Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Bose and name recognition
An article appeared recently in the local newspaper extolling the features
of a $3000 per night hotel suite. The features included "...five plasma televisions, including one above the four-person bathtub in the master bedroom suite; a sauna; a walk-in dressing room; a full commercial kitchen and a surround-sound home entertainment system with Bose speakers." Maybe we "audiophiles" are missing the point. The only feature of this "high-end" suite mentioned by brand name was the Bose speakers! Cosumer excess and value are usually, if not always, mutually exclusive. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Bose and name recognition
Maybe we "audiophiles" are missing the point. The only feature of this
"high-end" suite mentioned by brand name was the Bose speakers! Cosumer excess and value are usually, if not always, mutually exclusive. It is a funny point. While I agree that consumer excess and *value* are usually mutually exclusive, it is not the case that consumer excess and *quality* are mutually exclusive. In general, for instance, the most expensive wine in the world is, indeed, the best (in blind tastings conducted by expert tasters). The most, or at least more expensive, automobiles are the "best" by numerous measures, etc. In the case of audio, it seems that the general consumer is so totally unable to recognize good from bad, that pure marketing and brand recognition takes over. Seriously, how long would Mercedes remain a coveted brand if they used uniformly substandard everything in their vehicles? If they were, from paint to motor, just lousy? Yet we have heard from technicians on this very forum that Bose speakers contain "junk drivers" etc. And of course we can all hear how awful they sound. I can't think of a similar case, of an entire genre of product in which the general consumer is so perfectly unable to tell good from bad that s/he is easily sold on junk. -Sean |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Bose and name recognition
Sean Fulop wrote in
: It is a funny point. While I agree that consumer excess and *value* are usually mutually exclusive, it is not the case that consumer excess and *quality* are mutually exclusive. In general, for instance, the most expensive wine in the world is, indeed, the best (in blind tastings conducted by expert tasters). As you say...EXPERT tasters. There are those who cannot taste the difference between a Merlot and a Chablis...or a boxed wine versus a bottled wine. The most, or at least more expensive, automobiles are the "best" by numerous measures, etc. In the case of audio, it seems that the general consumer is so totally unable to recognize good from bad, that pure marketing and brand recognition takes over. Seriously, how long would Mercedes remain a coveted brand if they used uniformly substandard everything in their vehicles? If they were, from paint to motor, just lousy? And yet we have those in the general pulic who will buy only one brand of car, no matter how good they are. Using Jaguar for an example, they were coveted as a great car EVEN when they were mechanically problematic. Why? Because of the brand name. Of course, their quality control has improved in recent years, but that was after they were taken over by the giant of Ford MoCo. Yet we have heard from technicians on this very forum that Bose speakers contain "junk drivers" etc. And of course we can all hear how awful they sound. I can't think of a similar case, of an entire genre of product in which the general consumer is so perfectly unable to tell good from bad that s/he is easily sold on junk. -Sean People only know what they have heard and seen. If they have not heard high end equipment, Bose may seem to be good. My experience has been that once I took a member of the general public who was looking at buying Bose to a high-end dealer, Bose dropped off their list. Why? Because they heard better. They were exposed to the option of better sound, and not simply relying on the ads that the mass market electronic manufacturers put out. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Bose and name recognition
As you say...EXPERT tasters. There are those who cannot taste the
difference between a Merlot and a Chablis...or a boxed wine versus a bottled wine. Yes indeed, but for some reason most of those naive consumers are willing to listen to the experts, particularly when their trying to make a "good impression". Everyone knows that if they purposely advertised a charity dinner (for example) as featuring "Beringer White Zinfandel", wine "snobs" would snicker, and the snickering of those in the know carries weight in the world of wine buying and wine serving, even among the ignorant. Even airlines hire expert wine buyers to stock their first-class and business-class galleys. However, when audiophiles snicker about Bose being featured, nobody listens, nobody cares. It's like we are snobs without the customary influence that snobs have over the ignorant. We are snobs who are not listened to. Businesses with an interest in audio presentations don't hire audio experts (or anyone at all, for that matter) to make sure that they use decent equipment. They simply buy Bose (e.g. movie theater chains). -Sean |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Bose and name recognition
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Bose and name recognition
From: (Nousaine)
Date: 4/15/2004 9:35 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: 9oJfc.148206$w54.1029249@attbi_s01 (S888Wheel) wrote: From: Gonzo Date: 4/15/2004 8:00 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Sean Fulop wrote in : It is a funny point. While I agree that consumer excess and *value* are usually mutually exclusive, it is not the case that consumer excess and *quality* are mutually exclusive. In general, for instance, the most expensive wine in the world is, indeed, the best (in blind tastings conducted by expert tasters). As you say...EXPERT tasters. There are those who cannot taste the difference between a Merlot and a Chablis...or a boxed wine versus a bottled wine. The most, or at least more expensive, automobiles are the "best" by numerous measures, etc. In the case of audio, it seems that the general consumer is so totally unable to recognize good from bad, that pure marketing and brand recognition takes over. Seriously, how long would Mercedes remain a coveted brand if they used uniformly substandard everything in their vehicles? If they were, from paint to motor, just lousy? And yet we have those in the general pulic who will buy only one brand of car, no matter how good they are. Using Jaguar for an example, they were coveted as a great car EVEN when they were mechanically problematic. Why? Because of the brand name. Of course, their quality control has improved in recent years, but that was after they were taken over by the giant of Ford MoCo. Yet we have heard from technicians on this very forum that Bose speakers contain "junk drivers" etc. And of course we can all hear how awful they sound. I can't think of a similar case, of an entire genre of product in which the general consumer is so perfectly unable to tell good from bad that s/he is easily sold on junk. -Sean People only know what they have heard and seen. If they have not heard high end equipment, Bose may seem to be good. My experience has been that once I took a member of the general public who was looking at buying Bose to a high-end dealer, Bose dropped off their list. Why? Because they heard better. They were exposed to the option of better sound, and not simply relying on the ads that the mass market electronic manufacturers put out. I think you gave a bad example. Aside from the fact that Jag improved their QC well before Ford took over, the assertion that people bought Jags because of the brand name is quite presumptuous. No other car looks or feels like a Jag. Each of their models is quite unique from anything else on the market and has appeal that goes beyond the label. This is only if you go back to 1950s racing. The brand has the same characteristics of which you accuse Bose. Weak performance/low quality. Nope. they made great QC improvements in the mid 80s.The performance was exceptional if you like comfort and power and style. The difference is that Bose actually delivers sound to its customers. Jaguar didn't start do that until Ford got involved. No. Jags had stereos before Ford stepped in. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Bose and name recognition
Well, you may "all" hear how awful they sound, but they do pretty good in
comparison tests that Consumer Reports does and the company does manage to sell a lot of speakers. Ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, they are not as bad as you make out? -- - GRL "It's good to want things." Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, humorist, chemist, Visual Basic programmer) "Sean Fulop" wrote in message ... Maybe we "audiophiles" are missing the point. The only feature of this "high-end" suite mentioned by brand name was the Bose speakers! Cosumer excess and value are usually, if not always, mutually exclusive. It is a funny point. While I agree that consumer excess and *value* are usually mutually exclusive, it is not the case that consumer excess and *quality* are mutually exclusive. In general, for instance, the most expensive wine in the world is, indeed, the best (in blind tastings conducted by expert tasters). The most, or at least more expensive, automobiles are the "best" by numerous measures, etc. In the case of audio, it seems that the general consumer is so totally unable to recognize good from bad, that pure marketing and brand recognition takes over. Seriously, how long would Mercedes remain a coveted brand if they used uniformly substandard everything in their vehicles? If they were, from paint to motor, just lousy? Yet we have heard from technicians on this very forum that Bose speakers contain "junk drivers" etc. And of course we can all hear how awful they sound. I can't think of a similar case, of an entire genre of product in which the general consumer is so perfectly unable to tell good from bad that s/he is easily sold on junk. -Sean |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Bose and name recognition
GRL wrote:
Well, you may "all" hear how awful they sound, but they do pretty good in comparison tests that Consumer Reports does and the company does manage to sell a lot of speakers. Ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, they are not as bad as you make out? What's interesting to me is that a lot of audiophiles will endorse or at least tolerate products like expensive cables, SET's, power cords, etc., and yet take such a strong stance against, if not flat-out despise, Bose products. IMO, Bose designs its products to meet certain needs, and they have achieved what they set out to do. AFAIK, Bose does not make wild claims about their products' performance, unlike some so-called high-end suppliers. Aren't some of us being a bit hypocritical? |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Bose and name recognition
Like many of you I have gritted my teeth when I heard people brag abut Bose.
I am not a Bose lover. Nevertheless I think that all the criticism of Bose is overwrought. In over 20 years in the AV business I have never sold Bose; only tried to sell against them. Since speaker parts and repair were (and still are) a major part of my business I have stocked sold a lot of Bose speaker parts and repaired many Bose speakers. I have even improved a few with parts substitutions. If you ask me "Are they really junk, like some people say?", I would say no. If you asked "Are they junk compared to what you could get for the same price if you really knew what you were doing?". I might say "Junk is a harsh word. Poor value might be more accurate." Bose has such amazing marketing skills that if they were applied to the automotive market they might convince the buying public that a Hyundai is better than a Lexus. Is the Hyundai junk? No, but if it were offered at the same price as a Lexus many knowledgeable people would overlook its virtues and call it junk. Bose marketing is not just advertising, it starts with discovering how to please the public. I heard that Bose does a great deal of research with consumer focus groups. Like political researchers they use the groups to find out what people like both in sound and in apearance. By "people" I gather that they mean average people, not audiophiles. My guess is that this research allows them to engineer a product that is really cheap to make, yet satisfies the needs of the general public so well that, accompanied by massive advertising, it can be sold at prices that stagger those of us who know about the competing products that are available. I have to admit that I admire the Bose company, if not their products. How can you not admire competence, even in your opponents? Wylie Williams The Speaker and Stereo Store "GRL" wrote in message news:BDZhc.4708$cF6.246449@attbi_s04... Well, you may "all" hear how awful they sound, but they do pretty good in comparison tests that Consumer Reports does and the company does manage to sell a lot of speakers. Ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, they are not as bad as you make out? -- - GRL "It's good to want things." Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, humorist, chemist, Visual Basic programmer) "Sean Fulop" wrote in message ... Maybe we "audiophiles" are missing the point. The only feature of this "high-end" suite mentioned by brand name was the Bose speakers! Cosumer excess and value are usually, if not always, mutually exclusive. It is a funny point. While I agree that consumer excess and *value* are usually mutually exclusive, it is not the case that consumer excess and *quality* are mutually exclusive. In general, for instance, the most expensive wine in the world is, indeed, the best (in blind tastings conducted by expert tasters). The most, or at least more expensive, automobiles are the "best" by numerous measures, etc. In the case of audio, it seems that the general consumer is so totally unable to recognize good from bad, that pure marketing and brand recognition takes over. Seriously, how long would Mercedes remain a coveted brand if they used uniformly substandard everything in their vehicles? If they were, from paint to motor, just lousy? Yet we have heard from technicians on this very forum that Bose speakers contain "junk drivers" etc. And of course we can all hear how awful they sound. I can't think of a similar case, of an entire genre of product in which the general consumer is so perfectly unable to tell good from bad that s/he is easily sold on junk. -Sean |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Bose and name recognition
GRL wrote:
Well, you may "all" hear how awful they sound, but they do pretty good in comparison tests that Consumer Reports does and the company does manage to sell a lot of speakers. Ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, they are not as bad as you make out? ============================== I have a difficult time taking Consumer Reports seriously for anything beyond what meaningful performance aspects they can measure objectively. For instance, in one test of single-lens reflex cameras, Consumer Reports used, as the primary Ratings factor beyond their objective measurements of performance (lens sharpness and flare, and shutter accuracy)...CAMERA WEIGHT! Never mind that convenience and versatility of controls are more important in something like a camera, than an ounce or so of weight, one way or another. In their ratings of automobiles, their ratings of individual performance factors sometimes do not agree with the relative overall quality ratings of the cars being tested. Their response, whenever challenged, has been that they "weight" some factors differently than others when deciding overall quality. Yet, even this "weighting" seems to change from one test to the next. At times it is almost as though they decide which one they like best, subjectively; then "rig" the individual performance factors to approximately support this judgment. Their "benchmarks" of Good, Very Good, Excellent, etc., also are inconsistent. Sometimes they have actually ADMITTED it; at one point in the late 70s or early 80s, they changed their ratings of how automobiles ride, in one swoop making the prior month's Good into the next month's Very Good. If you missed the small article that said so, you'd never have known. Getting back on topic, over the last couple of decades, Consumer Reports's loudspeaker ratings, which for their target audience distills to the "Accuracy Score," have seemed inadequate. Their writers do mention that two speakers with the same Accuracy Score may sound quite different, but not enough recognition is given to what causes these differences, since the Accuracy Score is essentially based on steady-state frequency response measurement in an anechoic chamber. A speaker could measure near-perfect in such conditions and yet have compressed dynamics; have horrific hangover on bass transients; extreme roughness in treble response with irregularities too narrow for the measuring methodology; and perform poorly/differently on varying amplifiers due to uneven impedance vs. frequency, and capacitive loading; and yet still have a high Accuracy Score. A couple of years ago, some cheap Panasonic loudspeakers built for their stack systems seemed have gotten their high Accuracy Scores in the anechoic chamber, when in real life, they actually don't sound good in normal listening. In an earlier age, during the mid 1960s, Consumer Reports staffers actually LISTENED to components, as well as measuring them. They even pointed out that the audibly smooth sound of a speaker, perhaps the factor actually resulting in its high rating, was actually due to a broad, shallow (around 1dB) dip in measured frequency response centered at around 1000 Hz. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Bose and name recognition
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Bose and name recognition
"Gene Poon" wrote in message
news4cic.8694$0u6.1627749@attbi_s03... GRL wrote: Well, you may "all" hear how awful they sound, but they do pretty good in comparison tests that Consumer Reports does and the company does manage to sell a lot of speakers. Ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, they are not as bad as you make out? ============================== I have a difficult time taking Consumer Reports seriously for anything beyond what meaningful performance aspects they can measure objectively. I can't imagine taking anything seriously that ISN'T based on what can be measured objectively. What else is there? If CR were to publish someone's opinion on the sound of a speaker, whose opinion should it be? Norm Strong |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Bose and name recognition
"normanstrong" wrote
I can't imagine taking anything seriously that ISN'T based on what can be measured objectively. I agree with you that objective measurements are desirable. But where do you find objective measurement data on a wide variety of speakers? And when you find them, are they complete enough to be of value? Wylie Williams The Speaker and Stereo Store |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Bose and name recognition
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Bose and name recognition
"chung" wrote in message
... GRL wrote: Well, you may "all" hear how awful they sound, but they do pretty good in comparison tests that Consumer Reports does and the company does manage to sell a lot of speakers. Ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, they are not as bad as you make out? What's interesting to me is that a lot of audiophiles will endorse or at least tolerate products like expensive cables, SET's, power cords, etc., and yet take such a strong stance against, if not flat-out despise, Bose products. IMO, Bose designs its products to meet certain needs, and they have achieved what they set out to do. AFAIK, Bose does not make wild claims about their products' performance, unlike some so-called high-end suppliers. Aren't some of us being a bit hypocritical? "the only small box that creates a whole wall of sound" is not hyperbole? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Bose and name recognition
Harry Lavo wrote:
"chung" wrote in message ... GRL wrote: Well, you may "all" hear how awful they sound, but they do pretty good in comparison tests that Consumer Reports does and the company does manage to sell a lot of speakers. Ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, they are not as bad as you make out? What's interesting to me is that a lot of audiophiles will endorse or at least tolerate products like expensive cables, SET's, power cords, etc., and yet take such a strong stance against, if not flat-out despise, Bose products. IMO, Bose designs its products to meet certain needs, and they have achieved what they set out to do. AFAIK, Bose does not make wild claims about their products' performance, unlike some so-called high-end suppliers. Aren't some of us being a bit hypocritical? "the only small box that creates a whole wall of sound" is not hyperbole? The Bose system is small, wouldn't you say so? You can play it loud, too, right? I'm sure you would agree that in the scale of hyberboles, that does not come close to being in the same ballpark as what makers of cables/power cords/cable-lifts, etc. say, right? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Bose and name recognition
In article , UnionPac2001 wrote:
IIRC, Consumer Reports got their asses sued by Bose a few years back for giving a Bose product a bad (but honest) review. Ever since, CR has had nothing but good things to say about Bose products, fearing another lawsuit. I have read this assertion numerous times, but it has never been substantiated. Can you provide any evidence that their published evaluations has been influenced by the fear of a lawsuit? I will point out that the main criticism offered against CR in their speaker recommendations is that it is based entirely on (published) objective data. Any deviation from the data in the recommendations to please a particular manufacturer would be readily apparent, and would open them to serious litigation from the other manufacturers. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Bose and name recognition
chung wrote:
The Bose system is small, wouldn't you say so? You can play it loud, too, right? I'm sure you would agree that in the scale of hyberboles, that does not come close to being in the same ballpark as what makers of cables/power cords/cable-lifts, etc. say, right? I can make a piezo speaker screech until your ears can't stand it anymore. 3-4mm thick and maybe an inch or two in diameter. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Bose and name recognition
Wylie Williams wrote:
Â* I agree with you that objective measurements are desirable. But where do you find objective measurement data on a wide variety of speakers?Â* And when you find them, are they complete enough to be of value? One online source is www.soundstage.com. The speakers labeled NRC on this page: www.audiovideoreviews.com/speakers.shtml have a set of measurements accompanying their reviews. There's also a good explanation of what each measurement means. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Bose and name recognition
(UnionPac2001) wrote in message ...
"GRL" wrote: Well, you may "all" hear how awful they sound, but they do pretty good in comparison tests that Consumer Reports does and the company does manage to sell a lot of speakers. Yeah, and McDonalds manages to sell a lot of burgers. IIRC, Consumer Reports got their asses sued by Bose a few years back for giving a Bose product a bad (but honest) review. It is important to note that ultimately, this suit was dismissed on appeal as groundless. Ever since, CR has had nothing but good things to say about Bose products, fearing another lawsuit. You have any evidence that this is the case? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Bose and name recognition
Jim West wrote in
: In article , UnionPac2001 wrote: IIRC, Consumer Reports got their asses sued by Bose a few years back for giving a Bose product a bad (but honest) review. Ever since, CR has had nothing but good things to say about Bose products, fearing another lawsuit. I have read this assertion numerous times, but it has never been substantiated. Can you provide any evidence that their published evaluations has been influenced by the fear of a lawsuit? While they may not say a speaker is bad, they did make a subjective comment (sound of individual musical instruments tended to wander "about the room."), and were sued. These days I have only seen comments specific to the measurements and no subjective comments in CR reviews. Ergo, it may be presumed that CR wishes to avoid further legal action. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...vol=466&invol= 485 BOSE CORP. v. CONSUMERS UNION OF U.S., INC., 466 U.S. 485 (1984) No. 82-1246. Argued November 8, 1983 Decided April 30, 1984 Respondent published an article in its magazine evaluating the quality of numerous brands of loudspeaker systems, including one marketed by petitioner. Petitioner objected to statements in the article about its system, including one to the effect that the sound of individual musical instruments tended to wander "about the room." When respondent refused to publish a retraction, petitioner filed a product disparagement action in Federal District Court. The court ruled that petitioner was a "public figure" and that therefore, pursuant to the First Amendment as interpreted in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 , to recover petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence that respondent made a false disparaging statement with "actual malice." Entering judgment for petitioner, the court found, based primarily on the testimony of the article's author (respondent's employee), that the article contained a false statement of "fact," because the sound of instruments heard through the speakers tended to wander "along the wall" between the speakers, rather than "about the room" as reported by respondent; that the author's testimony that the challenged statement was intended to mean "along the wall" was not credible; and that the statement was disparaging. On the basis of what it considered to be clear and convincing proof, the court concluded that petitioner had sustained its burden of proving that respondent had published the false statement with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that its review of the "actual malice" determination was not limited to the "clearly erroneous" standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) - which provides that "[f]indings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge of the credibility of the witnesses" - and that it must perform a de novo review, independently examining the record to ensure that the District Court had applied properly the governing constitutional rule. Based on its review of the record, the Court of Appeals concluded that petitioner had not sustained its burden of proof. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Bose and name recognition
In article YIbjc.42050$_L6.2566946@attbi_s53, Gonzo wrote:
Jim West wrote in : In article , UnionPac2001 wrote: IIRC, Consumer Reports got their asses sued by Bose a few years back for giving a Bose product a bad (but honest) review. Ever since, CR has had nothing but good things to say about Bose products, fearing another lawsuit. I have read this assertion numerous times, but it has never been substantiated. Can you provide any evidence that their published evaluations has been influenced by the fear of a lawsuit? While they may not say a speaker is bad, they did make a subjective comment (sound of individual musical instruments tended to wander "about the room."), and were sued. These days I have only seen comments specific to the measurements and no subjective comments in CR reviews. Ergo, it may be presumed that CR wishes to avoid further legal action. This is simple speculation, not evidence. In any event, saying they now only comment on what the measurements directly reveal is a far cry from saying "CR has had nothing but good things to say about Bose products, fearing another lawsuit." CR gets sued all the time by bigger companies than Bose, and they always win because their comments are supported by their data. IMHO it is very unlikely that they are influenced in this case. Sufficient evidence to the contrary will convince me otherwise. BTW I remember in the late '90s they said that the Paradigm Titan sounded "disturbing" due to the midbass peak. That sounds pretty subjective to me. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Bose and name recognition
BTW I remember in the late '90s they said that the Paradigm Titan
sounded "disturbing" due to the midbass peak. That sounds pretty subjective to me. I don't recall that CU ever tested a Paradigm speaker. What issue would that be? Norm Strong |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Bose and name recognition
As for your camera example, if CR did weight camera weight as heavily as you
say, they were at least making an objective judgement within that aspect, which is fine. In point of fact, camera weight (and size) are very important to much of the camera buying public, if not most. It is a perfectly justifiable rating criteria. You get into something like which style of menu or other controls are better or worse and you get into subjective evaluation since some people will like one style while others will prefer another. Hard to judge which is better unless the system is really bad. As for you statement about their ratings of cars, I really don't understand what your objection is to their methodology, so I can't comment. I do know, that as a mainstream (non-buff) magazine they do a very good job of rating cars for non-enthusiasts and they make their judgements based on aspects of performance that mainstream buyers really care about without bias. (On the other hand, there are clearly some car guys on their staff, given their general love affair with BMW's and obvious disappointment with BMW reliability.) Your argument against their testing protocol is not good given the target audience of CR. They are not testing for high-end heads. They are testing for Mr. and Mrs. middle-America who have no other source of objective evaluation of hi-fi components. The accuracy score plus the objective frequency response curve they give (plus the short text evaluation) are completely adequate for that audience. Far better than anything they will find in a big-box stores audio department and more trustworthy than audio salons where the snake-oil flows freely. I am curious what your source is for the statement you make about those good-scoring Panasonic speakers that did not sound good. Finally I'm not sure I understand your statement: about the CR tests of old "They even pointed out that the audibly smooth sound of a speaker, perhaps the factor actually resulting in its high rating, was actually due to a broad, shallow (around 1dB) dip in measured frequency response centered at around 1000 Hz.". Using the CR rating system, flat frequency response is rewarded with a high score. As such your statement only makes sense to me if you mean that the near flat response of that speaker (1 dB broad dip is basically nothing) yielded both good sound and a high score, validating their test protocol. I assume you meant this as a compliment to CR on their test protocol? -- - GRL "It's good to want things." Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, humorist, chemist, Visual Basic programmer) "Gene Poon" wrote in message news4cic.8694$0u6.1627749@attbi_s03... GRL wrote: Well, you may "all" hear how awful they sound, but they do pretty good in comparison tests that Consumer Reports does and the company does manage to sell a lot of speakers. Ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, they are not as bad as you make out? ============================== I have a difficult time taking Consumer Reports seriously for anything beyond what meaningful performance aspects they can measure objectively. For instance, in one test of single-lens reflex cameras, Consumer Reports used, as the primary Ratings factor beyond their objective measurements of performance (lens sharpness and flare, and shutter accuracy)...CAMERA WEIGHT! Never mind that convenience and versatility of controls are more important in something like a camera, than an ounce or so of weight, one way or another. In their ratings of automobiles, their ratings of individual performance factors sometimes do not agree with the relative overall quality ratings of the cars being tested. Their response, whenever challenged, has been that they "weight" some factors differently than others when deciding overall quality. Yet, even this "weighting" seems to change from one test to the next. At times it is almost as though they decide which one they like best, subjectively; then "rig" the individual performance factors to approximately support this judgment. Their "benchmarks" of Good, Very Good, Excellent, etc., also are inconsistent. Sometimes they have actually ADMITTED it; at one point in the late 70s or early 80s, they changed their ratings of how automobiles ride, in one swoop making the prior month's Good into the next month's Very Good. If you missed the small article that said so, you'd never have known. Getting back on topic, over the last couple of decades, Consumer Reports's loudspeaker ratings, which for their target audience distills to the "Accuracy Score," have seemed inadequate. Their writers do mention that two speakers with the same Accuracy Score may sound quite different, but not enough recognition is given to what causes these differences, since the Accuracy Score is essentially based on steady-state frequency response measurement in an anechoic chamber. A speaker could measure near-perfect in such conditions and yet have compressed dynamics; have horrific hangover on bass transients; extreme roughness in treble response with irregularities too narrow for the measuring methodology; and perform poorly/differently on varying amplifiers due to uneven impedance vs. frequency, and capacitive loading; and yet still have a high Accuracy Score. A couple of years ago, some cheap Panasonic loudspeakers built for their stack systems seemed have gotten their high Accuracy Scores in the anechoic chamber, when in real life, they actually don't sound good in normal listening. In an earlier age, during the mid 1960s, Consumer Reports staffers actually LISTENED to components, as well as measuring them. They even pointed out that the audibly smooth sound of a speaker, perhaps the factor actually resulting in its high rating, was actually due to a broad, shallow (around 1dB) dip in measured frequency response centered at around 1000 Hz. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Bose and name recognition
Your claim about CR fear-of Bose is totally unsubstantiated making it merely
your opinion, which is fine. You are entitled to hold incorrect views. On the other hand, Bose speakers do well in subjective testing backed by data collected by CR. And no, I don't own any Bose speakers. Never have. Probably never will. (OK, maybe in a car.) I do own PSB, NHT, and Paradigm. I object to Bose on a value basis, not on a performance basis. CR tells me they work pretty darn good and I believe them. -- - GRL "It's good to want things." Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, humorist, chemist, Visual Basic programmer) "UnionPac2001" wrote in message ... "GRL" wrote: Well, you may "all" hear how awful they sound, but they do pretty good in comparison tests that Consumer Reports does and the company does manage to sell a lot of speakers. Yeah, and McDonalds manages to sell a lot of burgers. IIRC, Consumer Reports got their asses sued by Bose a few years back for giving a Bose product a bad (but honest) review. Ever since, CR has had nothing but good things to say about Bose products, fearing another lawsuit. Ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, they are not as bad as you make out? Not even during drug induced hallucinations... Jeff |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Bose and name recognition
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 00:27:40 +0000, GRL wrote:
Your claim about CR fear-of Bose is totally unsubstantiated making it merely your opinion, which is fine. You are entitled to hold incorrect views. On the other hand, Bose speakers do well in subjective testing backed by data collected by CR. And no, I don't own any Bose speakers. Never have. Probably never will. (OK, maybe in a car.) I do own PSB, NHT, and Paradigm. I object to Bose on a value basis, not on a performance basis. CR tells me they work pretty darn good and I believe them. I use Bose in a professional setting all the time (802's) and have them in one of my cars and they are not *that* bad. Overpriced for sure, but not terrible sounding. However, CR as far as I know, did testing in anechoic chambers which would yield terrible results for speakers like Allison or Maggies which are designed to be placed in specific locations in the room. IOW their response takes room reflections into account, kind of like Bose in general. CR did not take this into account in their tests. Even still, a typical home user could never expect to achieve the same results, both good and bad, that CR got because of the anechoic chamber measurements. In the past CR has liked Boston Acoustics which I have found to be excellent but overly bright. They liked Advent, which I find to be dull. They hated Bose, which I actually find to be quite decent, but way, and I mean WAY, overpriced. Personally I like Maggies, Dahlquist, Infinity, PD and Tannoy. -- Elliot Zimmerman "Life is Precious" |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Bose and name recognition
And you know what? They were right about the Titans. Their testing showed
graphically what I found when shopping for Titans a few years ago, a nasty little mid-bass emphasis. -- - GRL "It's good to want things." Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, humorist, chemist, Visual Basic programmer) "Jim West" wrote in message news:Xdhjc.26531$YP5.2088286@attbi_s02... In article YIbjc.42050$_L6.2566946@attbi_s53, Gonzo wrote: Jim West wrote in : In article , UnionPac2001 wrote: IIRC, Consumer Reports got their asses sued by Bose a few years back for giving a Bose product a bad (but honest) review. Ever since, CR has had nothing but good things to say about Bose products, fearing another lawsuit. I have read this assertion numerous times, but it has never been substantiated. Can you provide any evidence that their published evaluations has been influenced by the fear of a lawsuit? While they may not say a speaker is bad, they did make a subjective comment (sound of individual musical instruments tended to wander "about the room."), and were sued. These days I have only seen comments specific to the measurements and no subjective comments in CR reviews. Ergo, it may be presumed that CR wishes to avoid further legal action. This is simple speculation, not evidence. In any event, saying they now only comment on what the measurements directly reveal is a far cry from saying "CR has had nothing but good things to say about Bose products, fearing another lawsuit." CR gets sued all the time by bigger companies than Bose, and they always win because their comments are supported by their data. IMHO it is very unlikely that they are influenced in this case. Sufficient evidence to the contrary will convince me otherwise. BTW I remember in the late '90s they said that the Paradigm Titan sounded "disturbing" due to the midbass peak. That sounds pretty subjective to me. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Bose and name recognition
In article , normanstrong wrote:
BTW I remember in the late '90s they said that the Paradigm Titan sounded "disturbing" due to the midbass peak. That sounds pretty subjective to me. I don't recall that CU ever tested a Paradigm speaker. What issue would that be? Norm Strong It was a bit earlier than I recalled, Feb., 1996, page 31 to be exact. (Ah, the joys of access to a university library.) The exact quote was "Spike in mid-bass creates a boomy quality that may sound disturbing." Their overall recommendation was "Okay". Regarding the Boston Acoustics CR7, they said "Uneven response creates a sound quality that may be disturbing." The recommendation was "There are better choices, especially at this price." |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Bose and name recognition
Jim West wrote:
It was a bit earlier than I recalled, Feb., 1996, page 31 to be exact. (Ah, the joys of access to a university library.) The exact quote was "Spike in mid-bass creates a boomy quality that may sound disturbing." Their overall recommendation was "Okay". Regarding the Boston Acoustics CR7, they said "Uneven response creates a sound quality that may be disturbing." The recommendation was "There are better choices, especially at this price." Well, since they only test mid-fi under $400 crud, it's not going to be a pair of Genelecs. I remmber when they tested a B&W 601, which is their budget model, and it nearly aced the tests. I'd like for them to test some $500-$2000 speakers for a change. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Bose and name recognition
In article uEDjc.248$RE1.50176@attbi_s54, Elliot Zimmerman wrote:
However, CR as far as I know, did testing in anechoic chambers which would yield terrible results for speakers like Allison or Maggies which are designed to be placed in specific locations in the room. In addition to the anechoic results, they do consistently comment upon the room placement that yielded flatest response for them, which is really all that can be objectively stated. They point out that room placement, as well as room geometry, furnishing, etc. can have a significant effect on sound and that "tinker(ing) a bit" is beneficial for those who are "more particular" (taken from the August 2001, page 35 sidebar at the bottom). As has been pointed out, they always state that speakers that test the same in their accuracy measurements can sound very different, and that ideally you should have the option to return a pair that you decide you do not like in your environment. This is all excellent advice. I really do not understand all the CR bashing. Even still, a typical home user could never expect to achieve the same results, both good and bad, that CR got because of the anechoic chamber measurements. This is true about any measured response since all rooms are different. Measured response can never be more than a starting point. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Bose and name recognition
GRL asked:
Finally I'm not sure I understand your statement: about the CR tests of old "They even pointed out that the audibly smooth sound of a speaker, perhaps the factor actually resulting in its high rating, was actually due to a broad, shallow (around 1dB) dip in measured frequency response centered at around 1000 Hz.". Using the CR rating system, flat frequency response is rewarded with a high score. As such your statement only makes sense to me if you mean that the near flat response of that speaker (1 dB broad dip is basically nothing) yielded both good sound and a high score, validating their test protocol. I assume you meant this as a compliment to CR on their test protocol? I don't know how old you are, so this may have been well before you began reading Consumer Reports. The speaker in question was the AR-3, which makes this comment nearly 40 years old. Although the magazine clearly judged the AR-3 highly on the basis of its good sound, there was no "high score" in accuracy involved because there was no "accuracy score" at that time. I did mean the comment as a compliment to Consumer Reports, in the day when their judgments of loudspeaker performance were subjective. They uncovered the AR-3's secret when nobody else did. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Bose and name recognition
You have any evidence that this is the case?
No. I should have placed the word "apparently" between "products" and "fearing". My bad... Jeff |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Bose and name recognition
I remember (fondly) the AR3a's. The AR3's were slightly before the time my
interest in audio developed. I still don't understand the statement. I take you to mean that CR said that the AR3's "smooth" sound was due to a shallow dip centered around 1 kHz. As I said, that is virtually flat as far as speaker response goes and would be considered a very minor flaw. It would not be the cause of "smooth" response, however, except in the sense that it is a flaw so minor as to be non-detectable. -- - GRL "It's good to want things." Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, humorist, chemist, Visual Basic programmer) "Gene Poon" wrote in message news:97Rjc.6048$RE1.748831@attbi_s54... GRL asked: Finally I'm not sure I understand your statement: about the CR tests of old "They even pointed out that the audibly smooth sound of a speaker, perhaps the factor actually resulting in its high rating, was actually due to a broad, shallow (around 1dB) dip in measured frequency response centered at around 1000 Hz.". Using the CR rating system, flat frequency response is rewarded with a high score. As such your statement only makes sense to me if you mean that the near flat response of that speaker (1 dB broad dip is basically nothing) yielded both good sound and a high score, validating their test protocol. I assume you meant this as a compliment to CR on their test protocol? I don't know how old you are, so this may have been well before you began reading Consumer Reports. The speaker in question was the AR-3, which makes this comment nearly 40 years old. Although the magazine clearly judged the AR-3 highly on the basis of its good sound, there was no "high score" in accuracy involved because there was no "accuracy score" at that time. I did mean the comment as a compliment to Consumer Reports, in the day when their judgments of loudspeaker performance were subjective. They uncovered the AR-3's secret when nobody else did. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Bose and name recognition
If you are considering direct radiators (not reflective designs like Maggies
or 901's or Def Techs or the like), which most speakers are, the only fair way to comparison test them for frequency response is in a anechoic chamber. Otherwise you are testing the room as much as the speakers. (I think that's how many if not most speakers are tested during their design, anyway, witness the great use made of the Canadian government owned facility by Canadian firms, like PSB, that produce excellent speakers.) -- - GRL "It's good to want things." Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, humorist, chemist, Visual Basic programmer) "Elliot Zimmerman" wrote in message news:uEDjc.248$RE1.50176@attbi_s54... On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 00:27:40 +0000, GRL wrote: Your claim about CR fear-of Bose is totally unsubstantiated making it merely your opinion, which is fine. You are entitled to hold incorrect views. On the other hand, Bose speakers do well in subjective testing backed by data collected by CR. And no, I don't own any Bose speakers. Never have. Probably never will. (OK, maybe in a car.) I do own PSB, NHT, and Paradigm. I object to Bose on a value basis, not on a performance basis. CR tells me they work pretty darn good and I believe them. I use Bose in a professional setting all the time (802's) and have them in one of my cars and they are not *that* bad. Overpriced for sure, but not terrible sounding. However, CR as far as I know, did testing in anechoic chambers which would yield terrible results for speakers like Allison or Maggies which are designed to be placed in specific locations in the room. IOW their response takes room reflections into account, kind of like Bose in general. CR did not take this into account in their tests. Even still, a typical home user could never expect to achieve the same results, both good and bad, that CR got because of the anechoic chamber measurements. In the past CR has liked Boston Acoustics which I have found to be excellent but overly bright. They liked Advent, which I find to be dull. They hated Bose, which I actually find to be quite decent, but way, and I mean WAY, overpriced. Personally I like Maggies, Dahlquist, Infinity, PD and Tannoy. -- Elliot Zimmerman "Life is Precious" |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Bose and name recognition
"GRL" wrote
I still don't understand the statement. I take you to mean that CR said that the AR3's "smooth" sound was due to a shallow dip centered around 1 kHz. As I said, that is virtually flat as far as speaker response goes and would be considered a very minor flaw. It would not be the cause of "smooth" response, however, except in the sense that it is a flaw so minor as to be non-detectable. ==================== It's what Consumer Reports wrote in the magazine, whether you understand it or not. The article is from a test in the early to mid 1960s. A shallow dip centered around 1 kHz was apparently detectable and audible to them, and at the time, audibility (what this group now calls 'subjective testing') was the basis of Consumer Reports's ratings. The AR-3 was their top-rated loudspeaker in that issue. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Bose and name recognition
|