Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Nousaine wrote:

The number one problem with Bose is not their sound, which is passable,
but that the exact same thing can be had via Cambridge Soundworks for
a couple of hundred dollars.


I, for one, don't think so. It is true that Cambridge does have some
high-value
content systems but the cost-reduction is evident upon inspection.

You may think so, but actual testing and analysis of the speakers
verifies it.(actually taking them apart)

I've not only taken them apart I've measured several sets of CSW speakers over
the years. They are certainly no better than Bose construction and arguably
worse. And the measured performance of the majority of their speakers in a
given class are definitely 'competitive' meaning not-much-better.


Is it so hard to believe that CSW would make a legal "clone" of the
design and market them for a more sane 3-5 times over cost as
opposed to 20 times over cost?

I'm guessing that if CSW could command a premium liek that they'd be foolish
not to. But they can't .... whose fault is that?

But my point is generally missed here. Bose markets speakers that consumers
actually "want" not what we think they should want.

That's a good reason; but frankly the chances of returning a Cambridge
product
for warranty is quite high.

Well, actually, my parents have a CSW 2.1 system on their computer
and it's been great for the last 4-5 years.

That's good. My experience has been that if I'm likely to get a speaker that
breaks during testing it will be from CSW.

The CSW higher-end
models are actually good values in low-end audio - much better than
Kenwood or Sony or these other "HTIAB" systems.

IME HTIB speaker systems are in two performance leagues; the ones you mention
above and then the Bose,CSW, KEF et al league.

Those systems have many characteristics in common. None have a true subwoofer -
they're all common bass modules. All satellites have sharply falling dynamic
capability at the lower end of their bandwidth and all have a crossover hole
between approximately 150 and 300 Hz. All the satellites have significant
midrange and upper frequency response tonal irregularites and divergent
directivity.

IOW they are more alike than they are different. None are hi-fi products. This
debate IMO simply comes down to a simply buyer decision ....is size more
important than price? Or how much am I willing to pay for the small size?
Nobody gets hi-fi speakers in this deal with these product lines.

Actually if I were looking for a $1300 system I'd start with Hsu research,
Paradigm and/or PSB. But it's not me.

For $800-$1000, she can get a full setup that will sound several times
better. Tannoy and KEF, for instnace, make very good minisystems,
as does Energy.

I like those systems but, frankly,they are in the same league sound-wise.

Now I KNOW you are smoking something. The KEF system is true
dome tweeter/woofer setup in each surround and it's measured
at +/-3db with no gaps in response.

Measured by who? The marketing department? I'm not trying to be overly
argumentative here but the KEF systems I've evaluated in recent years in this
price range are in this league.

It also has a real 8 inch
subwoofer.

Now there's an interesting idea "real 8 inch subwoofer" ????

Oh - they also have integrated mounts in each speaker, which
the Bose do not.

That's a good point.

Add the stands to the Bose and suddenly it's
no longer a tiny thing.

That's also true.

And, besides implied longevity, and well-known sensitivity losses.what
difference does this make?

Did you even LOOK at the charts in that link that was posted?

"LOOK" at the charts? Please; that guy pirated MY measurements. S&V was
credited but I personally made those measurements for them. I've also seen
"charts" of dozens of other speaker systems both published and not. CSW and
other competitiors in the HTIB market do not have significantly better measured
performance. Many of them are demonstratively better but continue to have
enough error that they do not reach a higher plateau. I'd say most of them
sound 'different' but not necessarily better.

Even you could see that it's well - nasty. 13.5K high end?
I can buy a $20 4 inch speaker that goes up to 15hkz cleanly.

Wow; let me at those. And by the way at what angle? The Bose charts were
averaged over +/- 30 deg for L/R, +/- 45 deg for center and +/- 60 deg for
surround with the modules angled according to recommendations. If you line them
up and restrict measurement to directly on-axis you'll get a more extended
'measurement .... but one which no one will ever actually hear in-situ.


Screws instead

of glue to hold it together.

I've never seen any modern loudspeaker cabinet held together with screws.
As
for drivers and I/O terminals the most common problems I encounter are
drivers
or terminals loose in particle board cabinets by having stripped screws in
particle board that "weren't glued" to the cabinet.

The thing is the drivers. can you take them out and replace them
or are they glued together in such a manner so as to make them
user-repairable.

Sure; but at this market segment people often just use particle board cabinets.
I've had drivers literally fall out of the cabinet when being unpacked because
the particle board was so loosely packed that the screws just worked loose with
handling and shipping.

But being realistic exactly how many customers in this market segment are ever
going to repair their own speakers? In this market segment some models have
permanent grilles so that user-replacement would be cosmetically dangerous as
well.

IFAIK Bose manufactuers many of their own drivers and would have a lower
internal cost. So what? Wjy does the end-user care one way or another?

Fine. You pay $1300 for $100 in parts. Enjoy.

I don't pay for nothing. I'm not interested in products in this performance
category. I'm thinking that you aren't either. I'm wondering why the outrage at
Bose and seemingly not at Monster Cable and the other hucksters!!

No, these aren't high-end soundsystems, but they are a step up.

From what? I would agree that I could; assuming you too, put together and
install a better sounding system than joe-average walking the streets, for
a
given price than one would pay for a Bose.

The CSW line is a step up from Bose and typical HTIAB systems.

Not in my opinion. Neither is remotely close to hi-fi. It's a choice about
price and style.

It's
not close to a real system, though, that you could actually build
with $1300. $1000 will get you a very nice 5.1 setup, and $300 a
decent basic receiver.

But few non-enthusiasts could do likewise. And even fewer would be able to
install it. That's the magic of Bose ...... sell people what they want;
(small,
nearly-inviisible, smartlyy styled) not what might be best-sounding to
enthusiasts or preferable to salesman of other products.

The Tannoy and Kef are smaller, visually. Kef has styling that is
amazing. So does Norh - the tiny ones look great in a corner.
As for nearly invisible, most small systems require a mount which is
ugly and almost the size of the speaker.

That's another good point.


http://www.norh.com/products/prism/index.html
The 3.0 Prism is perfect and angled to fit in a typical corner.

http://www.norh.com/products/prism/gal.html
They look very attractive as well - huge WAF.

* Single full range driver
* Frequency response: 75Hz to 20,000 Hz.
* Maximum constant power is 20 watts
* Sensitivity 87 dB

This is what Bose should be able to do - as these are $199 a
pair, shipped(no tax). 4 plus a center($275) is $673.
Add a decent subwoofer and you're at $1000-$1300.

I'd be a little skeptical of a single driver full range system (isn't that what
the 901 is?) that is based on fanciful ideas such as:

"Speaker designers have known for over forty years that the box is not the
ideal shape for loudspeakers. The worst shape would be a cube. The reason is
that all sides are equal in length and parallel. The rectangle box is slightly
better because not all sides are equal in length but all sides are parallel.
Parallel boxes reflect energy back and forth. The energy inside the box
competes with the energy being produced outside the box. As the woofer returns
backwards, it creates a reflected energy that bounces back and presses directly
against the woofer. The driver literally is fighting against its own energy.

The Prism has no parallel surfaces. Each angle is less than 45 degrees. This
means that energy created by the loudspeaker is compressed upon itself."

Whew. But I'm always skeptical. I don't have any special affinity for Bose. But
I do respect the willingness to put customer "needs" (small size, easy to use,
all-in-one and vouched-for by Paul Harvey) at the top of their merchandising
list.

As I've said before Bose brings music to many people who otherwise wouldn't
have it (young females, seniors, etc) simply because they realize that our
"hi-fi" sound is not the number one priority for most of them.

And yes; I'll agree that I could acquire and assemble a system that would sound
better for $1300; but most people don't have me to do that for them.

There's one more aspect I like about Bose merchandising for this class of
product. It helps to free the naive buyer from the store/salesman influence.
The "cables" are already included.