bose pro ?

[q]

I do not intend to start a flame war - as currently in
alt.home-theatre.misc and elsewhere. I know the cheap quality of Bose
consumer stuff, but I do run into Bose pro stuff in churches, clubs and
auditoriums. Never anywhere where I can actually hear the system sound like
more than a cheap PA. Boses web site says nothing about their pro stuff,
except that it is exceptional and to contach them. What is the consensus on
Bose pro? Anyway it stands up to M&K, etc???

[[email protected]]

q > wrote:
> I do not intend to start a flame war - as currently in
> alt.home-theatre.misc and elsewhere. I know the cheap quality of Bose
> consumer stuff, but I do run into Bose pro stuff in churches, clubs and
> auditoriums. Never anywhere where I can actually hear the system sound like
> more than a cheap PA. Boses web site says nothing about their pro stuff,
> except that it is exceptional and to contach them. What is the consensus on
> Bose pro? Anyway it stands up to M&K, etc???

To start the flame war:

Bose pro stuff is exceptional all right: Exceptionally poor!

A local dance studio supposedly "upgraded" by replacing
their previous so-so sound system with Bose. They also
got a portable system which used Bose speakers (don't
know if the whole thing was made by Bose or not).

MAJOR SH!T I absolutely could NOT believe how BAD this
equipment sounded! The bass was basically one note and
so boomy that often you couldn't even hear the beat to
dance to! A major step down from the previous "cheap"
system. And Bose wasn't cheap.

I swear Bose has always been about Hype rather than
quality, but this latest round of stuff seems to
be especially bad.

Benj
(Who notes that Bose is a good way to lighten your wallet
if that is your problem)

--
SPAM-Guard! Remove .users (if present) to email me!

[Scott Dorsey]

q > wrote:
>I do not intend to start a flame war - as currently in
>alt.home-theatre.misc and elsewhere. I know the cheap quality of Bose
>consumer stuff, but I do run into Bose pro stuff in churches, clubs and
>auditoriums. Never anywhere where I can actually hear the system sound like
>more than a cheap PA. Boses web site says nothing about their pro stuff,
>except that it is exceptional and to contach them. What is the consensus on
>Bose pro? Anyway it stands up to M&K, etc???

Most of it is pretty nasty. The 801 does have some applications, though,
in that it's a lot harder to damage than normal gear, and it has very wide
dispersion. This makes it a good choice in a lot of applications where it
is going to be badly abused and where the room requires the wide pattern.

The cannon is also interesting, in that it produces a lot of narrowband
bass. It's not accurate at all, but it can still be a good choice for
film sound installations where you need a lot of rumble and don't much
care about low end accuracy but you do have restricted space behind the
screen.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Sander]

> wrote in message
...

> Bose pro stuff is exceptional all right: Exceptionally poor!

Right on! Bose = Bring Other Sound Equipment

Sander

[Art Cohen]

In article >, -
weber.com says...
> I do not intend to start a flame war - as currently in
> alt.home-theatre.misc and elsewhere. I know the cheap quality of Bose
> consumer stuff, but I do run into Bose pro stuff in churches, clubs and
> auditoriums. Never anywhere where I can actually hear the system sound like
> more than a cheap PA. Boses web site says nothing about their pro stuff,
> except that it is exceptional and to contach them. What is the consensus on
> Bose pro? Anyway it stands up to M&K, etc???
>
>
>
For another opinion;

I've been using a Bose PA (pair of 802's and subwoofer) for an
electronic/ambient/space concert series for the last 6 years. The artists
and the audiences all rave about the great sound. Of course part of that
is the room - a century old church - but for electronic music at moderate
levels, the smooothness and the wide dispersion really seem to work.
While I wouldn't run a full rock band through the Bose system, I also
couldn't fit a conventional system in my Corolla wagon. Reliability has
not been an issue. So from where I sit the Bose system has applications
and can be used to bring pleasing music to an audience.

[Chris Johnson]

No :)



Chris Johnson

[GregS]

In article >, Bill Thompson > wrote:
wrote:
>> q > wrote:
>>

>I didn't look real close at the microphones, mixers, amps and other gear
>as my wife gets somewhat annoyed when I do that<G>, but it appeared to
>be you basic Shure SM microphones, and Mackie 1604 mixers from what I
>could see (and to think I used to worry about getting in trouble for
>girlwatching!).

The one thing I like about Bose in general, in the range of 2-3kHz, there isn't awfull peaks like
some pa speakers in general, using large woofers up into the high range, and crossing over to a
peaked horn is a speaker i like to be facing away from me, at close range.

greg

[GregS]

In article >, (GregS) wrote:
>In article >, Bill Thompson
> > wrote:
wrote:
>>> q > wrote:
>>>
>
>>I didn't look real close at the microphones, mixers, amps and other gear
>>as my wife gets somewhat annoyed when I do that<G>, but it appeared to
>>be you basic Shure SM microphones, and Mackie 1604 mixers from what I
>>could see (and to think I used to worry about getting in trouble for
>>girlwatching!).
>
>The one thing I like about Bose in general, in the range of 2-3kHz, there isn't


Who started this another long BOSE thread.

[Art Cohen]

In article >,
says...
> In article >, Bill Thompson > wrote:
> wrote:
> >> q > wrote:
> >>
>
> The one thing I like about Bose in general, in the range of 2-3kHz, there isn't awfull peaks like
> some pa speakers in general, using large woofers up into the high range, and crossing over to a
> peaked horn is a speaker i like to be facing away from me, at close range.
>
> greg
>
So I'm not the only one who hears that. It's that smoothness that
accounts for the Bose sounding good for electronic/ambient music.

[Scott Dorsey]

ChuxGarage > wrote:
>>So I'm not the only one who hears that. It's that smoothness that
>>accounts for the Bose sounding good for electronic/ambient music.
>
>No, it's not your imagination. I have also noted that women seem to be more
>critical than men about distortion in the mid-range. Guys will sit in front of
>a nasty sounding compression driver for hours. Women will get a headache and
>want to leave.

So, why doesn't anybody make an inexpensive speaker system that has
BOTH a smooth midrange, and at least a little bit of high end detail?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[ChuxGarage]

>So, why doesn't anybody make an inexpensive speaker system that has
>BOTH a smooth midrange, and at least a little bit of high end detail?

Interesting question Scott. The usual problem is, to meet a price point, they
crossover from a 15" into a cheap 1" compression driver mounted on a crappy
horn.

Over the years, a few companies have made reasonably priced three way PA
cabinets, but they usually don't sell very well. It seems a lot of first time
buyers actually like the "bark" of some of these cheap speakers. They think it
sounds louder.

Of course, there are some very good 2 way cabinets out there, but they usually
aren't exactly cheap. Meyer comes to mind....

[Scott Dorsey]

ChuxGarage > wrote:
>>So, why doesn't anybody make an inexpensive speaker system that has
>>BOTH a smooth midrange, and at least a little bit of high end detail?
>
>Interesting question Scott. The usual problem is, to meet a price point, they
>crossover from a 15" into a cheap 1" compression driver mounted on a crappy
>horn.

Right, you skip the compression driver. Even some sort of cheaply built
small cone tweeter would do the job better at that price point, I think.
And you don't always need the dispersion control.

>Over the years, a few companies have made reasonably priced three way PA
>cabinets, but they usually don't sell very well. It seems a lot of first time
>buyers actually like the "bark" of some of these cheap speakers. They think it
>sounds louder.

That is scary.

>Of course, there are some very good 2 way cabinets out there, but they usually
>aren't exactly cheap. Meyer comes to mind....

I'm holding out for the Stage Accompany rig. Very clean top end.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[ChuxGarage]

>I'm holding out for the Stage Accompany rig. Very clean top end.

They do sound good, but don't exactly fit in the "cheap" category. A few years
ago, Peavey made a 3 way cabinet using an Audax 6.5" mid driver. They didn't
sell very well, but sounded reasonably good. At least, they didn't "bark."

Of course my opinion is that most first time PA buyers are deaf, or at least
not well enough educated to make rational decisions. They buy either just
because of brand name recognition, or they go for the most spectacular sounding
cabinet. Of course that's usually the same speaker that causes amazing ear
fatigue after about 15 minutes, but the in store demo never lasts that long.

When you sell this stuff for a living, you eventually give in, lower your
standards and give people what they want, not necessarily what they need. It's
too bad, but you just get tired of trying to reason with people, and you tend
to take the line of least resistance.

I know I got pretty burned out with it. It's nice to do something different
for the last half of my life.

Chuck

[ScotFraser]

<< I'm holding out for the Stage Accompany rig. Very clean top end. >>

Don't they use ribbon tweeters?


Scott Fraser

[Scott Dorsey]

ScotFraser > wrote:
><< I'm holding out for the Stage Accompany rig. Very clean top end. >>
>
>Don't they use ribbon tweeters?

Yes. So you get some beaminess problems, but I'd rather have that over
honkiness and high end breakup.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."