I have people at work thinking Bose is the world but how do I tell them all this technical stuff. They don't even understand the concept of good sound.
The best part is that they are amazed at the Bose HT speakers. They think those tiny satellites are producing all that thundering sound and go ga-ga over it. What they don't realise is there is a sub which is doing all the LFE work. Good Lord, what is happening to this world?
Vivek
The best part is that they are amazed at the Bose HT speakers. They think those tiny satellites are producing all that thundering sound and go ga-ga over it. What they don't realise is there is a sub which is doing all the LFE work. Good Lord, what is happening to this world?
Vivek
"Has anybody actually had a bose system before, but once you 'got more educated' in audio, you pitched it? Personally the only bose i've had was the bose system in my Nissan and Chevy."
Yes. Around 1991 I needed avery compact stereo(i.e., 2 channel) due to space limitations of where I was living. The "Lifestyle" tuner/CDP/preamp unit plus a powered 3 piece speaker system served that purpose well. (notice I didn't say anything about sound quality). I sold the speaker system a while back when space became less of an issue. These were replaced by a pair of mid 80's KEFs ( similar in size to Smaller Advents but seemed, at the time, to sound a bit better) powered by a 50w/ch version of the Sloan 11.4 that I built. The results are much nicer. If I had to use adjectives I would say "fuller and smoother". This seems to be borne out by my Audio Control RTA. The one superiority of the Bose was that the two small speakers could provide very good imaging when pulled out from the walls. However, I think this is a characteristic of nearly all small sattellites. The biggest weakness was that the bass (the may have mis-named it a subwoofer - but no way!) unit had to extend so far up the spectrum to match the itty-bitty "main speakers" that it could become directional depending on source content.
I kept the the tuner/CDP/preamp because it isn't all that bad as a bedroom system now that it is connected to a good amp and speakers. The ergonomics are actually very good - the size is very compact, it looks nice and Bose equipeed it with my favorite remote control unit. The RC unit uses a short range FM sighnal rather than IR so you don't need to point it at the unit being controled. This is so superior to all the IR units that I guess they must have a patent - that's the only reason I can think off why anyone still makes IR units.
When I run out of other things to do I'll open up the "Lifestyle" to see if there is any prospect of improvement. Probably just to see if I can figure out where the output caps are. Schematics and service docs seem to exist only in a parralel universe that mortals can't access! I made an inquiry once and they suggested I upgrade to a less obsolete unit! Sure!
Yes. Around 1991 I needed avery compact stereo(i.e., 2 channel) due to space limitations of where I was living. The "Lifestyle" tuner/CDP/preamp unit plus a powered 3 piece speaker system served that purpose well. (notice I didn't say anything about sound quality). I sold the speaker system a while back when space became less of an issue. These were replaced by a pair of mid 80's KEFs ( similar in size to Smaller Advents but seemed, at the time, to sound a bit better) powered by a 50w/ch version of the Sloan 11.4 that I built. The results are much nicer. If I had to use adjectives I would say "fuller and smoother". This seems to be borne out by my Audio Control RTA. The one superiority of the Bose was that the two small speakers could provide very good imaging when pulled out from the walls. However, I think this is a characteristic of nearly all small sattellites. The biggest weakness was that the bass (the may have mis-named it a subwoofer - but no way!) unit had to extend so far up the spectrum to match the itty-bitty "main speakers" that it could become directional depending on source content.
I kept the the tuner/CDP/preamp because it isn't all that bad as a bedroom system now that it is connected to a good amp and speakers. The ergonomics are actually very good - the size is very compact, it looks nice and Bose equipeed it with my favorite remote control unit. The RC unit uses a short range FM sighnal rather than IR so you don't need to point it at the unit being controled. This is so superior to all the IR units that I guess they must have a patent - that's the only reason I can think off why anyone still makes IR units.
When I run out of other things to do I'll open up the "Lifestyle" to see if there is any prospect of improvement. Probably just to see if I can figure out where the output caps are. Schematics and service docs seem to exist only in a parralel universe that mortals can't access! I made an inquiry once and they suggested I upgrade to a less obsolete unit! Sure!
Many people don't want "accurate" sound. If this were not the case then 95%of htw world's audio market would not be in existence. People want "dynamic", "fat", "exciting" but, as the old saying goes, "don't let the facts get in the wau fo a good story", that is to say, a ruler flat response is of no interest to the majority of consumers (and may even sound quite alien to them).
Bose is consumer electronics, lifestyle electronics which is very expensive but features all the wizz-bang stuff that the great majority of buyers want.
There is no point in argueing with them, in the same way that there is no point in argueing a point of view with with someone who simply doesn't care!!!
In Australia, 50% of the market is owned by Bose. This is a fact of life.
The only valid arguement you can put up against Bose is it's business ethics as people can relate to this.
Just don't waste your energy trying to create a convert of those who won't listen to you
(There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see in the words of a wise man)
Bose is consumer electronics, lifestyle electronics which is very expensive but features all the wizz-bang stuff that the great majority of buyers want.
There is no point in argueing with them, in the same way that there is no point in argueing a point of view with with someone who simply doesn't care!!!
In Australia, 50% of the market is owned by Bose. This is a fact of life.
The only valid arguement you can put up against Bose is it's business ethics as people can relate to this.
Just don't waste your energy trying to create a convert of those who won't listen to you
(There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see in the words of a wise man)
eRiCdWoNg said:
I've owned 301's, my friend had the 901's and two friends (ex-friends now) currently own their HT set-ups. The 301's were fine for a bedroon, the 901's were great at party time and the HT, well they sound like absolute _______(fill in apprpriate expletive) and cost the same as a big truck load of beer.
madinoz said:
I'm a perfect example of that. I build units for me that have a response curve that looks like the old 10 band EQ in a "U" shape. Heavy on the woof and heavy on the tweet. That's what my ol' ears need to make them happy. Ruler flat sounds just that: Flat, ordinary, lifeless and boring.
Right, you may as well ask them to switch political parties. Besides, it doesn't really matter what you think of their stuff. Heck, if opinions mattered, companies like Hyundai wouild be outta business.
Cal
901's sound fine for many purposes, and their design can make them sound really impressive compared to other speakers. I have seen measurements of them which showed a rolloff above 10k and below about 50 and many comb filter dips in between. The general trend of the measurement was actually quite flat. Measurement of a speaker of this nature is obviously very dependant on the measurement conditions and should be taken with a grain of salt....
I think they sound OK, if excessively spacious on some material - but on much rock and roll material they sound really nice. Their bass is perhaps a bit overstated in the rooms I have listened to them in - they do very little below ~35Hz, though.
I have seen measurements of the 401 and they were also quite flat, with the exception of a peak in the ~1.5kHz range.
I remember listening to U2/Cure/Smiths/Morissey playing on 301's and drinking beer with a friend back about 15 years ago - they were pleasant enough to listen to and the little bass bump made the songs sound punchy. The perhaps slightly rolled off highs made the sound very unfatiguing.
The worst product Bose has that I have heard is the one with the little cubes - the little cubes themselves don't sound all that bad, except for the very top end which is a bit peaky, but the bass has a hole in the upper bass and there is very little output capability... That said, they are good for background music and they don't take a lot of space, which is all most nonaudiophiles want.
Give the Bose buyers a break. Sound and music are personal experiences and making fun of someones' choice of speaker is like making fun of their choice of music - not likely to get you anywhere.
I think they sound OK, if excessively spacious on some material - but on much rock and roll material they sound really nice. Their bass is perhaps a bit overstated in the rooms I have listened to them in - they do very little below ~35Hz, though.
I have seen measurements of the 401 and they were also quite flat, with the exception of a peak in the ~1.5kHz range.
I remember listening to U2/Cure/Smiths/Morissey playing on 301's and drinking beer with a friend back about 15 years ago - they were pleasant enough to listen to and the little bass bump made the songs sound punchy. The perhaps slightly rolled off highs made the sound very unfatiguing.
The worst product Bose has that I have heard is the one with the little cubes - the little cubes themselves don't sound all that bad, except for the very top end which is a bit peaky, but the bass has a hole in the upper bass and there is very little output capability... That said, they are good for background music and they don't take a lot of space, which is all most nonaudiophiles want.
Give the Bose buyers a break. Sound and music are personal experiences and making fun of someones' choice of speaker is like making fun of their choice of music - not likely to get you anywhere.
Ron E said:
I'm with you on this one Ron. If it weren't for tastes and experiences, there would be only one brand and model of speaker available.
I learned this years ago when I was selling home audio. I pitted a pair of Bose against a pair of Mirage speakers for a customer and no matter how much I pointed out the bloated flabby mid bass, the lack of extension, dynamics and other flaws to him, he simply came back saying "I like the sound of them better".
He ended up walking out of the store with the Bose - leaving me scratching my head. After that, I stopped trying to sell through expression and just 'sold'...
Mark
Originally posted by hooha
If it weren't for tastes and experiences, there would be only one brand and model of speaker available.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
quite true...
most likely the bose 'x01'
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
probably not this one...
http://www.ibi.co.jp/belle/belle_images/sp_gazou.jpg
If it weren't for tastes and experiences, there would be only one brand and model of speaker available.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
quite true...
most likely the bose 'x01'
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
probably not this one...
http://www.ibi.co.jp/belle/belle_images/sp_gazou.jpg
hunter audio said:
as you read this bose is getting a forced enema regarding the military 'technology' they supplied. Give him props for milking the US airforce but it appears they got a little wise to the fact that 'it doesnt work as advertised'. Popular Mechanics and Janes both had blurbs about it. SOme high up muckitty mucks are a bit perturbed about all the complaints. Air Canada is making a deal with Senhiser (sp?) or Sony i dont remember which to replace the noise cancellation head phones (bose) .
Originally posted by hunter audio
instead of being proud i can only take lessons from his marketing policy - ( this strictly is restricted to his speaker company and profit margins) -(yet his spks are ????????)
suranjan das gupta
transducer design engineer
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
quite right...
the true value in the bose corp. may very well lie in the registered trade filings
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
on one bose ad for the wave (tm) radio there were more than 50 circle r's
instead of being proud i can only take lessons from his marketing policy - ( this strictly is restricted to his speaker company and profit margins) -(yet his spks are ????????)
suranjan das gupta
transducer design engineer
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
quite right...
the true value in the bose corp. may very well lie in the registered trade filings
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
on one bose ad for the wave (tm) radio there were more than 50 circle r's
hunter audio said:
trademarks are not about technical improvements, they are there to help the customer identify the source of a product. Even if my name was Bose, I couldn't market anything electronic under that name without the possibility of deceiving customers, so the Bose (R) trademark protects that.
Patents are where the technical advances are usually found (although there is a design patent that protects the way something looks) Don't get me started on whether many Bose patents represent advances in the art of speaker design or in wording patent applications to sound like they have invented something.
BobEllis said:
Patents are where the technical advances are usually found (although there is a design patent that protects the way something looks) Don't get me started on whether many Bose patents represent advances in the art of speaker design or in wording patent applications to sound like they have invented something.
Only if you feel you want to invalidate any one of them.
Which somebody would have tempted if it were useful. I get questionable looks from my patent attorney every time I try to file somthing, and they probably feel funny when it gets approved when in the beginning they had doubts. Patents are really reviewed more strictly if they are considered a NEW INVENTION now.
It's only useful to invalidate a patent if you get accused of violating it. then it an EXPENSIVE proposition. This is where the Bose "800 pound gorilla" has an advantage - they can afford to spend several $100K in a patent fight to kill a small would be competitor without noticeably impacting their bottom line. A Harmon v. Bose fight might be interesting, though.
Patents are supposed to be for NEW INVENTIONS - meaning anything from a useful improvement to something up to creating something that never existed. You're not supposed to be able to patent the "prior art" (I feel some of Bose's patents are just that, but they are not the only ones who have done it)
Rather than funny, your lawyers probably feel "Boy, am I good or what!" when a patent is awarded for something that they thought wasn't really enough of an invention to patent. This is not to belittle your creativity in the slightest, but at least in the US an invention must not be an "obvious" development on the prior art. Obvious is subject to interpretation, of course.
Patents are supposed to be for NEW INVENTIONS - meaning anything from a useful improvement to something up to creating something that never existed. You're not supposed to be able to patent the "prior art" (I feel some of Bose's patents are just that, but they are not the only ones who have done it)
Rather than funny, your lawyers probably feel "Boy, am I good or what!" when a patent is awarded for something that they thought wasn't really enough of an invention to patent. This is not to belittle your creativity in the slightest, but at least in the US an invention must not be an "obvious" development on the prior art. Obvious is subject to interpretation, of course.
A Bose Flame?...I'm In!!
Ok, first I have to say that my definition of a quality system, is one that gives the owner pleasure.
That said..."No highs, no lows, it must be Bose"
Omar Bose is a freakin' marketing genuis..ever see a Bose rep plug a 901 directly into the wall outlet..I have. And I have to say I believed the rep when he said they couldn't be overpowered.
Ever take a tape measure to an authorized Bose showroom...I have. The shop I worked at in the 80's was originally a bose shop. The room was built asymetrically. Not enough to notice by eye, but out of square..no standing waves. The back wall (were the 901's were hung) was built with a stack of oak 2x4's forming a 4' thick solid oak wall!! Not exactly what the average doop..er..customer would have at home.
Ever look inside a Bose 501 ($700 pr in '81)...I have. There is a reason the grills aren't removable. Contsructed out of 1/2" chipboard (not mdf) 8" crap paper woofer, 2" crap paper tweeter wired with 24ga solid bell wire with a flippen 12 volt light bulb in series with the afore mentioned tweeter to limit power (pretty clever). I am still amazed the sounded as good as they did (marginal at best) considering how little was invested in there construction.
To this day when someone starts telling me how good there Bose system is, I feel my chheks clinch.
Wheww...feel better now.
Ok, first I have to say that my definition of a quality system, is one that gives the owner pleasure.
That said..."No highs, no lows, it must be Bose"
Omar Bose is a freakin' marketing genuis..ever see a Bose rep plug a 901 directly into the wall outlet..I have. And I have to say I believed the rep when he said they couldn't be overpowered.
Ever take a tape measure to an authorized Bose showroom...I have. The shop I worked at in the 80's was originally a bose shop. The room was built asymetrically. Not enough to notice by eye, but out of square..no standing waves. The back wall (were the 901's were hung) was built with a stack of oak 2x4's forming a 4' thick solid oak wall!! Not exactly what the average doop..er..customer would have at home.
Ever look inside a Bose 501 ($700 pr in '81)...I have. There is a reason the grills aren't removable. Contsructed out of 1/2" chipboard (not mdf) 8" crap paper woofer, 2" crap paper tweeter wired with 24ga solid bell wire with a flippen 12 volt light bulb in series with the afore mentioned tweeter to limit power (pretty clever). I am still amazed the sounded as good as they did (marginal at best) considering how little was invested in there construction.
To this day when someone starts telling me how good there Bose system is, I feel my chheks clinch.
Wheww...feel better now.
There is something dynamic albeit inaccurate about multi driver systems, especially those in a vertical arrays. They make the whole room sing....
The 901's have been very endearing, how many speaker system can boast a 30-40 year old basic design that is still in production... I know we all love to bash em but really how many...
I initially got the 901's because of the hype... didnt care for them too much after installing in my music system, but before selling them off, installed them in my HT system as surrounds. They are mounted on the ceiling with 8 drivers facing the ground. I must say they sound pretty good in this application where the mid bass/ mid and mid treble is more of concern....
I left them in that application; but nearly sold them once I heard Steven Spielberg uses them in his home as surrounds as well...
Don't really care for any of their other overpriced models...
The 901's have been very endearing, how many speaker system can boast a 30-40 year old basic design that is still in production... I know we all love to bash em but really how many...
I initially got the 901's because of the hype... didnt care for them too much after installing in my music system, but before selling them off, installed them in my HT system as surrounds. They are mounted on the ceiling with 8 drivers facing the ground. I must say they sound pretty good in this application where the mid bass/ mid and mid treble is more of concern....
I left them in that application; but nearly sold them once I heard Steven Spielberg uses them in his home as surrounds as well...
Don't really care for any of their other overpriced models...
First, I'm not a Bose fan. Second, I agree that it seems that what one is paying for is something other than sonic quality.
However, I can' jump on the shoddy material band wagon. For example: a series 12V light bulb used as a resistive element is no original with Bose and is raises few eyebrows when used in Wien bridge oscillator; some excellent loudspeakers have been constructed from fibre (paper) cones; chipboard vs. MDF may be dubious but without an analysis of the resonances in the particular case they are plausibly acceptable.
On the otherhand, I recently disassembled the powered subwoofer from one of their sat-sub systems and found the build quality of the amp to look very good. Better than I've seen in some "audiophile approved" gear though nothing like the lily-gilding in high-end exotica. No comments on the circuit itself.
I strongly suspect that for a large part of the buying public, flat frequency response, low noise and distortion reproduction sounds a lboring. I further suspect Bose has figured out which anomolies "sound good" to the public at large and direct their design efforts to accomodate.
However, I can' jump on the shoddy material band wagon. For example: a series 12V light bulb used as a resistive element is no original with Bose and is raises few eyebrows when used in Wien bridge oscillator; some excellent loudspeakers have been constructed from fibre (paper) cones; chipboard vs. MDF may be dubious but without an analysis of the resonances in the particular case they are plausibly acceptable.
On the otherhand, I recently disassembled the powered subwoofer from one of their sat-sub systems and found the build quality of the amp to look very good. Better than I've seen in some "audiophile approved" gear though nothing like the lily-gilding in high-end exotica. No comments on the circuit itself.
I strongly suspect that for a large part of the buying public, flat frequency response, low noise and distortion reproduction sounds a lboring. I further suspect Bose has figured out which anomolies "sound good" to the public at large and direct their design efforts to accomodate.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.