Don't buy Bose!
A "friend" of mine who works in the industry convinced me to buy (be sold!) some Bose speakers to use as rear satellites in my HT system.
BIG mistake, these things are a joke - absolutely no midrange and that big black box is NOT a sub, you'll be lucky if it sounds decent in the 100's range!
My message to anyone is to steer well clear of Bose and others like them (Bang and Olufsen for example)
Hope I helped.
A "friend" of mine who works in the industry convinced me to buy (be sold!) some Bose speakers to use as rear satellites in my HT system.
BIG mistake, these things are a joke - absolutely no midrange and that big black box is NOT a sub, you'll be lucky if it sounds decent in the 100's range!
My message to anyone is to steer well clear of Bose and others like them (Bang and Olufsen for example)
Hope I helped.
I agree with annex666 that Bose speakers sound bad. Bose puts too much equalizing.
Some computer speaker system sounds much better than Bose. Creative Cambridge sound systems sounds good but needs some adjusting in the low end and high end. Midrange spectrum of the Cambridge sounds much better than Bose. Cambridge cost a fraction of BOSE. BOSE and Cambridge are o.k. for small rooms but it is best to have better loudspeakers for very, very serious audio listeners.
BOSE is low-fi and other surround sound packages from other companies are from mid-fi to hi-fi. To me there are other higher categoris of hi-fi such as very hi-fi, ultra hi-fi, and extremly hi-fi.🙂
The only way to find in depth information from Bose products is from a former Bose engineer. One former Bose engineer gave out plans for the acoustimass bass module to the Audio DIY sites. The Acoustimass Bass Module is consider as an 8th order bandpass box. It is designed to use "small" drivers (5.25 inch to 6.5 inch) to produce low end frequencies. Bigger diameter woofers should be pro-sound quality with low Qts, low Vas, and high Fs.
Some computer speaker system sounds much better than Bose. Creative Cambridge sound systems sounds good but needs some adjusting in the low end and high end. Midrange spectrum of the Cambridge sounds much better than Bose. Cambridge cost a fraction of BOSE. BOSE and Cambridge are o.k. for small rooms but it is best to have better loudspeakers for very, very serious audio listeners.
BOSE is low-fi and other surround sound packages from other companies are from mid-fi to hi-fi. To me there are other higher categoris of hi-fi such as very hi-fi, ultra hi-fi, and extremly hi-fi.🙂
Indeed, I've got a set of Cambridge Soundworks speakers connected to my PC and granted they're not as nice as my B&W 603-S3's they do a bloody good job comparedd to the Bose system that I once (shamefully) owned.
The Soundworks were free with my old PC (multimedia bundle type thing) and aren't bad at all for computer speakers.
The bottom line is I'd rather put the Cambridge Soundworks in my B&W based surround sound setup than the Bose at probably 10 times the cost! Now that is saying something!
The Soundworks were free with my old PC (multimedia bundle type thing) and aren't bad at all for computer speakers.
The bottom line is I'd rather put the Cambridge Soundworks in my B&W based surround sound setup than the Bose at probably 10 times the cost! Now that is saying something!
Annex, do you think B&W 603 s3 sounded better than 603 s2?
Thanks for information about Bose!
supernet
Thanks for information about Bose!
supernet
supernet said:
I've not heard the S2's although I've been told it's mainly the frequency extremes that B&W worked on - the new bass cone is a mushroom construction aluminium driver (no need for a sub in smallish rooms) and the tweeter is sourced directly from the Nautilus series (top of the range).
They are very nice speakers though - you should definately give them an audition at your local retailer.
They also integrate seemlessly with my LCR60-S3 centre due to matched drivers. I hope to get either the small 600-S3's as rears or maybe some dipoles/bipoles (yes people there is a difference) to complete my HT system some time soon.
Wow, totally unexpected. This thread is very respectful to ne one who says that they like BOSE. Thank you. Not here really to answer any questions so; Dr. BOSE also said, "If a symphony doesn't sound full and live on a BOSE system simply, don't buy it you would be wasting your money." Take this into mind. I also enjoy listening to BOSE speakers, DIY speakers and will be very open to the sound quality of other companies. Have you guys actually taken a peek more closely at the 901. hmmm...no diffraction here (sharp 90 degree angles), drivers are wired 'in-phase' like most DIY'ers would do as well. Single-full range drivers, yes no x-over to mix things up (beginners worry). Sure modulation and all that other distortion stuff, but you have to take a compromise somewhere. Also, think about it...9 drivers wired together...= Something like 6dB. boost. oh yes. Anyhoo, if you can quote Dr.BOSE on saying that specs are irrelevant to sound quality, [I don't see why not], post it. I haven't found it. Another thing, always be open. Finding the perfect speaker is just like finding the perfect girl, don't always go for Brunnets, try a blonde or a red-head and you may find a soul mate.
yes we are polite and respectful...
but don't push it... 😛
like i said, my family has a pair of 901 series 3, and these are awful speakers, both subjectively and objectively. i'm not sure you could make a positive argument about ANY aspect of this speaker's design.
in response to your points... yeah the drivers are wired in phase but they are all running the same signal and there is no crossover so why wouldn't they be? there is tons of diffraction around the cabinet, there are sharp edges, a large front baffle with recessed drivers, etc. etc. also i'm not sure what you mean by 6dB "boost" from using 9 drivers. the effective surface area of them is approximately equal to a 12" driver, which is a lot of air in the midrange and up but the resonant frequency is pretty high (probably around 100Hz) so they do not operate efficiently in the bass.
the active equalizer it requires is hideous - it completely destroys the integrity of the signal. i'd take a decent crossover over it anyday. forget about phase linearity, even if the EQ was miraculously phase-linear, it wouldn't matter because the 901 drivers are operating way out of their optimal ranges, so once they start breaking up above, oh, 5khz or so, they have no linearity anyway. plus most of them are firing backwards, so the wavelaunch is all over the place. i actually wound up listening to my dad's 901 BACKWARDS because i couldn't stand the diffuse rear-firing sound anymore. i'm not sure how Amar came up with the 11% direct - 89% reflected ratio back in the day but i don't think even he buys it anymore.
i could go on and on, but we all get the point. i don't mean to bash your opinion, just stating the facts about this horrid product. oh yeah, did i also mention it sounds awful?
but don't push it... 😛
like i said, my family has a pair of 901 series 3, and these are awful speakers, both subjectively and objectively. i'm not sure you could make a positive argument about ANY aspect of this speaker's design.
in response to your points... yeah the drivers are wired in phase but they are all running the same signal and there is no crossover so why wouldn't they be? there is tons of diffraction around the cabinet, there are sharp edges, a large front baffle with recessed drivers, etc. etc. also i'm not sure what you mean by 6dB "boost" from using 9 drivers. the effective surface area of them is approximately equal to a 12" driver, which is a lot of air in the midrange and up but the resonant frequency is pretty high (probably around 100Hz) so they do not operate efficiently in the bass.
the active equalizer it requires is hideous - it completely destroys the integrity of the signal. i'd take a decent crossover over it anyday. forget about phase linearity, even if the EQ was miraculously phase-linear, it wouldn't matter because the 901 drivers are operating way out of their optimal ranges, so once they start breaking up above, oh, 5khz or so, they have no linearity anyway. plus most of them are firing backwards, so the wavelaunch is all over the place. i actually wound up listening to my dad's 901 BACKWARDS because i couldn't stand the diffuse rear-firing sound anymore. i'm not sure how Amar came up with the 11% direct - 89% reflected ratio back in the day but i don't think even he buys it anymore.
i could go on and on, but we all get the point. i don't mean to bash your opinion, just stating the facts about this horrid product. oh yeah, did i also mention it sounds awful?
Bose(o) said:
Same with me.... I've been trying for ages looking for BOSE 901 graphical measurements (eg. freq response, waterfall plot, etc), but no luck.
Does any soul in this planet have the graphical measurements of this goodie 901, and willing to post it here?
I think we're probably tired of describing BOSE sound quality. Don't we all discuss it in a thread started by Bose(o) back then? I think a single, ...., yes, a SINGLE graph measurement would be a relief for us.
Cheers,
Sianturi:
You are probably never going to get a frequency response measurement for the Bose 901's because the whole idea is to have most of the drivers firing off into different directions against the back wall or corner. More than any other design, the response will depend on how far the speaker is from the wall, etc.
Also, the high ranges need equalization. So I guess you would have to measure both with and without equalization.
I read a little bit about the design of the 901's in an audio book published in the seventies. The author clearly regarded Bose as a pioneer.
Theoretically, the ideal loudspeaker would be a pulsating sphere. Even in the Encylopedia Britannica, they say this. So there must be general agreement on this concept. I am not so sure an omnidirectional pulsating sphere would work so well in a real-world room, but the physicists say the pulsaitng sphere is ideal. I'm not arguing-I'm just a hobbyist.
To duplicate this concept as much as possible with cone drivers, Amar Bose originally built a sphere with 4" cone drivers over the entire surface, firing in all directions. He said the sound was terrible.
So, he went to work with the MIT computers, and came up with the shape of the 901's. They are designed to approximate the output of either a sphere or a half sphere in a room, I forget which. The design is claimed to take into account the centers of the 4" drivers, average sound pressure in various fields, etc. That is why the design is curved, but not quite spherical.
Just as a horn guides the sound of a small driver so it emerges as the sound of a large panel, the theory is that a spherical wave front bouncing off a wall will give a large, open source for the music. Also, Bose frequently claims that most of the music you hear in concert halls is reflected off the walls, so a loudspeaker should do the same thing.
I am not defending Bose, just relaying what the design goals of his system are.
You are probably never going to get a frequency response measurement for the Bose 901's because the whole idea is to have most of the drivers firing off into different directions against the back wall or corner. More than any other design, the response will depend on how far the speaker is from the wall, etc.
Also, the high ranges need equalization. So I guess you would have to measure both with and without equalization.
I read a little bit about the design of the 901's in an audio book published in the seventies. The author clearly regarded Bose as a pioneer.
Theoretically, the ideal loudspeaker would be a pulsating sphere. Even in the Encylopedia Britannica, they say this. So there must be general agreement on this concept. I am not so sure an omnidirectional pulsating sphere would work so well in a real-world room, but the physicists say the pulsaitng sphere is ideal. I'm not arguing-I'm just a hobbyist.
To duplicate this concept as much as possible with cone drivers, Amar Bose originally built a sphere with 4" cone drivers over the entire surface, firing in all directions. He said the sound was terrible.
So, he went to work with the MIT computers, and came up with the shape of the 901's. They are designed to approximate the output of either a sphere or a half sphere in a room, I forget which. The design is claimed to take into account the centers of the 4" drivers, average sound pressure in various fields, etc. That is why the design is curved, but not quite spherical.
Just as a horn guides the sound of a small driver so it emerges as the sound of a large panel, the theory is that a spherical wave front bouncing off a wall will give a large, open source for the music. Also, Bose frequently claims that most of the music you hear in concert halls is reflected off the walls, so a loudspeaker should do the same thing.
I am not defending Bose, just relaying what the design goals of his system are.
I would repeat a criticism of the argument that most sound heard at a symphony hall is reflected sound. This rebuttal has been said before on this forum by others, as well as by audio writers. It is this: reflections off walls change the nature of the sound in terms of frequency response, phase, etc. Symphony halls are carefully designed to make these changes in the sound beneficial. Audiences have come to regard the sound of an orchestra in a well designed hall as being what the sound of music should be.
The goal of the loudspeaker should be to take the symphony hall's beneficial reflections and relay them directly to the listener-not to add the listening rooms reflections on top of that. Anything the recording microphone picks up is The Source. Trained professionals are hired to make sure The Source sounds the way it should. The purpose of a music system is to reproduce The Source as faithfully as possible, not to add another level of reflections on top of it.
I will give Bose credit for one thing. There is a lot of interest lately in the full range concept. The more a speaker must move back and forth, the more distortion frequencies are synthesized. These are actually frequencies not on the music, and they are never harmonically related to the music. When high enough, they give the fuzzy sound of an overdriven guitar amp.
By putting nine 4 inch drivers and arranging them so they don't interfere with each other the way an straight array would, Bose has come up with an interesting way to give 1-way sound while holding down the intermodualtion distortion inherent in 1-way design.
Whether he was successful in achieving this is another matter. At least the approach would seem to have merit.
The goal of the loudspeaker should be to take the symphony hall's beneficial reflections and relay them directly to the listener-not to add the listening rooms reflections on top of that. Anything the recording microphone picks up is The Source. Trained professionals are hired to make sure The Source sounds the way it should. The purpose of a music system is to reproduce The Source as faithfully as possible, not to add another level of reflections on top of it.
I will give Bose credit for one thing. There is a lot of interest lately in the full range concept. The more a speaker must move back and forth, the more distortion frequencies are synthesized. These are actually frequencies not on the music, and they are never harmonically related to the music. When high enough, they give the fuzzy sound of an overdriven guitar amp.
By putting nine 4 inch drivers and arranging them so they don't interfere with each other the way an straight array would, Bose has come up with an interesting way to give 1-way sound while holding down the intermodualtion distortion inherent in 1-way design.
Whether he was successful in achieving this is another matter. At least the approach would seem to have merit.
i think Bose really did make an honest attempt at a "revolutionary" speaker with his original 901 design. he clearly had a lot of interesting ideas, along with some unique intepretations of the physics behind sound. the problem is what he's done since then. the 901 was revolutionary back in the 70's, but it pretty much has remained unchanged since then. the design has not evolved meaningfully, rather Bose has taken the route of mass-marketting and gimmicks. i think that is what ticks off 'philes most about Bose. if it just sucked like Cerwin Vega but they kept their mouths shut about it we wouldn't care - you don't see people getting all riled up over Cerwin Vega. but the shroud of BS that surrounds Bose products is reprehensible to most of us. then people who don't know better irritate us even more by saying "bose is the best!" anyway i've gone down this road so many times and don't mean to get worked up again, just wanted to point out that it's a lot more than the speakers which bother us, we have a fundamental philosophical difference here. 😛
The Marketing Department
I think that most of us more experienced audiophiles will agree that Bose are a cheap turd dressed in the Emperors clothing.
However I have heard Bose gear to work very acceptably in many domestic and pro situations.
901's are not precise nor clinical, but they do satisfy many peoples' home listening requirements.
Ditto other Bose models, especially older model 301's and Studiocrafts of the time.
A pair of 402 Subs, four 802's and bi-amped Amcron amplifiers can do a damm good job in a party DJ application IME.
The Bose idea of using small (4") FR drivers helps to ensure lack of HF nasties at reasonably high SPL.
In other models, I actually agree with the Bose idea of sticking with cheap cone tweeters for domestic applications.
They are not clean, but their characteristics do suit an overdriven and underpowered amplifier as is quite normal for many family domestic situations, including party events.
Rigorously, Bose Corporation is an interesting study of the mix of technology, manufacturing, distribution and marketing, and indeed through this have become a worldwide household term.
An infomed look inside the cabinet of many highly regarded loudspeakers will reveal them to be little more than than what Bose are doing.
The influence of import duties, transport costs, exchange rates, distributor markup and retailer markup and advertising costs result in the final value for money equation.
The Bose product whilst not outstanding in sonic terms is very acceptable to many users.
The acceptance of the Bose brand name is a product of marketing, just like Coca Cola.
Eric.
I think that most of us more experienced audiophiles will agree that Bose are a cheap turd dressed in the Emperors clothing.
However I have heard Bose gear to work very acceptably in many domestic and pro situations.
901's are not precise nor clinical, but they do satisfy many peoples' home listening requirements.
Ditto other Bose models, especially older model 301's and Studiocrafts of the time.
A pair of 402 Subs, four 802's and bi-amped Amcron amplifiers can do a damm good job in a party DJ application IME.
The Bose idea of using small (4") FR drivers helps to ensure lack of HF nasties at reasonably high SPL.
In other models, I actually agree with the Bose idea of sticking with cheap cone tweeters for domestic applications.
They are not clean, but their characteristics do suit an overdriven and underpowered amplifier as is quite normal for many family domestic situations, including party events.
Rigorously, Bose Corporation is an interesting study of the mix of technology, manufacturing, distribution and marketing, and indeed through this have become a worldwide household term.
An infomed look inside the cabinet of many highly regarded loudspeakers will reveal them to be little more than than what Bose are doing.
The influence of import duties, transport costs, exchange rates, distributor markup and retailer markup and advertising costs result in the final value for money equation.
The Bose product whilst not outstanding in sonic terms is very acceptable to many users.
The acceptance of the Bose brand name is a product of marketing, just like Coca Cola.
Eric.
Re: The Marketing Department
or Sony, to some degree, though Sony has in large part earned its reputation rightfully. although they do make some lemons a lot of their stuff is still the best in their respective markets.
very good points about the mass-market "engineering" of Bose speakers. to a great degree I think people think they sound good because they work well w/the components they use, usually mass-fi receivers and CD players which sound very thin and harsh. the boomy mid-bass and rolled-off treble of their products compensates nicely for bad electronics to untrained ears. i guess you can't really fault Bose for giving many people what they seem to want, or what they regard as "good" sound. i don't mean this condescendingly either, a lot of non-audiophiles sincerely enjoy and appreciate music a hell of a lot more than many audiophiles despite their "inferior" stereo systems.
mrfeedback said:
or Sony, to some degree, though Sony has in large part earned its reputation rightfully. although they do make some lemons a lot of their stuff is still the best in their respective markets.
very good points about the mass-market "engineering" of Bose speakers. to a great degree I think people think they sound good because they work well w/the components they use, usually mass-fi receivers and CD players which sound very thin and harsh. the boomy mid-bass and rolled-off treble of their products compensates nicely for bad electronics to untrained ears. i guess you can't really fault Bose for giving many people what they seem to want, or what they regard as "good" sound. i don't mean this condescendingly either, a lot of non-audiophiles sincerely enjoy and appreciate music a hell of a lot more than many audiophiles despite their "inferior" stereo systems.
The System Does Not Matter
Yeah, I had a customer walk in the other day with the cheapest and rottenest 3in1 that you can think of for repair.
In our conversation at my shop counter she revealed that she loves country and western music, and that hers is a fantastic system.
Some people exclusively listen to the music and not the system.
Eric.
Yeah, I had a customer walk in the other day with the cheapest and rottenest 3in1 that you can think of for repair.
In our conversation at my shop counter she revealed that she loves country and western music, and that hers is a fantastic system.
Some people exclusively listen to the music and not the system.
Eric.
Eric,
That was a very good post. Very open minded explanation (except for the "turd" remark) of the many factors that affect a product in todays market. Kudos.😉
I had a roommate that had quad 601's in the early 70's. Greatest thing sinced sliced bread, I thought at the time. Then when I really started searching for the "best sound", I heard a pair of 901's get trashed by a pair of the early 2-way Spendors. But, as you pointout, I later heard a pro system at a local jazz bar that sounded very good.😕 I don't know the model, but they looked like the 901's in pro garb facing backwards. There surely were better drivers in these speakers, but I never pursued it.
In any case, I would never buy a set of Bose speakers for the reasons repeated so many time in this thread.
Horns make me happy.😀
Rodd Yamas***a
That was a very good post. Very open minded explanation (except for the "turd" remark) of the many factors that affect a product in todays market. Kudos.😉
I had a roommate that had quad 601's in the early 70's. Greatest thing sinced sliced bread, I thought at the time. Then when I really started searching for the "best sound", I heard a pair of 901's get trashed by a pair of the early 2-way Spendors. But, as you pointout, I later heard a pro system at a local jazz bar that sounded very good.😕 I don't know the model, but they looked like the 901's in pro garb facing backwards. There surely were better drivers in these speakers, but I never pursued it.
In any case, I would never buy a set of Bose speakers for the reasons repeated so many time in this thread.
Horns make me happy.😀
Rodd Yamas***a
I think I remember reading he went outside after being disappointed and noticed the diffused sound through the door actually sounded better (Direct/Reflecting Sound).
- Status
- Not open for further replies.