Talk:Bose speaker packages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Pictures would be nice. TheodoreLarson 05:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I second that comment! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

AM 3[edit]

Acoustimass 3: I was looking for information about an old Series I set that I have, but they are not even mentioned here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have made Bose stereo speakers page since this is for the surround sound versions. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Model line[edit]

I see this article as a history of a model line, not an accounting of Bose home cinema surround sound systems. The fact that the earliest Acoustimass model lacked surround elements adds to this perception. Binksternet (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

First introduced[edit]

This article and the subwoofer article says the first Acoustimass appeared in 1989. The Bose stereo speakers article says 1987. Which year is correct? Binksternet (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Comes direct from Bose. Don't forget that this is for the Surround sound versions not the stereo versions. The AM5 is stereo. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge with 5.1 article[edit]

What is the difference between this article and Bose 5.1 home entertainment systems? I suggest we merge the articles, since they both cover surround sound systems.1292simon (talk) 12:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

revert- Amar Bose biography etc[edit]

It is not appropriate to include Amar's personal thoughts re psychoacoustics in a product page (also the text has a very marketing tone and is a self-published source). The page should be about noteable aspects of the product itself.
The deleted text explaining "2 channel" vs "stereo" was important to explain the ambiguity to the reader. By making this distinction clear, it has been possible to adopt a more logical structure for the article.
I cannot see any justification for removing the "primary sources" tag from a section dominated by primary sources...
The re-write explaining technical jargon (eg "Acoustic Matrix Enclosure") was added to explain the purpose of such features in a less promotional fashion than the previous text.
Due to all of these reasons, I have reverted the edit. Discussion is welcome! 1292simon (talk) 08:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Please see your talk page. -- Phoenix (talk) 11:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Specifics relating to this article are noted below. Please address these comments before reverting again! 1292simon (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Article structure[edit]

Due to Bose's unusual inclusion of surround and ceiling speakers under it's "Stereo loudspeakers" category, it is necessary to clarify this from the outset. The level 1 headings should clearly tell the reader which type of speaker package each model is. Structure has been modified to achieve this.1292simon (talk) 07:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


Needs to clarify from the outset the ambiguity re the term "stereo". Previous content retained, albeit re-arranged to remove repetition and loose statements (eg "wide range of speakers"). 1292simon (talk) 07:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

2 Channel speaker packages (formerly "Stereo speaker packages")[edit]


It is not appropriate to include Amar's personal thoughts re psychoacoustics in a product page (also the text has a very marketing tone and 3 of 4 references Are primary (Bose website or papers produced by Bose)). The page should be about noteable aspects of the product itself. 1292simon (talk) 07:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

901 design[edit]

Readers may assume that the equaliser is adjustable, therefore this needs to be clarified. 1292simon (talk) 07:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

901 Specifications/Features[edit]

This content is covered in the "Design" section. Helically-wound aluminium voice coils are not notable for a system of this type 11292simon (talk) 07:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Really odd[edit]

Seams very odd to remove specific information on this EXACT topic that is heavily sourced and not found another place in wikipedia. Not only that but renaming topics that are not even sourced, odd again. Not in lines of an encyclopaedia. Not only that but I cannot find any sources to back up the changes you made. Any chance that you can use the talk page this once BEFORE you unilaterally change things.... again? -- Phoenix (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The changes ARE justified above. Un-notable content has been removed, notable content has been restructured and reworded to sound less like advertising. Please be specific about which heavily sourced info you believe has been removed1292simon (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Look you have to remember you have been making a lot of massive changes to these articles, and while some are indeed good edits, I have disputed some of them for not only for being WP:NPOV but for being just 100% false & unsourced. You have removed a lot of sourced information I have stated repeatability which edits I support in the talk pages and I have no problem with them being included. The other edits I would rather be discussed. So please use the talk page for those edits. There is no reason to reduce these articles to small stubs as you have been attempting to do. -- Phoenix (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Sourced information that is unimportant or unneeded is not somehow magically exempt from removal. The removal of marketing fluff is a good thing for this article. Binksternet (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
The previous edits used unencyclopaedic and made up terms. Why restore that? Information is also sourced from multiple sources, please use appropriate tags on what you believe is marketing so they can be changed. -- Phoenix (talk) 05:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Please be specific about "unencyclopaedic and made up terms". WP policy prefers updating to tagging. I support Binksternet's edit of 03:00, 12 March 2012. This edit is supported by discussion above, yours has just vague comments which aren't much use in trying to improve the article.1292simon (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
So removing content that is sourced is a good idea? Removing text that pertains to this topic is also a good idea? Why have you not tried to remove Development of Windows 7#History because it is covered in Windows 7#Development? Why because it pertains to the article at hand and can be expanded upon. That is the same reason as to why you should not remove Bose speaker packages#Overview it specifically pertains to the article at hand and is more in-depth, than in the main article. -- Phoenix (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
The Overview section is about Bose the company, not the various speaker packages that are discussed in this article. The Overview section should be removed. Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I looked over it again and I see your point. I added it to the main page like suggested. -- Phoenix (talk) 06:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

05:42, 13 March 2012 edit[edit]

"produced a wide range" is incorrect (compared with many manufacturers, Bose has a small number of product lines). Restored article link explaining frequency response (casual readers likely to not understand the term). See earlier comment re adjustable equalizer. "nine full range drivers" is covered elsewhere in article. "active equalizer" is covered elsewhere in article. "active matrix enclosure" is covered elsewhere in article (also serious NPOV problems with tone and content). "helically wound alu voice coils" are common construction not special feature 1292simon (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

2 channel speaker packages is still meaningless and is better described as Stereo. Cars all have engines, does that mean that we shouldn't have pages dedicated to particular types of engines? It is a section talking about specific technology of a speaker & yea it is all cited, even by 3rd parties and yes... the EQ has user adjustments on it... Why is it that you are making so many changes to products that you obviously haven't researched or read up on? -- Phoenix (talk) 05:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
You have not provided any justification why "2 channel" is meaningless and you did not contribute to the discussion I started in Article Structure above. But I don't really care about this issue any more, so I will leave "stereo". Thanks for highlighting error regarding eq, have fixed (and improved with reference). I DO research my edits, this was just a mistake that slipped through due to the context in which the previous text described it and that the source provided did not mention user adjustment. No need to defame another editor for such a slip-up, how about some WP:goodfaith please?? "Specifications" section was previously removed as per reasons above, so its re-inclusion is not justified. 1292simon (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

"wide range"[edit]

Please provide sources to justify that Bose's range is "wide" compared to industry standard. I believe their range is rather small (not a criticism, there is nothing wrong with a business strategy to focus on a limited number of products)1292simon (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bose speaker packages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)