Talk:Bose Corporation

Dr. Bose owns more than 90% of the common shares of the corporation, remains Chairman of the Board, Technical Director,and, effectively, the CEO. frankatca

Why was the material regarding opinions of Bose removed? Given how vitriolic discussions about Bose products can become, a person could concievably come to this page trying to find some perspective on the issue.

--Johnkarp 20:51, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I honestly have heard a discussion regarding Bose become vitriolic. (Note: I work for Bose.) Do the opinions of a company belong in an encyclopedia article? Surely there are people with opinions regarding all companies. I'd rather see a "Controversy" section added (Take "Microsoft" wikipedia entry as an example.)

The FAQ that was linked to provided no references and was loaded with almost pure opinion; not the type of material I'd like to see in an encyclopedia.

--siliconwafer 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, some examples of controversy.

If you look at the first google groups search result page for 'bose', you get: 'Why some people claim Bose Systems suck' 'Re: Why shouldn't someone buy Bose?' 'Re: 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...' 'Re: Bose Acoustimass® 15 Home Theater Speaker System Heh. I don't think you COULD find another speaker as bad a value as Bose and also as miserable sounding to MAKE an apple-to-apple comparison.'

Or the arstechnica.com forum, usually a sedate bunch: 'No Highs, No Lows, Must be BOSE!!!' 'What's with all the Bose threads?' 'Please save my girlfriend from spending $2400 on a BOSE system...' 'bose? dems fight'n words' 'Yeah, reccomend a bose product. That will go over well...' 'I think the major problem isn't that Bose sucks, it's that people are stupid.'

Judging from the commentary, you'd think Bose were a tobacco company. Worth a brief mention at least, perhaps in a controversy section as you say.

--Johnkarp 05:16, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Product Placement Section

This article (and Bose in general) will never be regarded as completely neutral, because many audiophiles would love nothing more than to get their hands on Amar Bose's neck (and smash his speakers). But do we really need the product placement section? It doesn't give any useful information and will only provide fodder for audiophiles proving Bose's pervasive marketing campaigns...and general "suckiness" by extension.MetraB 03:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting...

Hasn't anyone heard of Bose's infamous "Wave Radios," like the ones with big nice buttons on top and credit-card size remotes that no one can ever find the batteries for? (Actually, they're pretty nice machines, my relatives have one...)

FACT: 2032 button batteries can be found at all 7,100 locations of radioshack.

FACT:

AAAs and AAs are a hell of a lot more common than CR2032s, and can be found in a lot more places than Radio Shack and Digi-Key. They also don't cost multiple dollars apiece to buy from brick-and-mortar stores, and even AAAs have more guts than CR2032s. SVI 16:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Controversy

The many heated opinions about the Bose loudspeaker technology are best resolved by each listener for himself or herself. Dr. Bose himself says, and I have heard him say this repeatedly, let your own ears be the judge. Whichever technology appeals to you is the technology you should purchase. There are no absolutes when it to comes to the appreciation of sound quality, only personal value judgments. What Bose DOES assure you is that his designs more closely reproduce in homes the SPATIAL qualities of the incident sound fields experienced typically in live performances, namely that the preponderance of the sound arrives at ones head omnidirectionally, and the high frequencies in particular do so. Whether or not that improves ones appreciation of the music, let your own ears be the judge.

As for the "criticism" of BOSE products which follows this comment, it is quite correct that Bose Corporation does not publish the "specs" so beloved by the audio aficianado, not that Bose doesn't know what they are, their research labs are better equipped than most, with a staff of Masters and PhD level graduates from MIT and elsewhere. The problem is that the relevance of the measureable data to perceived audio quality is, by and large, indeterminate -- except in the mind of audiophiles who CAN detect and describe the differences, and to those folks, and to everyone else, the Bose position is: let your ears be your guide. Frank Ferguson, Lexington, Massachusetts

counterpoint:

Speaker system specifications are not universally loved by audiophiles. In fact, specifications are more highly valued by audio engineers than anyone else. Companies that withhold specifications for certain products do so because they can't measure them, because the specifications in question are not meaningful, or because the specifications look awful. Basic speaker measurement technology has existed for over half a century now, and many speaker measurements (especially frequency response) say a great deal about the speaker.

As for the the "Bose position": while working at a certain retail store, I was told that the Bose systems were always to be kept on their own display, far separate from the rest of the systems. Upon inquiring as to why this was so, I was told that Bose has very strict guidelines for any store that will stock their products, and one of them is something to the effect that their products can not be placed in an area where they can easily be A/Bed with competing products. (You can easily find out why if you do an A/B yourself.)

"Let your ears be your guide" is good advice for speaker buyers, but it does not appear to be what Bose advocates in practice. In fact, the opposite is true; if stores want to carry Bose products, they must set things up to make a normal comparison difficult and inconvenient for the consumer. At the very least, the fact that Bose fail to provide specifications for their products AND actively attempt to prevent direct comparisons between their and competitors' products should be seen as a major, obvious source of controversy.

---

The only meaningful kind of A/B is one where the listener cannot see the speakers. Anyone who has performed A/Bs knows that if the listener can see the size of the speakers, they will make preconceptions about how they sound. A huge part of accoustics is psychological. A customer in a store cannot do this type of A/B, and therefore, Bose is very justified in seperating their products.

Counterpoint: While I agree that one's perceptions will color an A/B, I don't think that a non-blind A/B between two different speakers is anywhere near meaningless, and I believe that even if one were to accept that rather questionable point it's still a long leap to your conclusion. Anyone who has performed A/Bs knows that many buyers do not think that bigger speakers = better; in fact, most average buyers seem to think bigger speakers are old technology (don't ask me, I just say what I see) and that Bose speakers sound better and are smaller. Anyone who has performed A/Bs SHOULD also know that the preconception/misconception most commonly generated is that higher price = better. Most customers I saw already thought Bose speakers sounded great, so what would Bose have to lose by having them do an A/B if their speakers even sounded about as good as the competition's and cost more? And what could they POSSIBLY have to lose if their speakers actually sounded _better_?

In short, I hardly think that Bose is "very justified" in separating their products simply because a MINORITY of consumers would compare based on size and not price. Having done several comparisons (including a double-blind done solely for the record) and an amateur FR analysis since, and having watched customers' reactions with direct speaker comparisons (semi-famous story about that: a guy agrees that rock-bottom Athenas sound better, but buys Bose anyway because they must be better somehow), I feel it is safe to say that Bose does not like A/Bs for reasons other than buyer preconceptions. Having worked retail much too often in my lifetime, I also feel it is safe to say that customer preconceptions would BENEFIT Bose on the whole (and have done so, which is why people buy their products).

Criticism

At the very least there should be facts included. Bose publishes no technical data on any of their speaker line (check their website). Try visiting Sennheiser, Onkyo, DALI or any other major audio equipment vendor and you'll find information such as impedence, frequency response and THD listed on their specifications page. The drivers of the Bose Acoustimass system, which retails for around $1300, are sold for $35 a pair here. The speakers in question contain paper cones in a thin plastic casing.

Your page with the $35 drivers hasn't been updated since 2000 and doesn't look very respectable.

This article contains a number of problems with their system backed up by facts and test results. Until this article becomes balanced rather than PR speak I'm adding a disupted neutrality tag. Defsac 06:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I see nothing about the article in its current form that makes it "imbalanced". The article states FACTS about the company, contains no opinion about the products, lists a few products, and links to its website. I see no reason to have a neutrality disputed tag on the article, therefore, I am removing it. Every company out there is criticized or disliked by someone, not just bose.

The article states: "Excessive Bass at the cost of Treble (The lack of Treble bothers Audio Veterans, Audio Engineers, and Audiophiles the most)"
Discussion: Bose designs speakers to deliver flat radiated total power over the audio spectrum rather than to deliver a flat "on axis" frequency response in an anechoic environment, the traditional measure of a loud speaker. Indeed, traditional speakers with front-facing tweeters mounted in a sizable baffle, do demonstrably radiate forward a noticeably higher level of upper frequencies, the baffle-mounted tweeters insuring a strong frontal lobe at the higher frequencies. And the lack of these lobed high freqencies can be interpreted as "inadequate treble." The flat radiated power criterion is directly correlated to the sound fields in a typical live performance space where the dominant received sound is omnidirectional in its arrival at the pina of the ear for virtually all in the audience. In a home, however, the traditional loudspeaker does not attempt to duplicate the spatial fields of a concert hall; BOSE speaker do attempt to do that. If ones criterion is duplication of the sound field of a traditional loudspeaker in a typical home listening environment, then, indeed, the BOSE speakers will be seen as "lacking treble." If, however, the criterion is a recreation of the experience of a live performance, the BOSE design may be judged, correctly, as the better choice. Which experience one prefers is entirely subjective. Hence, the Bose directive is to let your own ears be the judge of which you prefer.

I take it this is some sort of objection to the statement, maybe a request to change it? If so, do you have any evidence for your statement from a source other than Bose? If not, I'm afraid it must remain as is. Tens of properly executed FR measurements (regardless of whether or not you understand how they could possibly be correct when Bose's marketing department says otherwise) far outweigh what a company says about its own products. SVI

As for A/B comparisons, they are notoriously difficult to do fairly and well; small differences in volume, say 3dB, will be judged by most listeners as quality differences rather than differences of sound level. The louder speaker will often be heard as having the "better" sound--a reality that is well known to audio salesmen who arrange for the speaker they wish to sell -- the speaker of the week whose manufacturer has the highest current "spiff"--to be played at a very slightly louder volume in an A/B test.

A/B comparisons are actually quite easy to do fairly and well so long as you're not trusting a salesman to set it up for you. All you need is a trusted friend and an SPL meter to carry out a good, scientific test.SVI 02:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

3db is quite a large difference IMHO, especially when talking about driver sensitivity, or when things start to roll off at the edge of frequency responses.--Pypex 01:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Edit 2005-12-12

Took out the following lines.

• Excessive bass at the cost of treble (This bothers audiophiles the most.)

I tried searching for such criticism but did not find anything valuable. To the contrary I have heard the opposite criticism, meaning bose producing really small tweeters and not providing subwoofers(historically) meant that they were compromising with the bass and not trebel. If you find this one to be wrong then please provide a reasonable source(if you want to cite personal reviews then cite a bunch of them with some variety), and then feel free to get this back in.

• Unilateral Pricing Policies (This issue bothers buyers of all income levels)

At the least you need to elaborate on this criticism. What kind of company doesnt unilaterally decide prices? How is "deciding prices unilaterally" bad?

• Legal tactics

Again... elaborate...what leagal tactics? cite your sources.

Also please note: statements like (This issue bothers loudspeaker aficionados the most) are by its very nature pov. Try to avoid them, and if you must put such sentenses then provide evidence.

I am sure there is much to critcise about bose, but this section needs work.

hope this helps. --Spundun 06:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Watch your language guys

I had to edit some parts of the page because of the foul language being used in this page. I don't know what motivated someone to use foul language here, but let's keep Wikipedia PG-friendly.

some cleanup

Cleaned out a lot of messy POV stuff (including an entire section that basically said Bose's radio system was groundbreaking and sounded better than conventional space-wasting systems-- the former is simply untrue, the latter is an opinion and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia) and added a controversy section (seems merited given how Bose discussions can get in audio circles, though it's usually just all the particularly immature veterans lining up to insult Bose).

If anyone has any objections to this poor newbie's cleanups, please go ahead and state them. I'd like to think that I've moved this article towards NPOV, but I guess we all like to think that. Any thoughts? SVI 02:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I would love to have a Bose noise cancelling aviation headset, but at $1,000 I will buy one the Lightspeed (about $350). I can't believe that Bose really needs to charge that much for this headset, and I suspect the Lightspeed performs comparably.

IMHO, you are probably right, but be sure to demo both (if possible, see if you know someone with a pair if there's no other way) if you're looking to buy. I'm not much into aviation, but I do have some experience in the horrible world of audio, and I can safely say that most buyers tend to advocate what they own for a variety of reasons (and most of the time, they advocate them because they bought them, not the other way 'round). Off-topic, I know. SVI 05:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I've decided to link to that semi-famous intellexual.net rant. Is it unbiased? Of course not. Is it worth LINKING, at least? Yes, easily, by my measure. MANY articles on more controversial subjects (politics and others) link rather partisan sites.. they're linked to show one point of view, not to advocate it (advocacy would mean the rant was treated as fact instead of just linked to under "related links").

If anyone wants to provide a link to a perspective from the other side of the fence (it only seems fair, right?), go right ahead. Only reason I haven't is that I don't know of any. SVI 16:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems as though Bose, like many other former high-end audio manufacturers (Marantz, Fisher, etc.) has evolved from high-end products to the mass market. The old 901 was an excellent speaker, though at the time its low efficiency (necessitated by the use of aggressive active equalization to shore up the low frequency end using small drivers and a small enclosure) required high power amplifiers (at least 50 watts per channel or so) which used to be very expensive. Bose speakers these days are popular in rock groups, PA systems, background music in stores, and home theatre systems. Those applications don't require particularly high quality.

The Bose active noise cancelling headset (both the aviation and general-use versions) are based upon adaptive telephone echo-canceller technology that was developed by Bell Labs in the 1960s. While Bose's patents may be unique to applying the technology to headsets or for acoustic noise cancelling in particular, the basic idea was patented in 1970 by Sondhi, et. al, of Bell Labs. I have several patents in this area (application of echo canceller to measurement of echoes) so I think I speak from some base of knowledge.

Well, why not edit the article to include that, then? That's the point of having an open encyclopedia, and I doubt anyone would be surprised to learn that Bose has not actually done as much research on noise cancelling (or any subject, really) as they claim. SVI 17:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Fact: Bose Corporation spends well over $100 million a year in research and engineering and has a 70,000 sq. ft. building in Framingham, Massachusetts, entirely devoted to that effort.

• More cleanup. No offense, Vesther, but some of the addition seemed kind of like weasel language-- there hasn't reportedly been controversy, there HAS been controversy, and the general consensus in audio circles is without a doubt that audio is highly subjective. Most of your changes were perfectly fine, I just modified them a little, like with sorting the manufacturers into alphabetical order (might as well be in some order, I guess) and modifying the list (condensed, changed). If there are any objections to my edits, I'd be happy to listen. SVI 19:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that the sound-quality-to-power ratio remains a main concern to Audiophiles SVI, since audiophiles tend to sample and/or judge the headphones, earbuds, and other audio products by how rich and powerful the sound is and actually conceive how strong the value is. I usually say "sound power" as opposed to sound quality since people wants to know if the price they are paying equate to very powerful sound. Apparently you are paying high prices if the product apparently have very powerful sound, but in the matter of Bose, I think you are paying more for the Bose name and Bose's patents, but I think you're right about the fact that Bose is somewhat overpricing some of their products, and in fact Bose has a bad habit of pricing the products too high. -- Vesther 23:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I think we're referring to the same thing with "sound power" and "sound quality": how good, rich, crisp, accurate, powerful, high-fidelity, _____ the thing sounds. I say sound quality because it's what I'm used to hearing, and because power makes people think of RMS power ratings. By sound-quality-to-power ratio, do you mean sound-quality-to-price ratio / sound-power-to-price ratio?

I also think that Bose's products are often badly overpriced, and that people are paying for the name, not for good sound. Some would differ, though, and audio quality IS subjective, so it's only fair to leave things up to the reader. SVI 23:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I think Sound Quality, after reading the article over and over again, makes more sense, since it's what many headphone aficionados, audiophiles, loudspeaker aficionados, and audio veterans use the quality of the sound overall to perceive how "in-sync" the products are priced. I don't think Sound Power makes any sense whatsoever, since the type of magnets used in loudspeakers, headphones, and even earbuds determine the power of how much bass and treble you will be listening to. Therefore, I'm just gonna say that Sound Power is how the companies utilize the sound magnets to maximize the clarity of the bass and treble of sound. Sound Quality, as how I define it, is the measure of how efficient companies use their proprietary technologies to make sound as life-like as possible, plus it defines if a sound company is making full use of sound magnets, proprietary technologies they have, and other sound-enhancing amneties which determines if the sound turns out to be crisp. Oftenly I play Coldplay's "Clocks" and "Speed of Sound" plus Pet Shop Boys' "West End Girls" and "Opportunities (Let's Make lots of money)" to judge sound, though people have different ways of measuring the sound quality IMO. I would stay at "Sound Quality", since many sound aficionados measure the value by the sound quality alone, since 105% of the time they might use sound quality to measure whether the product is priced right or too high. -- Vesther 16:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I doubt consumers really look for this "sound power" idea when shopping for stereos. As any reasonable hi-fi set-up can easily reach earbleeding levels (quite literally!) and can cause severe hearing damage. And yes, some companies do tailor the frequency response of their speakers to be more pleasing to the human ear, i.e. more bass more treble in the 5-8Khz register.

Competition/Alternatives

I added some companies on the Market Share section of the area, but I feel that it should either be called Competition, Alternatives, and/or Competition/Alternatives instead of Market Share, since there's a lot of sound variety in today's sound market.

In addition to what I'm suggesting, I also have to make a point that a few sound companies are catering iPod users and it's no mistake that Bose is one of them, but I'm pretty sure that there are alternatives for iPod users as well, since Bose is known to cater to iPod users pretty much, but Altec-Lansing, Etymotic Research, JBL, Klipsch, and some other companies aren't willing to go down without a fight to convince the iPod aficionado that there's an alternative to Bose products. -- Vesther 00:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me. As for title, how about "Market Share and Competition"? wrt alternatives, I think providing the competition and relevant links/complaints from critics (the intellexual rant, providing reviews couldn't hurt if you know of any) should do the job while keeping the article NPOV. Anyone interested enough to actually look Bose up should have no problems following these along if they're interested in alternatives. SVI 01:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

"many" vs. "some"

______ audio veterans, audio engineers, loudspeaker aficionados, and audiophiles (mainly the vendor-neutral niche) have historically raised the following issues/criticisms/concerns with Bose in the following areas:

It is a fact that the vast majority of audio engineers and audiophiles hold opinions about Bose that are negative to varying degrees. Evidence for this is easily acquired, at least as far as any opinions are acquired for a given group. Hi-fi magazines, forums, and mailing lists all show a strong, common negative opinion regarding Bose, and the few polls that have been conducted back this up. Five minutes of exploration will reveal this in short order.

I am not advocating or agreeing with whatever issues these people raise. I AM, however, saying that it is unfair (and rather weaselly) to say that "some" hold them when it is quite obvious to anyone with even a toe in the hi-fi community that most members hold fairly strong negative opinions about Bose. SVI 02:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

many vs some

Internet-based forums and mailing lists are not reliable sources for objective information on Bose (or anything else, for that matter). Five minutes of exploration will reveal this in short order. Practicing audio engineers (the kind with a B.S. in engineering) are almost always either employed or affiliated with either Bose or a competing organization, so anything short of a peer-reviewed article submitted and published in an academic or scientific journal is automatically suspect. If you've come across any such independent publications supporting your point of view, please share it with the rest of us.

The entire concerns and criticisms section leaves much to be desired. For now, "many" must be "some" until factual evidence to the contrary is submitted.

This isn't about objective information regarding Bose. It's about objective information on the opinions expressed regarding Bose. When you say that a group raises the following issues with X, you are not saying that the following issues are problems with X, merely that that group raises them. In short, this isn't about who's "right", it's about accurately expressing an opinion and who holds it, regardless of how you or I feel about that group's ability to supply objective information. If many people raise the issue, then many people should be said to raise the issue-- it really doesn't matter whether they're right or wrong, objective or misled, because the purpose is to show the argument and who's making it.

I can't make it any clearer than this. I'm sorry if you interpret this as aggressive, but as you do not seem to see why "many" is "many" and not "some" (afaict, you think it has something to do with factual evidence regarding their statements, which it doesn't-- any relevant opinion on a controversial subject should be mentioned, regardless of rationality or factual evidence), I'm changing it back. If you can show that, in fact, many audiophiles and audio folks do not hold these opinions, I'd be happy to see your evidence; otherwise, kindly remember that the goal at hand before reverting. (ref.: to accurately depict these opinions and those who hold them, not to attempt to advocate or prove whatever viewpoints are being explicated.)

I am open to wording this to fit the NPOV policy better, or to make it somehow clearer that these are OPINIONS and not fact. I am not open to making the wording even more weaselly and vague than it already is (who the heck is this opinion held by "many" supposed to be attributed to?). SVI 16:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

many v some

"Many" implies too much. Perhaps "some" implies too little. A handful of sand contains "many" individual granules, but your still only holding "some" of the sand on the beach. Perhaps the best solution to is to do away with both terms and simply report more objectively that people within these groups disagree and argue amongst themselves.

Works for me, though on a semi-OT note I'd say from time in audio circles that it's difficult to imply too much here. At any rate, I also think that "many" can be both somewhat misleading and a little too vague, and attempting to quantify can apparently make people think an argument by majority is being made, so this version looks like it should work better than "many". SVI 12:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

"Please see the talk page"

Please stop making this edit. No article's content should direct the reader to its talk page. If you can not back up your statement sufficiently for it to go in the article itself, a mention of the talk page doesn't belong there either. If you CAN back it up, then kindly do so now. Either way, please stop now. I would hate to seek arbitration over such a minor issue. SVI

Markup

I need to find some independent, or rather, public pricing info. Most Bose HT systems are sold at about 45-60% margin for the RETAILER, not even including OEM markup. They set their MAP that high. I've got numbers from several major retailers of the 3-2-1 systems, from employees with access to it (some of which I've personally verified), but I need independent stuff not roped in by Bose contracts and lawyers, or at the very least, company NDAs. I don't know any retailers that like employees releasing invoice data.

Riotgear 23:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Based on my previous purchase of various Bose products, I should make a note that Bose won't even post any audio specifications (i.e. Impedance, Sensitivity, Noise, Driver Metal Type, etc.), so I guess that refusal to post Audio Specifications can be a criticism. — Vesther 03:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Sony, Altec Lansing, Onkyo, Klipsch

I've looked at each of the websites for each of the subject companies and found limited common areas of competition in the categories of HTIB, and mini audio systems. In the categories where there is some crossover, the price points indicate that they are pursuing a different market or demographic than Bose. As such, I am considering removing these names from the list of direct competitors. I haven't looked as closely at Klipsch, but a brief visit to the Klipsch website would suggest that Klipsch should also be removed--the size and price of a Klipsch system suggests that they pursue a more exclusive niche or segment of the Consumer Electronics market.

That brings up an interesting point. There are, afaik, very few direct competitors to Bose based on both price and quality, probably because few others have the marketing power to sell unremarkable sub-sat HTIBs at such prices. If you've checked their sites and they don't seem to compete in the same exact segment (read: where the "smaller is better" and "more expensive is better" market segments overlap), I for one have no objection to removal. Actually, I need to trim a couple too... Athena and KEF lines do not, AFAIK, target the high-end segment of the market. Anyone object to this either? SVI 12:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Some competitors may be removed, at your discretion, since they have either little or nothing to do with competing with Bose directly, so I'd say research the competitors' offerings very carefully and edit where you see fit and/or credible. — Vesther 13:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

A lot of people are drawn to Bose from other brands thanks to the flashier displays and aesthetics. I wouldn't say the "smaller is better" market segment is all of their competition, because size is just another consideration people make when picking out HT equipment. To that extent, I'd say anyone making expensive HT audio equipment is a competitor. Riotgear 05:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Some expensive HT/audio equipment manufacturers go out of their way to not be seen as Bose competitors. Others seek to compete head on. Not every HT manufacturer wants to make a HTIB system, especially the most expensive brands. Not every manufacturer wants to have to compete in the "wave radio" market, because of Bose's extensive (expensive) marketing in this category. I think the manufacturers presently listed have demonstrated both the desire and the ability to compete directly with Bose. I'm sure there are others...

Locations Section

I think this is out of place for an article IMO. I don't know where "Locations" belong, but I feel that it should go with the "Background" and/or "Vital Statistics" section. — Vesther 03:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Your call. I just moved it out of the main section, I don't actually have any preference wrt location so long as it's not in the middle of something. SVI 04:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Bass Problem Clarification

I talked to someone at a Tweeter Audio/Video store and I asked him how he felt about the Bose Tri-Port Headphones. He told me that he didn't like them because the mid and low bass levels tend to overlap the Treble levels, and that he can't hear the highs whatsoever. He was pretty much an audiophile and he recommended the Shure Earbuds over the Bose Tri-Port Headphones for reasons unknown.

Just wanted to clarify the Audiophiles' criticism about the Bass problem. — Vesther 20:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Automotive?

There is no discussion in the Bose article of their automotive business, which is VERY significant. They have a pretty good customer base; last I knew, Ferarri, Audi, GM, etc.

Then go ahead and add it. Be bold, and all of that. Also, please sign your posts with three or four tildes (~ = tilde, four tildes timestamps while three just leaves your name or IP). SVI 05:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

intellexual.net piece

As I said, I'm putting it back in. Links are not just for providing readers with objective, factual data. On a subject on which there is controversy, links to opinionated pieces from either side are perfectly fine so long as they are clearly separated from the article itself (they are). As an example, I point to creation science-- many of the links there are pure opinion, with no basis in fact or indeed reality. As you can see, it's really irrelevant whether the linked article is right or not so long as it accurately expresses a significant group's collective opinion on the matter. I have relinked it stating that it is an "opinion piece." Any further objections? SVI 05:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It appears that the Acoustimass 15 referred to in the intellexual review is no longer in production. A link to a product no longer available from Bose is questionable. Perhaps someone knows of something more current?Waulfgang 19:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Legal

I looked up the legal data on Bose when adding it, however I could not find any records from crediable sources related to the legal suits mentioned in the FAQ. I even used LexisNexus to see if they had anything and could only find the suit for the "Lifestyles" name. The only sources I could find from Google all reference the FAQ or someone else that did so.

Also SVI I would like to see your source for the Consumer Reports section you removed since I used the FAQ as a guide as to how the audiophile community saw the test and was trying to demenstrate that while Bose did sue CR they might have been in their right. Or at least the audiophile shouldn't knock on Bose for doing so. So really if doesn't matter if the test was valid it just matters that both groups thought the test was poor.

The FAQ is not representative of the entire audio community and should not be seen as such. The test that CR was being sued over was actually one of their last reasonably useful audio tests, done using semi-scientific techniques and based on sound quality rather than looks and features (as they are now). There are audiophiles who agree with this, but only the ones who believe in measurements and double-blind testing over "trusting their ears," and then only the ones who actually remember the test and cite it (many think CR's current tests are an indicator of the quality of that test). SVI 10:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Patents

The legal and merit issues aside, it would be good to know what patents are at issue. In March 2005, I asked Bose's law firm (Fish & Richardson - http://www.fr.com) for a list of patents on the Bose Acoustic Wave System. This is the list I got back:

4061890, 4158756, 4490843, 4577069, 4628528, 4739514, D502462, RE37223

Some of those patents have expired, unless they have been extended under the "patent term adjustment rule." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_United_States)

What other patents does Bose hold?

A quick search of http://www.uspto.gov returns 168 US patents assigned to Bose Corporation. There may be more from before 1976, and there are certainly some non-US patents, as well.

Over thinking the NPOV

"The consensus in audio circles is that the overall quality, reliability, and value of audio devices (speakers, headphones, et al) are highly subjective, meaning that they vary highly from individual to individual. As such, it is important to remember that these views should not be seen as fact (meaning objective, true data), regardless of who holds them or why."

Translation. The consensus in that there is no consensus, and as such you should not take anyones opinion as fact. I think people have gone a little over the top in trying to keep criticisms NPOV.--Pypex 01:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Watch your edits guys.

I had to revert some "Encyclopedia-illegal" edits from this article even though neutrality is encouraged. While Wikipedia always prefer neutrality over biasness, any Encyclopedia-illegal edits will be reverted, even though it comes from a legit source, since some encyclopedia-illegal edits might be considered "trolling". Please try to avoid adding any trolling on an article, and try to keep Wikipedia articles encyclopedia-legal at all times. Thanks. — Vesther 01:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, it has came to my attention that I'm seeing some biased edits as well. Try to keep the edits neutral to form. While I have my shares of biasness, try not to be so overly biased when editing. Thanks. — Dark Insanity 19:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Positive bias?

Below are from the edits on 23:20, 20 February 2006 came from G_25I am listing this in the talk page simply because its the 1st time I noticed someone being biased in a positive way towards Bose.

Some of what was listed by the user I think does deem some consideration to be included. Yet most of it was of an opinionated nature (just like most biased reviews) and unfortunately can’t be used. If the user would cite any sources it would go a long way to help create a counterbalance to the criticism section of the article.

The intellexual.net article that was disputed by G_25 is referring to an older discontinued Bose system (it even had a passive bass). The inclusion of the link is dubious at best, but due to its infamy on the net it would be hard to completely ignore it. Using the intellexual.net article to talk about current Bose products is akin to talking about the iniquities of Windows XP but basing those on an article about Windows 98. I believe that it should be mentioned next to the link that this is talking about a discontinued and outdated product.

There are certain websites providing very biased reviews or information based on either just word of mouth, an older product or unfair comparison. Do review some of the miss-understandings: Bose do not use basic paper drivers, they are all now treated and will not rot. On some speakers Bose uses a special material or kevlar. Bose speakers will always reproduce up to 16Khz, regardless of product, and it's also known that the average human hearing range is much less when your a mature adult, so the difference would not be very noticable. The acoustimass systems do not have a gap in the audio spectrum, as the acoustimass will do up to about 280Hz, where then the JewelCubes will take over. Though the acoustimass can be localised on some notes (if correctly placed this will not be a serious problem for most people) The acoustimass bass modules will deliver down to 30Hz without any problem. The direct/reflecting, although may be not studio sound - it's cirtainly the radiation pattern of a live instrument in an untreated room. Therefore, it's a very concert hall 'like' effect. It's subjective as to if you like this type of reflected sound or not. Bose in general don't break down as much as most consumer electronics. You have to consider many factors including: The size, the performance for such a small unit, it's compactness, ease of use/simplicity as well as what sound quality works for you. Although the wave systems are very expensive, they provide a fit purpose: A small elegant system, in one box, complete with everything, it's got no wires and yet it's easy to use while providing good sound quality for the average to music buff. Although a guy I know was a 'Bose Basher', I never told him the Bose cubes were installed - I had a pair of floor standers in front - wired up, and a pair of small rear speakers (though these were not powered to the DVD Player/Receiver) - and the Movie began playing on the Bose. He was impressed - until he knew it was a Bose - where then he became slightly biased. The point is, LISTEN to the product first before deciding. Choose yourself. Needless to say, the guy has some Bose Companion 3 speakers and is somewhat pleased, despite the cost. This is not in anyway a bias towards Bose, it's just a statement to review some of the things people have issues with - and the opposite arguments based on my own experience and that of others, or understaning I have of those Bose products mentioned. Intellexual.net: "Bose AcoustiMass-15 review" / opinion piece on Bose(This website has some element false information, which has been proven wrong by various sources)

I hope that this can create a dialog that ends up with a more balanced and impartial article. Thanks for you time (UKPhoenix79 08:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC))

At the risk of sounding insulting to that user (I've no wish to offend), little of what the anonymous user said below is demonstratably true, and none of it is relevant whatsoever in this article. Even if all of his her claims were correct, this is not the place for any of them. An encyclopedia article is not a forum thread. SVI 19:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for moving it, I actually thought it should be in the discussion page anyway. I'm new to this. However, I do think Bose has had maybe a tad too much critism. My statements I truly belive are true, and I do know many places and forums where it has been said the article at intellexual is wrong. If I can find the articles I will cirtainly post them.

Maybe the 'bashers' haven't actually seen the drivers in the latest systems, there is a rubber surround on the Bass drivers and a silky but papery material for the cone area. The excursion is quite impressive. The twiddlers and made of the silky/papery type material and has a foam surround (which Bose assures me it does not rot).

I know a few people in the business selling Bose systems. I'm not a newbie when it comes to sound systems, and I'm not going to go round saying: "Go get a Bose". Yes, they are somewhat expensive, probably a massive markup - but I own a few Bose products. Not a single has failed, yet a Klipsch system I had on my PC failed after a year and a half, the internal amp had to be fixed. I'm also quite happy with the way they sound, ok, I'm sure there is better... I've heard better, but they are bigger - and generally cost the same. I'd rather have my desk space back. Needless to say, those klipsch are replaced by Bose Companion 3s which sound good, but in a different way. The Klipsch had very loud treble, and overboosted lowermid-bass. The Bose is vety subtle and doesn't hurt my ears as much as the Klipsch. But this is personal preference.

The statements about the acoustimass freq response is true due to my own testing on a Lifestyle 35. It may be different on the other models. However, I don't feel as though I'm missing anything and a 30Hz - 16Hz sweep is perfect, sounds fine - no gaps, no volume increase or decrease, or at least not noticable to the human ear. Down below 30Hz, it does loose the power handling - but most 'cubed' subwoofers only truly reach 30Hz, unless your spending £800 or more on your subwoofer alone. I've heard a Velodyne really hit hard against a Bose, but it was much larger and cost a lot more. So basically, Bose has it's place in the market. It may not be the best, but it's miles ahead of the £1000 HTiB systems. The thing I do praise Bose for is the all-in-one system, it means home users can get good sound, while it being easy to use.

I actually know the full specs for the Companion 3s. 18wrms per channel sats., 60watt Compact Acoustimass with DVC driver. The response on a sweep was about 28Hz - 17Khz. Don't use this as a real information, it's from my own self tests using audio measurement software. The wattages though are in RMS IEC and are correct information, from Bose.

Considering the size of the speakers, I find those specs acceptable and I don't feel £200 was way too much, it was overpriced by a little, but not grossly overpriced.

I'm not writing all this to directly Biad towards Bose... I'm just pointing out that with the newer products I've tried and tested, and actually use some of them - there are some mis-conceptions about the Bose systems.

I disagree with the statements about they have no highs and no lows, they are not accentuated - I find them perfecly balanced.

Bose don't produce specs for a few reasons. One being it can confuse consumers. I think this is a get out for them, as I know they use Psychoacoustics.

The ABS plastic they use, will have a resonant freq. To prevent disortion the speaker cannot produce that freq. Bose will not leave it out, instead they use Psychoacoustics to fill in those missing freq. Therefore, Bose graphs will always look poor in some places and look to have levels of high distortion.

Infact, I've never got most of their systems to distort fully - even with different types of distortion such as Power Handling distortion, or distortion from a freq out of the capabilities of the drivers.

I also disagree when people say they use cheap parts, they are far from cheap - they are not the most expensive... but the drivers are not $35 each. They are not OEM, they are actual Bose drivers which Bose make themselves. They hardly ever fail, they have a good response for such a small driver and they cut out the problems with crossover issues from tweeter to mid-bass, they also have good power handling - while being small. The electronics inside are of good quality too, as I said, not a single driver or unit has ever failed - nor have I heard many reports of systems failing.

It's true Bose uses weird ways of getting sound out of speakers, but so what? It will suit some people and not others.

I'm trying to refrain from making this a 'for bose/against bose' - but Bose has it's problems, just like any other speaker. None are perfect. The guy who works at that shop selling Bose I mentioned earlier, said: "All speakers distort, just choose the one that least offends you"

Therefore, let the people decide... I am sick of these Bose arguments everywhere - Bose are not a bad company in themselves and I really do think their products have a place and don't actually sound as bad as people make them out to be. Sure, you say there's better... and guess what? I'm sure there's better than your Paradigims... there's always going to be better, there's always going to be some that are better value than others... but at the end of the day. If someone likes Bose or buys Bose... Lets not get mad.

And maybe give Bose a valid chance, wipe the slate clean - go to Bose themselves if you can and talk to their engineers and discuss your views... infact their guys are very nice people and they DO know more about sound than anyone here or in the forums... trust me. Go talk to them, Bose actually listens to it's customers so go visit a few guys there (trust me, if you go to their forum on the website and ask to visit them, I'm sure they will let you) and share your views about Bose. Maybe then, Bose will become better for you guys and improve it's image to audio boffins with a new line of 901s?

The whole point of this, is to give some of the views from a different side, and why some of the critism may be incorrect. The only true way to find out, and Bose himself says it: Listen. Use your ears and not the measurement instruments... which one do you like more? Then choose that!

If anyone has questions about this please feel free to post here, but please keep your comments reasonable and no bashing/flaming towards me, just describe why you feel that my point is incorrect and maybe give some reasons why you feel that way about that product/speaker.

SVI - How do you know what I've said is incorrect? And, no I'm not offended. I'm just interested in hearing why you feel my statements are un-true?

Some info: http://www.pcmag.com/image_popup/0,1871,s=1617&iid=85387,00.asp (Mirrors the altecs response almost, but the altecs are louder by the looks of it - but I've found the C3s to be more than loud enough)

And in case any of you were wondering: I do not work for Bose, but I do know people whom sell their gear and work with Bose. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by G_25

Lordy, that's a long post. I'll respond to it with something short and hopefully to the point.

It doesn't matter what my arguments are for my statement; it doesn't matter what yours are for yours. It doesn't matter why you spend your money on Bose, it doesn't matter what else you have tried. Even if everything you said in the original edit were completely correct, none of it would be relevant content for an encyclopedia entry, thus none of it should be even considered for inclusion.

If you really and truly want to debate the merits of Bose products, and/or are curious why they are so widely disliked by audiophiles and audio engineers alike, go find a decent audio forum (I like Hydrogenaudio, myself... generally down-to-earth people who believe in the value of real-world data and measurements, not fancy $400 cables and sugar pills-- there are always exceptions, but still), post your opinion there, wait for replies, and have a discussion. Alternatively, ask some audio engineers who don't work for Bose (preferably who don't work for any speaker company) what their feelings are on the subject-- you might be surprised at how much one's place of employment can affect one's views (shock, horror). Understand that I mean no offense, no ill will, nothing of that sort when I say that this just is not the place.

If you are unhappy about that "criticism" and the Bose product review get listed with no counter-criticism, check out Creation science, my favorite example of how points of view are displayed in an NPOV article, and look at the external links section. SVI 22:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, yes it was rather long, sorry about that. I'll leave it at that, and say no more on this - as you say, this is the wrong place. I was wrong in trying to give some of the other sides of the story on the Wikipedia... it's just I came across the critism but no actual counteracting thoughts listed... it just makes Bose look like total rubbish... maybe they are. I dunno... but as I've said I'm quite happy with the Companions 3s and dont feel as though they are 'bad'. I've heard many other high-end systems, even some £18,000 massive floorstanders from B&W, and Linn in the UK, they are impressive - but price? size? amps? players? It's all added cost, and then there's the setting up. The problem with those forums, is articles about Bose cause major arguments (which is wrong, everyone is entitled to an opinion, no matter what it may be.

I understand totally why people dislike them (I hope you dont think I am a newbie to sound, I know exactly what all the measurements mean, etc and why people dislike bose), but I haven't had any of the problems people claim with the Bose systems (I dont feel I need more treble, mid or bass, or missing any sound compaired to a pair of floorstanding Klipsch, etc). Maybe I'm listening to a different range of products those people. I don't know, but there again, everyone is different. I've spoken in depth with people whom dislike Bose... or just have never bought Bose but have used say, KEF. It varies, some dislike the sound - others just think it's overpriced but they sound decent, and one guy actually said: Bose are quite good, but for the moment I'm happy with my KEF system... My reply was: but have you heard a Bose system? He said: "Yeah, they are excellent, wouldn't mind getting some 301s for the front". It's all mixed, just theres more bad than good, and I have heard people say: "Bose is rubbish" - They've heard a system and then changed their minds - just because a bunch of people in a forum say they are rubbish, doesn't mean you can go round saying it, but some people think they can... trying products for yourself is the only true way to know whats good/bad about a product. It would be nicer to say: "Why not try a few systems, and listen to the Bose before buying it? Ensure your happy the Bose is best for you first!" Instead of: "Bose are rubbish, they use paper drivers and they only sound as good as a cheap Home entertainment system" - and thats a false claim, because they don't exactly sound 'that' bad...

But, this is not the place to discuss this as you say. So silence from now.... but before I leave this alone, I just want to say (not to you SVI but anyone else reading this): Please just lets all get on, accept someone eles opinion - just advise the forum poster to listen to some other speakers but don't go round saying Bose are rubbish when, quite frankly some of you haven't tried a Bose system (not meaning that to be all of you). At the end of the day, listen and decide with your very own ear. Don't listen to me, don't listen to anyone - not even BOSE... clean sheet shopping, check everything out and see what you like best based wholely on what you feel is most important, if it be SQ, Volume, Size, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by G_25

Below is a Reply to SVI 19:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I don’t know about that. I think any evidence disputing the criticisms of Bose products should be used thus creating some kind of counter point to the criticisms, balancing out the article. I just don’t know how to make the article seams more NPOV. The intellexual.net link really concerns me and I believe that some warning should be listed. How about "this article is highly subjective based on a discontinued and outdated Bose product" or "this article is disputed and is referring to a discontinued product" UKPhoenix79 08:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Below is a Reply to G_25 21:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

My Pleasure I’m glad that I moved this for you. I thought that your comments deserved to be seen by others. I agree that Bose does seam to get more than its fare share of "bashers" but we need some kind of evidence to repudiate their claims. I agree that the best thing to do is simply hear the product before you criticize and I don’t believe that most do.

You describe the cones with great detail and if there is a page on the web that has photos disproving people’s claims please put a link to that. What would be even better is if you have your own photos you could upload them to Wikipedia thus proving what you’re saying. I would agree that Bose is well known for their customer support and product longevity. I don’t believe that anyone is disputing that in the article. You mention that you have tested them yourself why don’t you show some evidence of what you have done? This could go a long way in proving your point. Just remember that they have to be done in a scientific way to leave no doubt about its accuracy. So doing this in a lab or some type of controlled environment would be best.

You have a lot of detail about Bose Computer Speakers especially the Companion 3 why not put up those facts on a page?

Welcome! Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public). Create an account As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful: Learn more about editing Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics. If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here: Get help at the Teahouse If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here: Volunteer at the Task Center Happy editing!

Please remember to sign your comments it really helps all of us out. Why not create a user account? UKPhoenix79 08:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Below is a Reply to SVI 22:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think some talk about the subject is quite healthy and a good change of pace. I do agree that this isn’t a forum. Yet at the heart of this it is about making the article more NPOV and I think that if we could get some facts to counter the claims of people that would be a good thing. Do you think that putting a link to Hydrogenaudio Bose’s section would be a good inclusion to the article? Thanks UKPhoenix79 08:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If you wish, though since the article isn't supposed to adopt any sort of position on the corporation's products one way or another it will just be discussion for discussion's sake. Although I do not ordinarily object to such a thing (it's healthy and gives me something to do instead of work), this discussion has been had many times before in many different places by people much more qualified to comment than any of us, and I doubt we will break any new ground whatsoever.

Like most forums, Hydrogenaudio's boards do not have vendor-specific sections. Forums that DO have vendor-specific sections are unlikely to list Bose... they, ah, don't have a very good reputation among audio folks. The Audio Hardware forum is located at http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showforum=21 , but I doubt it would be a good link for the article. SVI 13:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Your right this article alone wont change anyones opinions. I just like hearing a different side for once. I think that any evidence that 86.112.238.117 finds should be included in an article that talks specifically about that product or product family. I have spent a long time improving the Bose Headphone Family article with specifics about the headphones listed. It wouldn't make sense to talk in detail about specific products in this article... but it is nice to have a good conversation. UKPhoenix79 22:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Below is a Reply to G_25 23:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually I don’t think that you were wrong about giving the other side I believe that you were spot on…. Only a bit too enthusiastic and opinionated for an encyclopedia article. Frankly I liked it; it was quite refreshing to get someone defending Bose.

I would have to agree with you the specs can lie and you could get a system that had all the right specs and it would sound horrid. Some people need to know everything about a system but frankly there going to have to enjoy what they get. So if there going to get a 5.1 surround sound system listen to what’s out there hear with your own ears and see what is best for you. Heck, bring your own stuff so that you can control the demos and make sure that the Bass & Treble are at Zero on all of them.

Please come back and bring some facts that can be used. You might be 100% right but without evidence nothing can be done. UKPhoenix79 08:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Below is a Reply from 86.112.238.117:

I will create a user account, but before I do - so you know this is the same user, I will post in the same way.

Rightyo, I wish I had the extensive back-up - but without proper scientific labs I obviously cannot produce graphs that Audio guys out there will trust to be accurate. I also understand that you cannot just take my word for these points I mentioned.

I will try to answer some of the questions you have had about my post:

1) You mention I understand about the drivers and I need images to prove this.... I actually have looked at a few drivers open air of a mates who actually sells Bose systems. He decided to take a good look into the Companion 3 speaker system which is Bose's lowest cost 2.1 Computer Speakers. I know for a fact it wasn't paper alone, it looked type of shiney and plasticky, but it wasn't plastic. This guy told me it was either treated paper or Bose's own material they are starting to use, which has the same properties/sound as paper drivers but resists rot/damp and tonal change in different temp rooms. The acoustimass module had two voice coils (this can be seen by anyone using a very bright light in a dark room to look behind the grill - I wish I had pictures and if I can get this guy to send me some I will upload them ASAP). I know that this will probably not prove to any of you guys that I am correct, but maybe you'd like to check out in a shop the Companion 3s, take a small powerful light and look behind the grills - you can see the drivers to a degree and cirtainly make out the type of material and the cone's.

The rest of my information has been gained from various sweeps I've sent over the Bose systems. I have a series of test MP3s/WAVs and CD's with sine waves on. From 20Hz to 48Khz (for high resolution supertweeters) - and I noted in stages of 1 from 20 to 30Hz - that the system started to produce an audiable and very deep resonance at about 28Hz. This was 8 stages into the test. 20Hz was a faint sound, but in reality - I feel the Bose acoustimass does go low enough to be acceptable for a £200 sound system. I noted the sounds it does produce, it did very well (to the ear). In the treble region, don't expect much above 18Khz at all... theres a slight peak there but after that it rolls off... but it depends on your ears. Personally I don't find the Bose lacks high treble - but this is subjective.

Again, I wish I had graphs and data to show you - but it isn't verifyable because I'm not a qualified sound engineer - I don't work in a speaker company - I just like music, enjoy good quality sound, and I'm also a musician. Therefore, I am quite critical to the way a speaker sounds. I can't stand cheap £30-40 speakers, they infuriate me - the thing is the Bose... I just can't seem to find the problems people have with them. No highs? No problem for me, I hear the high notes but they don't hurt my ears the same way a Tratrix horn on a Klipsch does, it sounds rather balenced and natural. And about bass? I find it more than acceptable, it maybe not the punchiest, deepest, earth moving bass - but it sounds musical and refined to me. It's not overblown and flashy (but nor do I think Bose wish them to be). I've found Bose systems just correctly balenced. Maybe it's my room, positioning, etc. I don't know, but to me the system performs very well. Though, if anything there are a few overpriced products in their range. I do note that the 201s from Sound and Vision Online are only £139, which is a steal (they arn't that bad for surround sound speakers, or even for music if you have a subwoofer to match up). They I feel are probably the best value, and the Companion 3 speakers too(I'm not saying the companion 3s are the best speakers, because they have their problems such as a small ambient hiss from the acoustimass - but for £200 a very faint hiss from an acoustimass module isn't vetry important because I found it was far less than even some expensive amplifiers I have, and it seemed quieter than an Onkyo - but the Lifestyle acoustimass has no hiss whatsoever). The triports are not too bad as well. Their Wave system is a tad over the top, it would be better at £299. The Lifestyle systems could do with a few hundred off the cost too. When you look though, at the features of the lifestyle systems and the engineering that goes into the products design it's all very clever (AdaptIQ, Umusic, Bose Link, are all excellent features that very few other systems have). I guess you actually pay for a patented product that you can only get from Bose. If their waveguide is the most expensive way of getting bass from 2.5" speakers - I guess all your paying for is the engineering. Whereas the soundworks 740 from Cambridge Sound Works just uses a small woofer unit, which could produce distortion or rattling because it's engineering will be less detailed because of it's cheaper design, though it may sound bassier on some material meaning you would probably choose that over the Bose because of it's flashy bassy sound. But at the end of the day, if you prefer that instead of the Wave then why not get it? Long as when someone buys a wave don't shout at them for it. They are a different person, so will have different tastes in bass/treble and quality. Personally, how I know a speaker is quality is by it reproducing a series of music styles (classical, rap, pop, world) with great clarity, sufficient power without reliability problems, a natural sound, zero distortion and reproducing the musical instrument being played with a sound close to that of the instrument in a normal room or concert hall. This is coming from a guy though, that can find a slight rattle, buzz or slightest sound of distortion in almost all speakers. I haven't been able to find any major problems with Bose speakers, but because of their great clarity they can sometimes show up the quality of the recording. I can't listen to 64k MP3s on Bose speakers (it makes the speakers and the music sound really bad), and even at 128k it's still evident your listening to MP3 compressed audio. Where it starts to get much better is a very well recorded CD/SACD/DVD-A, 2000K WAV files, or 320k bitrate MP3s.

I just wish I could back all this up with data, but at this moment in time I do not have images of the drivers nor of any graphs as I used my ear for the tests I have done. About reliability, I know this from many retailers that sell Bose, as well as people I know have Bose speakers. Maybe the old Bose drivers did look rather sad, cheap and tatty. But their latest drivers as I have seen, look perfectly fine: http://www.bose.co.jp/images/products/125/cristal_driver.jpg (This looks almost like whats in the Companion sats. Other than the companions have a larger surround and bigger dust cap)

You see the cones on these: http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0002TSA9W.01-A228GNTXW0TH0L._SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg (They look like like a similar shine, so it's obviously not rottable paper, maybe it's treated with something, or maybe it's the Bose material this mate of mine was saying about)

The acoustimass drivers on the latest gear seem to have a type of rubber or fabric surround, which is very large to handle the high excursion. Heres also a Bose cone on the right: http://www.bose.co.uk/images_global/technologies/acoustics/2cones.jpg Though the one here does look like standard treated paper, which doesn't not infer the speaker is of poor quality. I sure doubt it would rot, and Bose will replace if it does - as I know people whom have the old 901s and Bose have replaced all the surrounds free of change.

The article link about the old Bose acoustimass not having supernatural excursion, actually, try doing the lamp to view the woofer behind the grille, you will find that the Xmax of the Bose drivers is quite large for the size - and plus, the reviewer didn't understand the Acoustimass technology which is to get deep bass with less speaker excursion.

Before this gets way too long, I'll leave it here for the moment and try to gather as much proof as I can for my statements. I'll talk with the guys I know who may be interested in sending some technical data.

I also noticed, if you go to Bose japan www.bose.co.jp it gives out IEC wattages and some bandwidth ranges. ;-)

pro.bose.com also gives technical specification of the Pro gear.

I hope this is sufficent for the moment while I collect more infromation sources for you.

EDIT: Just created account. :-) I'm sorry if there is typo's or errors with my grammer. I think I type way too quick. Please do correct them if you wish to do so.

--g_25 20:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

What equipment did you use to test your Companion 3? If you did it by ear, you can't very well say that it goes down to 30Hz. The ear is a bad enough measuring instrument on its own, having it hooked up to the world's worst meter (the brain) really doesn't help matters. I have had people convinced their $30 Logitech multimedia sets go down to 20Hz after running a frequency sweep (they really "hear" it so long as they can see me running the sweep), only to be surprised when my SPL meter (yes, it's kind of sad that I have one, but I can make a few bucks here and there by calibrating HTs for people) picks them up as -30dB at 35Hz.

Also, the objections to Bose are typically not "they don't go to 17KHz". Typically, people argue that the frequency response is uneven-- that is to say, not neutral. It sounds neutral to you for the same reason the Logitech set sounds neutral to the above guy and, for that matter, the same reason a favored $somethingridiculous pair of speakers sounds neutral to an audiophile: everyone thinks their own audio system is neutral unless they own several, because the brain will eventually adjust to a single audio output such that other things sound "wrong" even if they are technically closer to accurate. If you give the brain time to adjust to a new system, it will perceive that as the new neutral and your old system will sound horribly off. For example, if you're used to listening to a system with a hideous peak around 7KHz, something flat around there will sound depressed and unmusical. The same exact thing happens if you're used to listening to a system flat around there and go to something with a hideous dip there, too, of course. Each brain will adjust more quickly or more slowly to certain frequency patterns, which is what accounts for preferences among people who do own several sets of audio devices (well, that and the sugar pill).

I can conduct a little experiment with this, myself-- I'm not a speaker guy, but I have eleven pairs of decent headphones lying here and there (yes, lamest hobby ever, I know), and if I use any one of the decent ones for a long period of time, anything else will sound "wrong" (to about the same degree its FR is different from the pair I've been using for days) until I let my brain adjust to the new sound pattern. It's not the most scientifically accurate of experiments, but it's a fair enough little illustration, and the same does hold true with speakers in blind testing.

On a side note, you may have noticed that according to the little lesson in psychoacoustics I posted just above, it doesn't matter if your system is neutral or not if your brain is adjusted to it. This is more or less correct. Most people just buy speakers, like them, and stick with them; if they do eventually upgrade or get another set, often they will simply get something that sounds similar because it sounds right too. Exceptions would be people that LIKE frequency responses close to neutral (which are more expensive to obtain), the truly anal (who demand that they hear it as the recording engineers did), and the recording engineers (who are just anal because you have to be anal about your choice of field to get your engineering certification).

Overall: what's most important is that you enjoy what you have. People can spend hundreds of thousands on audio hardware and still not be satisfied... surely that is much, much worse than buying a Bose system and being satisfied. However, people who call Bose systems overpriced are not entirely without justification in my view-- when you do enough comparisons (preferably blind, with several subjects) between budget-grade hi-fi systems (even the really small tiny ones, like some of the stuff Onix has I guess) and Bose systems, a pattern will start to emerge: most people prefer the (often much) cheaper hi-fi system. There are always exceptions, naturally, and to each their own. SVI 14:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I used AudioTestBench and TrueRTA, plus a signal gen. I used a microphone designed for use with SPL monitoring, connected to the sound card, which then you can optimise the microphone for use with AudioTestBench. It's pretty accurate I would say, because a cheap pair of Creative speakers had terrible distortion levels, and a peak at about 75-80Hz to create that punchy bass often found in cheap systems that appeals to novices. The Bose wasn't perfectly flat, and freq. the test bench didn't pick up I could hear perfectly fine (probably the psychoacoustics Bose is using there, but if you can hear it just as loud as any other freq. why complain. I must admit, the Companion 3 did roll off very badly below 28Hz, but considering the size and the musical sound of the acoustimass I wasn't un-impressed. The lifestyle systems do seem to go lower in listening tests, but I havent done any measurements with those, yet. I would say, the Acousimass in the lifestyle systems rolls off after 25Hz, or 20Hz very sharply, therefore explaining the deeper bass on some tracks. It's all subjective anyway, and your correct - each to their own. I'm happy with the Companion 3s, but someone else may not be, it's just one of those things. All ears are different.

--g_25 23:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind uploading the FR graph somewhere? I don't wish to seem rude by requesting evidence, but flat to 28Hz is more or less power range, something that I've never seen compact subwoofers with standard drivers managing regardless of design (I don't mean "Bose subwoofers", I mean anything of that type, even the relatively exotic stuff). As well, I sincerely doubt the Acoustimass bass modules could physically have the drivers fed enough power to handle flat to 25Hz or so. I'm not saying they don't offer sufficient bass for music-- unless you listen to organ music, it actually doesn't matter whether or not your system ever goes below 50Hz at all-- but your results are kind of conflicting with, well, all of the relevant data that I have. It'd be nice to have the graph around to link to, as well. SVI 01:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The meansurements for the acoustimass I got were-

20 90.628

30 111.000

40 116.000

50 116.000

60 115.992

28Hz was 98.547

So no it isn't flat, but the system does produce them notes - and considering the size. Also anything below 30 is very deep, which isn't very musical anyway. The Bose still manages to shake the floor.

I'll get a good graph together ASAP during some good tests.

Great, thanks. I can fill in x5 / form a graph myself if it's any trouble for you, I just like to have as much data as I can on this sort of thing. SVI 16:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

May I also note that on those tests it was at just slightly less than full volume on the puck, this was to get a good idea of the system under high load.

As you can see 20Hz isn't very good, it's actually not very audiable. 25Hz is a little faint floor shake, but 28Hz and above is quite serious bass. 30Hz and above and it gets very loud. Under 20Hz and I'm pretty sure it's just EQ'ed out because the driver doesn't even move, not even spot on 19Hz, 20Hz it moves but not excessivly, 28Hz gets the driver moving at quite serious excursion.

It's probably true, the Acoustimass on the Companions doesn't go with intense power below 30Hz, but the thing is - I don't notice any loss of any deep bass, it's musical and has no port noise or distortion. Therefore I'm happy. I'd much rather the woofer produce no 20Hz than produce it with port noise.

It's also true, that almost all P.A. Systems and especially those in Cinemas roll off after 40Hz, I've seen some do 30Hz, and multi milion £ THX ones do 25Hz.... but most Cinemas systems roll off at 40Hz, so why is the Bose worse than a Cinema, when Cinema systems generally do 40Hz - 16Khz, as the UCI in my area does. It's not a complaint or POV for Bose, it's just food for thought really... Most subs for P.A. use don't do <40Hz. Look at the specs for say JBL, Mackie and it's quite common.

--g_25 23:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

FR Charts, Acoustimass, Intellexual, etc...

All this talk, even on the discussion page, seems a little over the top to me. Don't you think other contributors and readers to this article and discussion would be better served and informed by directing them to an external link to one of the many internet forums where the merits of Bose and other systems are subjects of daily conversation? I think it's best to use this page as a place to discuss the information used and the information available to create an ever better article.

I don't like the intellexual rant myself, and question it's value as an external link, but it is just a link to an external site, and it is labeled as an opinion piece. Perhaps the label could be modified to read something like "opinion piece on a discontinued speaker system".Waulfgang

I think you are right, this place is no place for NPOV or POV reviews, it should provide information about the company only. Neither bad or good, just information. --g_25 14:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't particularly like the intellexual rant, but it is extremely valuable as a summary of the anti-Bose viewpoint. It's already clearly presented as outside of Wikipedia and an opinion piece, I honestly think any more would be OTL. If there's a rebuttal to it, why not add that as an external link as rebuttal to the opinion piece? afaik, that much is perfectly within NPOV. SVI 16:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)