just an observation: bose uses a very small speaker(s) for mids and highs
and a very small sub for lows. the cabinet design tries to make up for
the tiny speakers, the crossover design tries to make up for the tiny
speakers. more power is required to drive it for the size because of that
design concept.
the automotive bose tries to filter out ignition noises and the fidelity seems
to suffer because of it.
when i listen to a bose speaker, i notice the missing subsonics, missing mids,
and the missing high end sizzle.
i dont think anyone will convince me that a little speaker sounds like a big
one. but i do think that the satellite subwoofer concept is a good one when
using more appropriate hifi speakers. this concept saves space and money
but bose did not invent that concept.
(Farrell8882) wrote in message news:Ac%9c.30674$K91.88721@attbi_s02...
A friend of mine asked me "Why _not_ Bose?" and I really don't have an answer
for her. I know audiophiles routinely revile the brand, but that's not an
excuse I'm comfortable sharing. It's not one I can either defend or expound on.

I recall reading a very good point-by-point analysis here (or somewhere people
here would be familiar with) that takes apart Bose (both the speaker and the
myth), exposing what a really shoddy piece of workmanship a Bose speaker is.
It's technical, but not incomprehensible.

I only paid partial attention because I'd never buy anything by Bose, so I had
no reason to read any more deeply. I've seen it a couple of times in the last
few years, including sometime this winter.

Does anyone know what I'm talking about?