"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?

This is probably what you read: http://www.intellexual.net/bose.html

Stephen

"Stephen McLuckie" wrote:


"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?

This is probably what you read: http://www.intellexual.net/bose.html

Stephen

That website (which uses measurements I made for Sound & Vision) is un-tutored
ang quite misleading. For example it states that most $1300 audio systems have
frequency ranges of 15 Hz to 25 kHz. While 25 kHz is not unusual the number of
packaged commercial systems that can do a realistic 15 Hz is exactly zero.
Further the bandwidth, shape and abberation shown in those curves is quite
typical of what you get from the systems in the price range the website claims
are much better.

FWIW, the reason Bose is so successful, and perhaps so hated in some circles,
is that they sell certain customer segments what they really want (small,
nearly invisible, nicely styled) and not what we think they should want.

The Wave Radio is a great example; its a highly styled, easy to use boombox
that's perfect for certain customer segments (seniors, accountants, house
wives) who could really use a boombox but who wouldn't be caught dead with one.

IMO the primary knock against Bose home audio products is premium price. But
even then you're not going to get demonstrably better performance for the same
or less money if your not an experienced enthusiast. The competition will also
usually be more difficult to install.

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 19:57:20 +0000, Farrell8882 wrote:

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?

__________________________________________________ ________

Bose has excelled at doing frequency response manipulation based on
some intense study. There are some frequencies that the Female gender
is slightly more sensitive to..Dr. Bose has used these studies to
manipulate a number of areas in the audio spectrum to create rather
cozy and pleasant sounding devices.

Back, somewhere in the early '70s I think Admiral radio had used a
fairly elaborate "ducted" low frequency system to present a very
impressive bass from a tabletop radio. A friend of mine that owned an
office supply company had one in the large open space that most Office
supply houses have...it was impressive in the low end. I was very
impressed...having lived around some Altec-Lansing A7 theatre systems.

This was a ducted system that had been used World
Wide with variations. I always assumed it was a kind of "public
domain" and could be used by anyone. However, Dr. Bose was able to
"modify" this ducted system and get a patent in the U.S. Many have
wondered how this was accomplished.

So, to shorten all this, by manipulating the mids and highs and
implementing the lower-frequency ducted system he has been able to
turn out speakers/radios, etc, that, on initial hearing...they sound
very pleasant, etc.

However, if your hearing is a bit critical you will soon discover
that something is missing in this type of manipulation..things are
just not all there. However, some people get used to all this..and
swear by it! Such is life!

I'm sure there is more to this story that this...however, this is
as I have observed through the years.

So, if one listens around in a serious manner and decides the Bose
is best, over a period of time, then by all means go ahead buy
it..keeping in mine that you might well want to trade to something
else with a year!

Leonard...

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 19:57:20 GMT, (Farrell8882)
wrote:

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.

Here's one reason. The P.O.S. Bose amplifiers in the Delco/Bose
stereo in my Cadillac have failed repeatedly, and one of them actually
caught fire -- the stench was unbelievable although actual damage was
minimal.

So as far as I'm concerned, Bose literally stinks!

Mark Howell

I've owned a lot of audio gear in my 20 year "affliction". I am not a
reviewer by any means but I seem to have a revolving door in my listening
room. The one set of speakers that I just could not live with were a pair
of Bose 601's in the late 80's. Thumpy artifical bass. Hooty mids.
Recessed, dead highs. No matter what I paired it with...same story. Did
the room position thing...same story. Tried to break em in with pink
noise...same story.

My brother had a pair of 301's a few years back. He reluctantly borrowed
them to me so I could feed my habit. Same story but worse (these listed at
about $300/pr).

I think that was last gear I bought at Crutchfield.

TC
"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?

I worked in hi-fi retail for a couple years in the early 1980's.
People would come in and ask for Bose by name far more than any other
brand name. After a while you got tired of trying to educate the great
unwashed, and you just took their cash. Y'know what? I didn't lose any
sleep over it.

The question isn't "why shouldn't someone buy Bose?" because if
someone's gotten that far they probably will be perfectly happy with
Bose. They *should* buy Bose.

The question should be "why would someone buy Bose...or anything, for
that matter...without first auditioning & evaluating numerous other
products at the same pricepoint?"

And the answer would be: "Advertising budget"

Mark Howell wrote:

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 19:57:20 GMT, (Farrell8882)
wrote:

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.

Here's one reason. The P.O.S. Bose amplifiers in the Delco/Bose
stereo in my Cadillac have failed repeatedly, and one of them actually
caught fire -- the stench was unbelievable although actual damage was
minimal.

So as far as I'm concerned, Bose literally stinks!

Mark Howell

Well that surely sucks. OTOH I've performed extensive and detailed evaluation
of a couple hundred production OEM sound systems and nearly 500 when you count
prototypes and concepts and by and large Bose delivers the best on-road
sound.Their best car systems are better than 80-90% of the home systems I've
listened to...... perhaps 300 over the past quarter century..... in pure sound
quality terms.

Of course, it is true that I've seen no more than a couple really good Bose
home systems.

Farrell8882 wrote:

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.

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. Cambridge soundworks of course changes the
mounts and wiring terminals and color just enough so as to pass the
minimum amount of changes to not infringe on their patent, but it's
essentially the same thing.

Why pay 400% markup over the same thing without the label?

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. Real rubber surrounds on the speakers instead of
foam. Connectors that can be used with any receiver. Screws instead
of glue to hold it together. $10 speakers(their cost) versus $1-2
ones BOSE uses.

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

(Nousaine) wrote in message news:Kk5ac.130243$Cb.1466684@attbi_s51...
Mark Howell wrote:

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 19:57:20 GMT, (Farrell8882)
wrote:

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.

Here's one reason. The P.O.S. Bose amplifiers in the Delco/Bose
stereo in my Cadillac have failed repeatedly, and one of them actually
caught fire -- the stench was unbelievable although actual damage was
minimal.

So as far as I'm concerned, Bose literally stinks!

Mark Howell

Well that surely sucks. OTOH I've performed extensive and detailed evaluation
of a couple hundred production OEM sound systems and nearly 500 when you count
prototypes and concepts and by and large Bose delivers the best on-road
sound.Their best car systems are better than 80-90% of the home systems I've
listened to...... perhaps 300 over the past quarter century..... in pure sound
quality terms.

Of course, it is true that I've seen no more than a couple really good Bose
home systems.

You obviously haven't listened to the Bloze system in my C4 Corvette
or my C5 Corvette.

Both are without a doubt the crappiest sounding systems I have ever
heard. The Chrysler Infinity system in my wifes '91 Voyager is a
better sounding system than the one in my 2-1/2 year old Corvette.

The only "improvement" in the C5 vs. the C4 is the fact that it's
easier to replace it in stages if you're inclined to do so.

EBS