To quote a rapper from the early '80's - "The bigger the speakers the bigger the sound." You can't state Hoffman's iron law any more simply or clearly than that. Bose speakers do not sound "big" once you've gotten used to real bass (and clear flat response).
I too started building my own gear because of being fed up with the typical club sound. Big difference between the typical boomy chest thump sound that muddies up the entire low midrange, and the gusty, shuddering low end that you feel inside your head more than anything else - and shakes the entire concrete foundation, without seeming overly loud. You want that kind of bass you've just got to be willing to lug some big boxes.
Or have big ones in your living room, if you're just doing this at home.
I'd have to sort of agree with you. However, there are some subwoofers with very low Q and very high xmax (I think I saw 60 mm claimed once
) coupled to powerful motors that would certainly shake the foundation if driven with many hundreds of watts. I built a pair of very large speakers when I was in high school. 15" woofers in 6 cubic foot enclosures made for the most effortless high volume sound reproduction I've ever heard. 95 dB/watt helped.
My present speakers are small and use a hard wired line level equalizer to correct the Q. They play loud with very low distortion and decent extension, but the tradeoff is that with equalization the effective efficiency is about 82 dB/watt. The woofers have generous xmax (8+mm) and magnetic shorting rings.
There's no free lunch.
I wondered why there didn't seem to be published response curves for the old 901
so measured my 901 Series I outdoors - front driver facing mic - then turned it around
so the 8 rear drivers were facing the mic - then put it near a house wall to get some reflected output from the rear drivers
no EQ
EQ box alone
PWK's side-bands illustration
so measured my 901 Series I outdoors - front driver facing mic - then turned it around
so the 8 rear drivers were facing the mic - then put it near a house wall to get some reflected output from the rear drivers
no EQ
EQ box alone
PWK's side-bands illustration
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I think audiophiles hate Bose because when they meet people in daylife, they`d often mention them as good sounding and this becomes annoying. Bose is about anywhere so many have heard it and believe it is super good, when it isn`t but the mass follows the salesman and the salesman makes the most out of low cost queezed products. I have to say for the quality of parts used, Bose do really well and not many can do that. You can grab off the shelf EUR100 drivers and build something that will sound good but doing the same with units that would cost EUR20 per kilogram is a different story. Most of the mass brands like Harman, Bose and so on have really good engineering units in my opinion, far more advanced than 99.9% of the diy-ers even with decades of experience.
I 'hate' Bose simply because it sounds odd.
I've listened to 901s in a movie theatre and the sound didn't present as natural. Those little boxes (fit in the hand) with the bass boxes are much loved by architectural types who say it is fantastic, but all I hear is gluggy bass and overly pronounced mid-range. (He was very competitive at golf too, where I'm not, but I wouldn't let him beat me that day. Played my best ever round to wipe the smile off his smug face.)
The best of the brand I've heard were 301s years ago but I wasn't very discerning those years ago either. I don't remember ever hearing Bose in a back-to-back comparison either; possibly (probably) fear of being compared to half-decent speakers.
I've listened to 901s in a movie theatre and the sound didn't present as natural. Those little boxes (fit in the hand) with the bass boxes are much loved by architectural types who say it is fantastic, but all I hear is gluggy bass and overly pronounced mid-range. (He was very competitive at golf too, where I'm not, but I wouldn't let him beat me that day. Played my best ever round to wipe the smile off his smug face.)
The best of the brand I've heard were 301s years ago but I wasn't very discerning those years ago either. I don't remember ever hearing Bose in a back-to-back comparison either; possibly (probably) fear of being compared to half-decent speakers.
The past practices of Dr Bose's company have put them on my "never again" list (even though there was never a first).
Apparently they finally have good noise-cancelling headphones. Still wouldn't buy them if they were the best on Earth.
Why? Suing reviewers and publishers who dare post bad reviews, taking taxpayer's money to develop their noise-cancelling technology (via a USAF contract where they delivered product that was "unusable" *, and using that cost-plus contract revenue to actually investigate noise-cancelling) and marketing bad products to gullible people who deserve better for decades. I'm supposed to forgive them all of a sudden? I think not.
Besides, BOSE doesn't need my money ... they sell more HiFi than almost any brand in existence (more than $3 Billion/yr, close to $4B lately), and since Dr Bose was a cheapskate (he revised his 901 drivers to mount with three screws, down from the four that were used in the speaker patent and prototypes he bought to start his company) they make huge profit margins on those sales (which, as a privately held corporation, they don't have to disclose). So they can buy more customers via application (a quote about the company from years past) of the "triumph of marketing over substance".
It simply is not the kind of company behaviour I want to reward with my money.
Someone mentioned the BOSE 301. Probably their finest loudspeaker product, actually.
* The USAF actually went to court to cancel the remainder of the contract, apparently a first.
Apparently they finally have good noise-cancelling headphones. Still wouldn't buy them if they were the best on Earth.
Why? Suing reviewers and publishers who dare post bad reviews, taking taxpayer's money to develop their noise-cancelling technology (via a USAF contract where they delivered product that was "unusable" *, and using that cost-plus contract revenue to actually investigate noise-cancelling) and marketing bad products to gullible people who deserve better for decades. I'm supposed to forgive them all of a sudden? I think not.
Besides, BOSE doesn't need my money ... they sell more HiFi than almost any brand in existence (more than $3 Billion/yr, close to $4B lately), and since Dr Bose was a cheapskate (he revised his 901 drivers to mount with three screws, down from the four that were used in the speaker patent and prototypes he bought to start his company) they make huge profit margins on those sales (which, as a privately held corporation, they don't have to disclose). So they can buy more customers via application (a quote about the company from years past) of the "triumph of marketing over substance".
It simply is not the kind of company behaviour I want to reward with my money.
Someone mentioned the BOSE 301. Probably their finest loudspeaker product, actually.
* The USAF actually went to court to cancel the remainder of the contract, apparently a first.
Last edited:
If you look at the spl correction curves, it is obvious that there is a lot of low efficiency in the low and high frequencies. Given that distortion is inversely proportional to efficiency, they distort badly at low and high frequency. This is a bad design from the "get -go".
You can not build a silk purse from a sou's ear.
You can not build a silk purse from a sou's ear.
I don't hate BOSE in my wife's car. But I hate when they brainwash my potential customers imposing on them artificial concepts "how it should be done".
Funny, but here is one review on my FB page:
"Better than Bose! Extremely natural, deep, and immersive sound for Hi-Fi recorded music, voice, and acoustic instruments. Thank you for the live outdoor demo!"
Funny, but here is one review on my FB page:
"Better than Bose! Extremely natural, deep, and immersive sound for Hi-Fi recorded music, voice, and acoustic instruments. Thank you for the live outdoor demo!"
Last edited:
I don't hate Bose, only recognize they are better at marketing than actual performance. Have been so since 70s. But then I'm not a purist audiophile. ( I know some who think I'm deluded.) Over time I've heard the best and the worst. The best were either Dahlquist or Klipse "La Sal" concert speakers. Various amps from Mcintosh to homebuilts, Marantz SL12 tangental turn table, various Nakamichi tape decks etc. At same time I can be quite content with a "very good" system. I have listened to and enjoyed an mp3 player. Not my preference, but good enough for the moment.
Bose made "good enough for the moment" equipment.
Doc
Bose made "good enough for the moment" equipment.
Doc
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.