've seen the light" better. Don't get me wrong: I believe one can and should get a sub/sat system that sounds much better and is half the price of a new Bose system. But if you already have a Bose system, especially a new one that you spent a lot of $$ on, it's good to consider a larger size.


Once upon a time, Bose was the only game in town for sub/sat. (Yes, M&K and the like, but interview 100 people on the street and see how many know of M&K -- and I'm not sure M&K had a website to order from ten years ago...so Average Joe would have had to seek out specialty shops...not likely.) Point is, I think Bose cornered the market in the consumers' mind ten-or-more years ago. Then home theater hit, and everyone scrambled to get onboard the HTIB train. But Bose still has the recognition factor, and a good one at that ("You have a Bose? Wow!").


Sound vs. size for best sound, I think fairly small bookshelf speakers/sub are the way to go.
See less See more
I still have my original AM-5, Series 1 cubes, I'm pretty sure I've had them since '88, but they're at LEAST 15 years old. Up until recently, they've served as surrounds, but I was in BB the other day and was amazed at how light the current ones are vs my old ones. I also wonder how they can even come close to producing decent highs, mine at least have 4x 2.5" mids along with the 'sub'.


While they've been around for such a long time, I haven't really seen much improvment in them since they were released, aside from slightly smaller packaging. Anyone happen to know the freq response numbers for em? Haven't been able to find that info anywhere, even in the freaking manual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clepto
I still have my original AM-5, Series 1 cubes, I'm pretty sure I've had them since '88, but they're at LEAST 15 years old. Up until recently, they've served as surrounds, but I was in BB the other day and was amazed at how light the current ones are vs my old ones. I also wonder how they can even come close to producing decent highs, mine at least have 4x 2.5" mids along with the 'sub'.


While they've been around for such a long time, I haven't really seen much improvment in them since they were released, aside from slightly smaller packaging. Anyone happen to know the freq response numbers for em? Haven't been able to find that info anywhere, even in the freaking manual.
There is a Anti-Bose website that shows tests done. The FR graph is actually not that bad. No giant holes. It just that the bass module has to go up to 200+hz.


The Bose bashing on this forum is out of control. I agree with the first poster. Don't think you are going to get any great increase in sound quality unless you go to a much bigger speaker. There is no magic bullet. :rolleyes:
See less See more
The OP's observations are pretty much exactly what I think.

There are very few competitors in the size category w/ the Bose dual cubes. They are all larger which is the exact reason most people are looking at the Bose speakers. The Boston Micros are impressively heavy. About 6 years ago manufacturers almost across the board started lightening their satellite speakers (not always to their detriment.)


One option to Bose speakers that rarely gets mentioned is in-walls. Properly placed they result in larger drivers and the form factor for those interested in the aesthetics.
Yeah, I agree, for the size, and at the time, I think it was very hard to get a similar sound in such a tiny package. It's a shame they haven't increased the size of the the bass module's woofer, 5.25" just seems too small for adequate low frequencies.


Bose may have really pushed forward the concept of mating small speakers to a sub, and you have to give them credit for that at least.
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top