Why do you hate/love Bose products!?

[pseudobrit]

According to Wikipedia: "Bose does not publish specific technical specifications (impedance, sensitivity, range, sound pressure levels) on either of their packages and/or their website and as of November 21, 2006" I also read that they do this because they believe that giving such specs might interfere with the listening experience, and they are very attached to the whole psychoacoustics thing. MTI graduate Amar Bose started the company, because the sound equipment back in those years did not take into consideration psychoacoustics, something that bothered him.

There's no harm in publishing specs unless your business model requires you to keep your customers uninformed.

Not even Rolls Royce do this anymore because it's more important to not look like you're running Amway than it is to tout some halo of understatement.

 

[Killyp]

I'm not a big fan of THX Certification, but realize its value as a logo on a box of home theater speakers (surely it helps with sales if nothing else) and the very fact that not a single product in the Bose lineup has THX Certification makes me think twice about their quality.

The THX certification thing is a little weird. It's good for home movies, but it seriously damages a system's ability to reproduce music well.

In fact, the best home theatre setup I've ever heard didn't have a single THX certified component.

According to Wikipedia: "Bose does not publish specific technical specifications (impedance, sensitivity, range, sound pressure levels) on either of their packages and/or their website and as of November 21, 2006" I also read that they do this because they believe that giving such specs might interfere with the listening experience, and they are very attached to the whole psychoacoustics thing. MTI graduate Amar Bose started the company, because the sound equipment back in those years did not take into consideration psychoacoustics, something that bothered him.

-Victor

The reason Bose doesn't print it's technical specs is because they would give those who know what they're talking about cold hard facts on which to base their 'Bose really isn't that good' argument.

Now I'm not saying specs mean everything, but they do mean something. The top of the range Bose system would look appalling on paper, a frequency response from 250 Hz - 12 KHz or therabouts, whilst my £160 B&W speakers go from 82 Hz - 20 KHz. The reason is partly because of the 'gap' between the woofer and satellites. The sats can only go down to around 250 Hz before they stop producing sound alltogether, and the gap between this and the sub is so large that it actually registers as a 'drop out' of sound alltogether. All the hifi standards say the measurement is taken from the highest frequency above a certain sound level down to the lowest frequency above a certain sound level. The gap between the sub and the sats actually registers as dropping below this volume level.

Now this kinda makes things look much worse than they are, although it still tells that it's not a technically good system.

Psychoacoustics do play a larger part in speakers than technical accuracy, but with technicalities so completely wrong on Bose systems, they just can't sound very good.

As for printing specs, they could at least print some, such as the maximum SPL (which may sometimes be useful). B&O have never really revealed as much as they could in their specs (although they aren't that bad), but the reason for this is that some of their products look rubbish on paper (and are usually rubbish when actually heard too), but others are astonishingly good on paper, and even better in real life.

 

[Naimfan]

Indeed I am.

Fair enough.

But it is not an enormous generalisation unfortunately.

Rather disingenuous of you to say. That is what I'm asking you to support. Most "audiophiles" I know (and I know far too many from having worked in the field) won't offer an opinion on something unless they've heard it (even in sub-optimal conditions).

 

[Victor ch]

The THX certification thing is a little weird. It's good for home movies, but it seriously damages a system's ability to reproduce music well.

In fact, the best home theatre setup I've ever heard didn't have a single THX certified component.



The reason Bose doesn't print it's technical specs is because they would give those who know what they're talking about cold hard facts on which to base their 'Bose really isn't that good' argument.

Now I'm not saying specs mean everything, but they do mean something. The top of the range Bose system would look appalling on paper, a frequency response from 250 Hz - 12 KHz or therabouts, whilst my £160 B&W speakers go from 82 Hz - 20 KHz. The reason is partly because of the 'gap' between the woofer and satellites. The sats can only go down to around 250 Hz before they stop producing sound alltogether, and the gap between this and the sub is so large that it actually registers as a 'drop out' of sound alltogether. All the hifi standards say the measurement is taken from the highest frequency above a certain sound level down to the lowest frequency above a certain sound level. The gap between the sub and the sats actually registers as dropping below this volume level.

Now this kinda makes things look much worse than they are, although it still tells that it's not a technically good system.

Psychoacoustics do play a larger part in speakers than technical accuracy, but with technicalities so completely wrong on Bose systems, they just can't sound very good.

As for printing specs, they could at least print some, such as the maximum SPL (which may sometimes be useful). B&O have never really revealed as much as they could in their specs (although they aren't that bad), but the reason for this is that some of their products look rubbish on paper (and are usually rubbish when actually heard too), but others are astonishingly good on paper, and even better in real life.

Interesting! Man you REALLY know about sound. thanks for all the input Well yes apparently Bose keep those thing to themselves to avoid the "Bose is rubbish" argument.

Few minutes ago I got my Companion 3 Series II multimedia speakers system, and I am completely happy with them. The 2 tiny satellite speakers have very accurate highs (although the mids can be better) and the subwoofer sounds very nice too. I wanted a not to "bassy" system that has small speakers, needless to say these are the ones. Deep "rich" sound and very clear, now the only thing left to do is purchase a hi-fi system (Bose is definitely out in this matter) and thanks to your suggestions I will probably get B&W speakers, in the distant future that is.

-Victor

 

[aquajet]

Now I'm not saying specs mean everything, but they do mean something. The top of the range Bose system would look appalling on paper, a frequency response from 250 Hz - 12 KHz or therabouts, whilst my £160 B&W speakers go from 82 Hz - 20 KHz. The reason is partly because of the 'gap' between the woofer and satellites. The sats can only go down to around 250 Hz before they stop producing sound alltogether, and the gap between this and the sub is so large that it actually registers as a 'drop out' of sound alltogether.

Exactly. The Acoustimass system I've heard has 6.5" bass drivers in a bandpass enclosure and 2.5" or so paper drivers in the satelites. Anybody with an even casual knowledge of speaker designs knows that such a system would be physically unable to reproduce a remotely flat frequency response. Like I mentioned earlier, specifically the lower midrange of this system was pretty much absent, along with the highest frequencies. The amount of money spent on this speaker system was truly staggering. First time I heard it, I compared it directly to a set of large Pioneer speakers from the 1970s, complete with fancy schmancy wood lattice grills. The old Pioneers put the Bose system to shame.

 

[Killyp]

Interesting! Man you REALLY know about sound. thanks for all the input Well yes apparently Bose keep those thing to themselves to avoid the "Bose is rubbish" argument.

Few minutes ago I got my Companion 3 Series II multimedia speakers system, and I am completely happy with them. The 2 tiny satellite speakers have very accurate highs (although the mids can be better) and the subwoofer sounds very nice too. I wanted a not to "bassy" system that has small speakers, needless to say these are the ones. Deep "rich" sound and very clear, now the only thing left to do is purchase a hi-fi system (Bose is definitely out in this matter) and thanks to your suggestions I will probably get B&W speakers, in the distant future that is.

-Victor

Good move. Bose's multimedia speakers are practically top of the class. Their companion speakers and other small monitors are built like tanks, and sound fantastic considering what they are.

I've never heard a Bose 'hifi' system though...

 

[Victor ch]

Good move. Bose's multimedia speakers are practically top of the class. Their companion speakers and other small monitors are built like tanks, and sound fantastic considering what they are.

I've never heard a Bose 'hifi' system though...

Thanks, yup the companion sounds good and are specially small which is what I wanted, and they have this very very convenient "control pod" that allows you to mute it with a touch or connect a second audio source. Yeah they don't have a "hifi" system not near for that matter, thats why they are not even a remote option in this hehe. Thanks again for your input Kllyp, Im now looking where to buy some B&W speakers in Costa Rica for when I decide to purchase a hi-fi system.

-Victor

 

[Killyp]

No problem.

Just so you don't go and make any silly mistakes (which it's surprisingly easy to do), you'll need a good amp and CD player to go with them.

I'd strongly recommend Nad or Rotel in particular. I've owned quite a few things from each manufacturer, and they've all been fantastic...

 

[Unspeaked]

The THX certification thing is a little weird. It's good for home movies, but it seriously damages a system's ability to reproduce music well.

In fact, the best home theatre setup I've ever heard didn't have a single THX certified component.

Like I said, I'm not a huge fan of the THX stuff, but it seems like it would converge nicely with the target Bose market, so if they offered at least one system to say, "Here, this is a great THX Certified setup for home theater!" there'd be some value in that.

(As for great non-certified home theater setups, I think some great audio companies are too small and/or poor to bother going through with THX Certification, anyway, but I don't think this applies to Bose.)

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Bose does market one or two of their products very specifically at movies... I can't see how they wouldn't love a THX Certified sticker on there.

 

[Victor ch]

So the thread is kinda dead now I think we can to a semi-rational conclusion: Bose's "small lineup" (Headphones, music monitors) are what they do best and the money to quality ratio is OK, whilst their ridiculously priced big speakers & home theaters are just overpriced due to the Bose name and do not sound according to their price. So, headphones: good sound, reasonable price; music monitors (Companion 2, 3, 5 & Music Monitor) : are their "best" products and have a reasonable price; big speakers and home theaters: crap.

Thanks again to everyone that posted their thoughts here!

-Victor

 

[Shotglass]

I saw someone on the subway with a brand new LifeStyle system. He seemed so happy and proud. Damn, I felt awful.

 

[Killyp]

Meh, if he likes it it's his decision.

I wouldn't so much say the cost of Bose is the biggest issue, although it is very overpriced for the sound/build/design/finish/functionality.

It's just that they market it as being fantastic sounding kit, and those unlucky enough to let advertising affect them that much will believe so and as a result, think they're buying a top quality hifi system, when in fact they really aren't.

 

[Sesshi]

*Looks at Macbook Pro*

Tell me about it

 

[LoganT]

Well look at the Bose 3-2-1 system. Yes for the price of of that you could get a 7 speaker setup but for some people this is good enough. For instance my uncle doesn't have much space and this is good enough for his needs.

 

[Greasyman]

My sister has one of those table top Wave radios and I was very impressed with the quality of sound that came out of that little thing, it really filled the room with what seemed to be the full range of sound, except perhaps the lowest of the lows.

On the other hand, why pay $500 for that when for less than half as much you can get a conventional bookshelf system that sounds just as good and has no drawbacks other than it takes up a bit more room?

 

[Shotglass]

I still don't get why so many people use the phrase "fills the room with sound". I believe I heard it first in a Bose commercial.

 

[Abstract]

Just because Macs can be easier to use doesn't mean they lack depth of functionality. Macs are mediocre (still competitive) in hardware, yes, but I buy them for the OS, not to be on the extreme bleeding edge of overclocked desktop rigdom.

And let's remember too that Apple has never said "we don't do it that way" if you asked them the specs on their machines.

There is nothing systematically disingenuous about their business model or marketing (I wouldn't say the same of Bose).

As far as audio equipment goes, I miss Technics.

Ignore Sesshi. Famous for making such remarks about Apple's products, and if you defend Apple, he'll label you a Mac "fanboi" who just wants to defend everything made by Apple.

 

[Greasyman]

I still don't get why so many people use the phrase "fills the room with sound". I believe I heard it first in a Bose commercial.

Seems it's a very common term that makes a lot of sense, I think I've been hearing it forever.

I realized the actual difference between a system that "filled the room" with sound and one that didn't when I made the mistake of replacing some speakers with 8" woofers with a pair of small bookshelf speakers. The sound just seemed to come directly from the little speakers, where as the larger ones really radiated. It's hard to put into words but you know it when you hear it. Think of the difference between an average sound system and a little clock radio, not in sound reproduction quality but in ambiance.

 

[SactoGuy18]

Well look at the Bose 3-2-1 system. Yes for the price of of that you could get a 7 speaker setup but for some people this is good enough. For instance my uncle doesn't have much space and this is good enough for his needs.

I've heard the 3-2-1 GS Series II and it's actually a surprisingly good-sounding system. It's not true 5.1 surround like you get with the much more expensive Lifestyle systems but I really like the sound field from this system.

A big problem with true 5.1 systems is that you have to run a lot of wiring for the back speakers, and it's a real hassle trying to do five-speaker placement in many rooms.

 

[Sesshi]

Ignore Sesshi. Famous for making such remarks about Apple's products, and if you defend Apple, he'll label you a Mac "fanboi" who just wants to defend everything made by Apple.

No. Your opinions in relation to what is out there and firmly held point of view despite a clear lack of experience is what makes me call you a fanboy. (no "i") It's not differing personal opinions. What gave you that idea?

 

[Victor ch]

'New' Speakers.

I said before that the only thing left to purchase was a hi-fi component I think there is no need for one now. My dad gifted me his (2) 25 (or more) year-old Altec Lansing speakers. They are the model "five" series 2 and man they sound amazing, I mean the clarity in the voices and the precision in the highs are completely new to me! What surprises me the most is how well they perform even though they are very old, they're even good for electronic music. I hooked them up to the Sony amp+cd player and to the PS3; the original subwoofer is still attached to the setup. They sound wayyy better than the Bose 901 reflecting speakers. Their current "successor" are worth 900$ but I have no idea how much my dad spent on the speakers; I can't compare them (price wise) to others. I included some crappy pics taken with my iPhone.

-Victor

 

[displaced]

I said before that the only thing left to purchase was a hi-fi component I think there is no need for one now. My dad gifted me his (2) 25 (or more) year-old Altec Lansing speakers. They are the model "five" series 2 and man they sound amazing, I mean the clarity in the voices and the precision in the highs are completely new to me! What surprises me the most is how well they perform even though they are very old, they're even good for electronic music. I hooked them up to the Sony amp+cd player and to the PS3; the original subwoofer is still attached to the setup. They sound wayyy better than the Bose 201 reflecting speakers. Their current "successor" are worth 900$ but I have no idea how much my dad spent on the speakers; I can't compare them (price wise) to others. I included some crappy pics taken with my iPhone.

-Victor

They look great! Just goes to show that a good pair of speakers can last a lifetime! I'm definitely intending that my Mordaunt-Short set will last at least a good 10-20 years (barring any astonishing changes in speaker technology!).

One tip though -- get some stands and get those speakers off the floor! Think they sound good now? Get 'em up to head-height

 

[carlgo]

Bose is a master of marketing and, if you Believe, has altered physics.

You have to Believe that a tiny speaker can produce deep bass.

You have to Believe that by sending sound waves down plastic tunnels in front of you, the sound will then come from behind you.

An enormous advertising budget, the same message over and over until people Believe. And Bose is comfortable and Bose is everywhere.

Bose owners are obviously very sensitive and defensive about their choices.

All headphones have tiny speakers and no power, so Bose is on even ground to start with there.

That being said, I actually have a pair of the original 18-speaker Bose 901s, with equalizer. These are the sealed box ones, not the vented design that sent Bose down the path of magic.

I powered them with a quality 60 watt/channel amp (Bose said 20 watts/channel was fine) and was only sort of ok with them. Years later I borrowed a very high-powered amp and the thunderous and clear sound was great. A huge improvement. And then I had to return the amp

I think it is funny that a Bose product actually required an unaffordable amount of power to operate properly. The 901s are themselves a cult classic and there are rebuild kits available as people still use them.

 

[Victor ch]

They look great! Just goes to show that a good pair of speakers can last a lifetime! I'm definitely intending that my Mordaunt-Short set will last at least a good 10-20 years (barring any astonishing changes in speaker technology!).

One tip though -- get some stands and get those speakers off the floor! Think they sound good now? Get 'em up to head-height

Thanks man! One of them actually was "damaged" so I opened it and luckily found 1 cable detached so I plugged it and now works great, still very impressive how a pair of speaker much more older than me (Im 16) can sound so great. Stands? Hmm I'll definitely look for ones, although their weight might be a problem 20kg (44 USpounds) Is there really a big difference when they are much more higher? Thanks for the input.

-Victor

 

[Naimfan]

Thanks man! One of them actually was "damaged" so I opened it and luckily found 1 cable detached so I plugged it and now works great, still very impressive how a pair of speaker much more older than me (Im 16) can sound so great. Stands? Hmm I'll definitely look for ones, although their weight might be a problem 20kg (44 USpounds) Is there really a big difference when they are much more higher? Thanks for the input.

-Victor

They will sound better if you can raise them up off the floor, but don't try to get them to "head height." Just look for rigid and spiked stands that will raise them about a foot or so off the ground. Warning--good stands are not cheap. Try Target stands or Sound Organization--both are good.

The reason you want to get them off the floor is to prevent excessive bass reinforcement--try it both ways, and you'll hear that raising them a foot or so will sound a lot better!