God, I've been following these BOSE threads for years and they always
end up reaching the same conclusions.

For the record, I sold the beasts back in the late 70's early 80's as a
sales weasel in a major audio salon in NYC.
I had to pay for college somehow!

Most customers returned them for something else, and yes we set them up
properly as this was a very high end clientele.

As a professional musician (keyboards) I have played many a gig with
802's and have done major events where the BOSE were the main system.
I have heard the board ops screaming and swearing........

I have heard the radio and the Acoustimass systems...

I have taken the 802's apart to re-foam the drivers (newfoam.com) and
have seen how they are made.

They are junk drivers.

I have gone to the dog and pony shows where they play a juiced 1/2 track
tape that makes the speakers sound wonderful.

Bottom line is that the Bose are overpriced junk marketed to people who
just don't know or should know better.

They are nothing more than a collection of cheaply made drivers in a box
coupled with an electronic eq to juice the sound and an advertising
campaign designed to extract the maximum amount of money from wealthy
wallets.

IOW they suck....

The WaveRadio sucks too and so does the Lifestyle system or whatever
that overpriced junk is called......

I'm sorry if I am offending anyone, but my experience is that you can
spend the same amount of money and get a far better system than Bose
will give you.


If you happen to be a Bose owner and happy, God bless you and I wish you
happy listening.


snapper

wrote:

They are junk drivers.

The WaveRadio sucks too and so does the Lifestyle system or whatever
that overpriced junk is called......

Interestingly enough, the same technology, though changed *just*
enough to not get them sued can be found in the Cambridge Soundworks
line. Of course, the BOSE equivalent models are the little
computer speaker systems.

You can get a $200 set on sale that's sonicaly equivalent to the
Lifestyle setup, just minus a sound source. They sell one
as well, but any CD/radio device will work just fine.

Is it good sound? No. At $200, though, it's priced right.

I have a $99($69 on sale) DVD player that has a 5.1 DTS decoder
in it, so maybe $10 in wires and connectors and presto - surround
sound. Yes I have a real system as well. This was just one of the
half dozen features included in the unit. It also does Karaoke,
MP3 and DVD-A.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
wrote:

They are junk drivers.

The WaveRadio sucks too and so does the Lifestyle system or whatever
that overpriced junk is called......

Interestingly enough, the same technology, though changed *just*
enough to not get them sued can be found in the Cambridge Soundworks
line. Of course, the BOSE equivalent models are the little
computer speaker systems.

You can get a $200 set on sale that's sonicaly equivalent to the
Lifestyle setup, just minus a sound source. They sell one
as well, but any CD/radio device will work just fine.


But the most recent Lifestyle systems also have room eq,
don't they?


--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

Steven Sullivan wrote:

But the most recent Lifestyle systems also have room eq,
don't they?

So does most any budget surround sound source.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

But the most recent Lifestyle systems also have room eq,
don't they?

So does most any budget surround sound source.

That's only becoming true *now*. When Bose
put in in their HTiB, it was something different.

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:


But the most recent Lifestyle systems also have room eq,
don't they?


So does most any budget surround sound source.


That's only becoming true *now*. When Bose
put in in their HTiB, it was something different.

Oh please. My Dolby Digital receiver in college had at least
20 surround sound equalization modes as well as digital
delays for the speakers based upon position OR via a mic and
a self-diagnostic pink noise test.

12 years ago. Bose just markets their techno-babble better.
The tech is nothing special at all.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:


But the most recent Lifestyle systems also have room eq,
don't they?


So does most any budget surround sound source.


That's only becoming true *now*. When Bose
put in in their HTiB, it was something different.

Oh please. My Dolby Digital receiver in college had at least
20 surround sound equalization modes as well as digital
delays for the speakers based upon position OR via a mic and
a self-diagnostic pink noise test.

12 years ago. Bose just markets their techno-babble better.
The tech is nothing special at all.

In-situ equalization is completely different from "surround" modes applied to
incoming program material.

wrote:

Oh please. My Dolby Digital receiver in college had at least
20 surround sound equalization modes as well as digital
delays for the speakers based upon position OR via a mic and
a self-diagnostic pink noise test.

12 years ago. Bose just markets their techno-babble better.
The tech is nothing special at all.

There were Dolby Digital receivers in 1992?

Software encoded in the DD (AC-3) format didn't become available until 1995
(iirc), on Laserdisc.

So what would a Dolby Digital receiver circa 1992 been used for?

Jeff

UnionPac2001 wrote:
wrote:


Oh please. My Dolby Digital receiver in college had at least
20 surround sound equalization modes as well as digital
delays for the speakers based upon position OR via a mic and
a self-diagnostic pink noise test.

12 years ago. Bose just markets their techno-babble better.
The tech is nothing special at all.


There were Dolby Digital receivers in 1992?

Software encoded in the DD (AC-3) format didn't become available until 1995
(iirc), on Laserdisc.

So what would a Dolby Digital receiver circa 1992 been used for?

Actually, it was an older Kenwood Pro Logic receiver with a
ton of features.

Nousaine wrote:

In-situ equalization is completely different from "surround" modes applied to
incoming program material.

My old crummy receiver did both.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
UnionPac2001 wrote:
wrote:


Oh please. My Dolby Digital receiver in college had at least
20 surround sound equalization modes as well as digital
delays for the speakers based upon position OR via a mic and
a self-diagnostic pink noise test.

12 years ago. Bose just markets their techno-babble better.
The tech is nothing special at all.


There were Dolby Digital receivers in 1992?

Software encoded in the DD (AC-3) format didn't become available until 1995
(iirc), on Laserdisc.

So what would a Dolby Digital receiver circa 1992 been used for?

Actually, it was an older Kenwood Pro Logic receiver with a
ton of features.

I kinda doubt it had the processing horsepower of even the Lifestyle
digital room correction engine.

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

UnionPac2001 wrote:

wrote:



Oh please. My Dolby Digital receiver in college had at least
20 surround sound equalization modes as well as digital
delays for the speakers based upon position OR via a mic and
a self-diagnostic pink noise test.

12 years ago. Bose just markets their techno-babble better.
The tech is nothing special at all.


There were Dolby Digital receivers in 1992?

Software encoded in the DD (AC-3) format didn't become available until 1995
(iirc), on Laserdisc.

So what would a Dolby Digital receiver circa 1992 been used for?


Actually, it was an older Kenwood Pro Logic receiver with a
ton of features.


I kinda doubt it had the processing horsepower of even the Lifestyle
digital room correction engine.

Then you don't realize how hopelessly average the Bose version
of "surround sound" is. They were too cheap for a *decade* to
even get a real DD decoder chip due to the (paltry) licensing
fees.

Q: does the current 3.2.1 GS one do DTS?(checks) As I thought.
My $69 DVD player decodes it but this $1200 piece of junk doesn't?
It doesn't even do dolby Digital, either - it has some sort of
proprietary decoding scheme.

The Lifestyle 35? $2799 is nuts.

From: Joseph Oberlander

The Lifestyle 35? $2799 is nuts.

Nuts is right.

You could buy the Sony 685 DVD/SACD/CD player for $250, a nice set of
Performance series Paradigms, and an appropriate 5.1 receiver for that money.
It would sound better and you could play SACDs.

I don't know if you could do a Magneplanar system for this much $, but I'll bet
you know, Joe.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

UnionPac2001 wrote:

wrote:



Oh please. My Dolby Digital receiver in college had at least
20 surround sound equalization modes as well as digital
delays for the speakers based upon position OR via a mic and
a self-diagnostic pink noise test.

12 years ago. Bose just markets their techno-babble better.
The tech is nothing special at all.


There were Dolby Digital receivers in 1992?

Software encoded in the DD (AC-3) format didn't become available until 1995
(iirc), on Laserdisc.

So what would a Dolby Digital receiver circa 1992 been used for?


Actually, it was an older Kenwood Pro Logic receiver with a
ton of features.


I kinda doubt it had the processing horsepower of even the Lifestyle
digital room correction engine.

Then you don't realize how hopelessly average the Bose version
of "surround sound" is. They were too cheap for a *decade* to
even get a real DD decoder chip due to the (paltry) licensing
fees.

This is a separate issue from the Lifestyle system having *room
calibration* as feature.

I'm not particularly a fan of Bose (and I did own a pair of (901's in the 80's)
But I've noticed that *true* Bose haters can't allow Bose *any* props.
IN late 2001/early 2002, when the Adaptiq audio calibration
system was rolled out, it *was* something new for HTiB....
and Sound & Vision reviewed it in their 'cutting edge' section.

Q: does the current 3.2.1 GS one do DTS?(checks) As I thought.
My $69 DVD player decodes it but this $1200 piece of junk doesn't?
It doesn't even do dolby Digital, either - it has some sort of
proprietary decoding scheme.

Then again, the 3-2-1 is a *three-speaker* 'virtual surround' system,
which *might* explain the use of proprietary decoding for DD
*and* DTS sources -- the system can play both, according to the
S&V review.

But why are we talking about hte 3-2-1 system
when I was talking about Lifestyle systems?
Only the latter have the Adaptiq room calibration feature.

The Lifestyle 35? $2799 is nuts.

Agreed, but the intensity of loathing for Bose by some
audiophiles also seems *unhealthy*.

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Nousaine wrote:

In-situ equalization is completely different from "surround" modes applied
to
incoming program material.

My old crummy receiver did both.

Room EQ? Really. What microphone did they (you) use?

Steven Sullivan wrote:

This is a separate issue from the Lifestyle system having *room
calibration* as feature.

Mine does that too. It will do a self-diagnostic pink noise
calibration. I think it's mostly crap, but the thing does
have about 50 odd quirks and fancy settings and modes which I
never really bother with. It was all the rage back in the early
90s to go techno-nuts, afterall.

I'm not particularly a fan of Bose (and I did own a pair of (901's in the 80's)
But I've noticed that *true* Bose haters can't allow Bose *any* props.
IN late 2001/early 2002, when the Adaptiq audio calibration
system was rolled out, it *was* something new for HTiB....
and Sound & Vision reviewed it in their 'cutting edge' section.

But, sadly, it was nothing a ten year old receiver hadn't already
done. Maybe for HTIB setups, but $1700 for a mid-fi solution
is silly. You could get a 5.1 setup for $800 quite easily
and still have $900 for a real DTS receiver. You'd only need
$300-$400.

But why are we talking about hte 3-2-1 system
when I was talking about Lifestyle systems?
Only the latter have the Adaptiq room calibration feature.

I looked at them as well. Same silly proprietary circuitry.
When the entire industry is using it as well as Lucas and
Dolby and 100% of the theatres in the U.S... You wonder
why Bose thinks they have a better solution. Lol.

The Lifestyle 35? $2799 is nuts.

Agreed, but the intensity of loathing for Bose by some
audiophiles also seems *unhealthy*.

Only because they really DO sound hopelessly average
and cost like they are gold-plated.

Farrell8882 wrote:

From: Joseph Oberlander


The Lifestyle 35? $2799 is nuts.


Nuts is right.

You could buy the Sony 685 DVD/SACD/CD player for $250, a nice set of
Performance series Paradigms, and an appropriate 5.1 receiver for that money.
It would sound better and you could play SACDs.

I don't know if you could do a Magneplanar system for this much $, but I'll bet
you know, Joe.

$2799 would be almost enough. MMGs all around and a nice sub.

$550*2 for the MMGs and ~$500 for the MMG center. Subwoofer is
another $400. $2000 spent on speakers.

http://www.outlawaudio.com/holiday-sale.html#
Click on the 950B/7100 link. $1499.

$3500.

7100:
7 x 165 watts @ 4 ohms, 20 - 20kHz, 0.05% THD, All Channels Driven

I looked at every single under $1500 amplifier made and found
nothing that would drive 7 4 ohm speakers. This is $899 new,
and $799 as a demo/special unit. The $1499 combo deal has
a seperate processor as well - by far the best "deal" out there.

Toss in an ICBM(made by the same company).
http://www.outlawaudio.com//products/icbm.html
Made specifically for Magnepans. $249. Will drive
6 channels and digitally manage and crossover the
bass from the receiver. Slickness.

$1750 for all three items.
If 5.1 is all you require, you COULD get the $300 a pair MMG-W
setup. With a center, it's $900 for a 5.0 setup. Add a sub
and you're at $1250 with some haggling.

$3000 isn't bad, IMO - certainly it's better than the Bose
at $2700.

www.magnepan.com - click on the "new from Magnepan" flashing
logo. They even come with intergrated piano hinges to mount
them flush with the wall. Swing out when you want to use them.

Me? I'd spend the Extra $750, though, and do MMGs.

Nousaine wrote:

Joseph Oberlander wrote:


Nousaine wrote:


In-situ equalization is completely different from "surround" modes applied

to

incoming program material.

My old crummy receiver did both.


Room EQ? Really. What microphone did they (you) use?

It was a feature. Hook the supplied mic into it. I lost it
and never used the worthless thing, but used the speaker
distance settings instead. There must be...

a grid of identical buttons. 5*12. 60 tiny buttons
on the darn remote alone.

There it is - test tone. And a mode selector.
Half a dozen other features I don't remember what they
do. Equalizer built in and surround modes and delay and...

Heh. Totally overkill waste of techno-gadgets. Still,
it's a good preamp.

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message ...
Steven Sullivan wrote:

This is a separate issue from the Lifestyle system having
*room calibration* as feature.

Mine does that too. It will do a self-diagnostic pink noise
calibration. I think it's mostly crap, but the thing does have
about 50 odd quirks and fancy settings and modes which
I never really bother with. It was all the rage back in the
early 90s to go techno-nuts, afterall.

snip

If it's just automatic setting of an equalizer by using pink noise
and a real-time analyzer, that is indeed old technology. I was
starting to wonder from what had been posted here if Bose
had actually implemented something newer, namely room
compensation by DSP-based echo cancellation. Which is it?

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

This is a separate issue from the Lifestyle system having *room
calibration* as feature.

Mine does that too. It will do a self-diagnostic pink noise
calibration. I think it's mostly crap, but the thing does
have about 50 odd quirks and fancy settings and modes which I
never really bother with. It was all the rage back in the early
90s to go techno-nuts, afterall.

What model is this?

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

L David Matheny wrote:
"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message ...
Steven Sullivan wrote:

This is a separate issue from the Lifestyle system having
*room calibration* as feature.

Mine does that too. It will do a self-diagnostic pink noise
calibration. I think it's mostly crap, but the thing does have
about 50 odd quirks and fancy settings and modes which
I never really bother with. It was all the rage back in the
early 90s to go techno-nuts, afterall.

snip

If it's just automatic setting of an equalizer by using pink noise
and a real-time analyzer, that is indeed old technology. I was
starting to wonder from what had been posted here if Bose
had actually implemented something newer, namely room
compensation by DSP-based echo cancellation. Which is it?

Adaptiq is a DSP.
THe user takes automatic frequency response and level measurements from five positions,
using hte Lifestyle system's headset, which contains microphones on each side.

I'll quote the rest from S&V

"Adaptiq takes the measurements from the different positions and comapres them with
a model curve that Bose's research team dteremined provided a "perceptibly"
flat frequency response for the system. It then creates an average
response curve that compensates for the different locations. Basically,
it looks at the data and makes tradeoffs to get the sound more in line with
the model curve, pinpointing and eliminating the greatest sonic evils,
such as extreme suck-outs or bass bumps (Unlike som e other more
expensive DSP room correction systems that attempt to cure frequency and time-based
errors separately, Adaptiq creates a composite correction curve for both
direct and reflected sounds.) Then it uses digital equalization to alter the
frequency response, phase, and level of the incoming signals."

The reviewer reports improvement mainly in teh lower frequencies, in his
trial of the system.

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

L David Matheny wrote:
"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message ...

Steven Sullivan wrote:


This is a separate issue from the Lifestyle system having
*room calibration* as feature.

Mine does that too. It will do a self-diagnostic pink noise
calibration. I think it's mostly crap, but the thing does have
about 50 odd quirks and fancy settings and modes which
I never really bother with. It was all the rage back in the
early 90s to go techno-nuts, afterall.


snip

If it's just automatic setting of an equalizer by using pink noise
and a real-time analyzer, that is indeed old technology.

Heh. It also sets digital delay and levels. I just do it manually
as the remote has seperate up/down delay buttons and a selector for
speaker - 1 min setup.

I was
starting to wonder from what had been posted here if Bose
had actually implemented something newer, namely room
compensation by DSP-based echo cancellation. Which is it?

Nah - just a fancy version of the same old technology.

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:


This is a separate issue from the Lifestyle system having *room
calibration* as feature.


Mine does that too. It will do a self-diagnostic pink noise
calibration. I think it's mostly crap, but the thing does
have about 50 odd quirks and fancy settings and modes which I
never really bother with. It was all the rage back in the early
90s to go techno-nuts, afterall.


What model is this?

It's one of the old Kenwood KR-V7000 series. I tihnk it does a
measely 65WPC RMS, which is why it's running my computer sound
system currently. I use it as a glorified switchbox.