Bose Speaker Measurements & Frequency Response Graphs

[mtrycrafts]

The Bose speaker came up, again, in a post just below on seeking the hi-end.
I thought I had something substantial on this and found a review and measurement of one of their systems. Very interesting indeed: :D:D

http://www.intellexual.net/bose.html

[Joe Schmoe]

The Bose speaker cam up, again, in a post just below on seeking the hi-end.
I thought I had something substantial on this and found a review and measurement of one of their systems. Very interesting indeed: :D:D

http://www.intellexual.net/bose.html

I think we have all seen that article by now. It is a good one, though, and should be required reading for anyone actually considering Blose.

[Seth=L]

.....should be required reading for anyone actually considering Blose.
Or BOK.:D

This should be a sticky.

[Halon451]

Seth, you're my hero for putting 'BOK' into your signature! Hilarious... :D


Edit: I vote for a sticky on this too - a month or two ago (before joining this forum), I might have been one of the ones tempted into sin by the crafty dealers down at the Bose store in my local mall. Thankfully I've learned a great deal from AH, and realize just what junk it is.

Another soul saved...

[fmw]

He sure sounds like someone with an axe to grind but I will have to admit that he speaks the truth. The Bose 901 were a sensation when they hit the scene back in the 1950's. I give them credit for successfully carrying that initial success for all these years with nothing but marketing. Hard to argue with success.

[mtrycrafts]

I think we have all seen that article by now. It is a good one, though, and should be required reading for anyone actually considering Blose.

Yes, I am sure this is where my link is coming from but it is good to refresh memories once in a while.
The two speaker sets, sub and the rest don't even have a good transition. But, the graph tells the story. Similar to some of that ultra hi-end speakers that was linked here not long ago, +5,-7dB for 5 figure speakers?:eek: Bose have them beat by a mile:rolleyes:

[no. 5]

to some of that ultra hi-end speakers that was linked here not long ago, +5,-7dB for 5 figure speakers?:eek: Bose have them beat by a mile:rolleyes:

They must be embarrassed by the superior hi-endness of the Bose systems frequency response: 280 Hz to 13.3k Hz at ±10.5 dB (!).

[gus6464]

What's BOK?

[Seth=L]

What's BOK?
A knock-off brand (white van scam) that mimics the look of the Bose logo.

[dobyblue]

Great article, I've known for a longtime that Bose blows, but I mean, that frequency response tested is beyond abysmal.

Satellites - 280 Hz to 13.3k Hz at ± 10.5 dB
Base Module - 46 Hz to 202 Hz at ± 2.3 dB

That's just disgraceful. They should have to answer for themselves, instead they sue people for their methods of testing.

It seems Bose and Scientology have a lot in common.

[mtrycrafts]

...
It seems Bose and Scientology have a lot in common.

Yes, if you don't have the facts on your side, sue them for whatever if you have a bigger pocket than they do.

Don't forget about Monster suing anyone and everyone who dare use Monster in their name, such as the Munster Snow Angels, etc.

[Alex2507]

He sure sounds like someone with an axe to grind but I will have to admit that he speaks the truth. The Bose 901 were a sensation when they hit the scene back in the 1950's. I give them credit for successfully carrying that initial success for all these years with nothing but marketing. Hard to argue with success.

So the 901's were something, huh? Any measurements of them kicking around? A guy I know has a pair that need to be refoamed. They were given to him. He would be interested in some spec's.

[jamie2112]

My father was almost sold on a bose system, until I sent him this article. Thanks much as he didn't believe me about the bose hype. These crappy little systems they make are pure marketing voodoo and I can see how they can sell so much of this crap. Most americans are robots and will buy what they see in front of them IE: bad music bad films bad speakers the flowbee, spray on hair for the insecure sharper image crap, the list goes on ....sorry got off on a rant. Thanks for posting the bose article you helped and old dog learn a new trick...

[The Chukker]

Thanks for that find Mtry, an interesting article to say the least.
Makes me want to not trust any advertising at all.

[caupina]

I've come to learn in my humble experience as a listener not to believe everything I read, instead to trust my ears. If it sounds like crap to others, but I like it, that's all that matters, don't you think????;)

[sparky77]

I work third shift so I've seen plenty of the infomertials for the bose systems when there is absolutely nothing else to watch at 4am, and I can't believe the bs that people believe. I mean come on, a 3 inch full range in a plastic transmission line 33 inches long is not gonna fill the room with bass that your gonna feel, you might hear it down to 80hz, if your lucky. There is no science to back up any of their claims, it all comes down to very very good marketing since the products came out. It's just downright scarey.

[Exit]

He sure sounds like someone with an axe to grind but I will have to admit that he speaks the truth. The Bose 901 were a sensation when they hit the scene back in the 1950's. I give them credit for successfully carrying that initial success for all these years with nothing but marketing. Hard to argue with success.

Actually, I remember when Bose 901s came out and it was in the 68-72 era. They were marketed as high end (they were expensive) and they were driven by big honking amps such as MacIntosh and Phase Linear. Apparently their equalizer and speaker combination sucked up power like there was no end. Early on they sounded pretty good with the reflected sound being a new thing. It was also a neat trick to get bass out of all those little speakers. (Trivia question: How many speakers are in a Bose 901 and what is the size?) Now the reflected sound speaker is pretty much obsoleted by surround sound and DSP which produce the reflected sound much more efficiently than the Bose 901s. Also Bose 901s require a certain placement with acoustically uniform front and side walls that are not too absorbant.

[Pyrrho]

I work third shift so I've seen plenty of the infomertials for the bose systems when there is absolutely nothing else to watch at 4am, and I can't believe the bs that people believe. I mean come on, a 3 inch full range in a plastic transmission line 33 inches long is not gonna fill the room with bass that your gonna feel, you might hear it down to 80hz, if your lucky. There is no science to back up any of their claims, it all comes down to very very good marketing since the products came out. [emphasis added] It's just downright scarey.

But this is no different from what happens with other areas of audio, particularly at the "high end", where every snake oil claim is believed as gospel truth. Science and knowledge have very little to do with what people believe about other audio products. Probably, at least half of the people who deride Bose believe in something equally silly. To give just one example: Magic wires, anyone?

[Halon451]

I work third shift so I've seen plenty of the infomertials for the bose systems when there is absolutely nothing else to watch at 4am, and I can't believe the bs that people believe. I mean come on, a 3 inch full range in a plastic transmission line 33 inches long is not gonna fill the room with bass that your gonna feel, you might hear it down to 80hz, if your lucky. There is no science to back up any of their claims, it all comes down to very very good marketing since the products came out. It's just downright scarey.

It just goes to show what mass-marketing campaigns can accomplish to an otherwise unsuspecting public. I too finally had to corner my own Dad and make him read the above article - as he was completely sold on Bose systems, despite my hair-pulling verbal tirades (I guess he felt I was only personally biased against the brand). Any company that has to rely on such down-your-throat marketing tactics should be an immediate red flag, whether it's Bose, Monster, or whoever - even these days, one of the oldest fundamental principles of sales exists, if you are open-minded enough to pay attention: A great product will always speak for itself.

[canIscream]

Bose humpers crack me up. Typically when someone walks into my store on their Bose high horse, I show them Martin Logans or Vienna Acoustics. Usually they are still too proud to admit it, but every now and then, they admit defeat and realize that they shouldn't buy into hype. The only good thing about them is that when they are sold, they stay sold because they're so simple.

Great article and the first I've seen of it. Thanks for posting.

[Joe Schmoe]

(Trivia question: How many speakers are in a Bose 901 and what is the size?)

I am thinking it was something like 48 2-inchers.

[Exit]

I don't know the real answer to the 901 speaker question but I thought they might have been 4" speakers.

[Swerd]

The first Bose 901s in 1968 had 9 identical speakers in each cabinet. One speaker faced forward and the other 8 were on the angled back. I believe they were 4" speakers.

Yes, they required a very high powered amp. In the late 60s and early 70s, big amps were a lot more expensive than full range speakers - unlike today.

I remember hearing some, and I was bothered by their sound. It seemed to come from all over the place. Also, if you listened to a single voice or instrument, the image seemed much too large to be real. That may have been because of poor placement, I don't know.

The 901s changed quite a lot over the years, and subsequent versions were not at all like the originals.

[Joe Schmoe]

The first Bose 901s in 1968 had 9 identical speakers in each cabinet. One speaker faced forward and the other 8 were on the angled back. I believe they were 4" speakers.


My guess was rather high, then.:o

[mtrycrafts]

My guess was rather high, then.:o

You must have though that number for a complement of 5 surround speakers:D Then you were pretty close

[The Chukker]

I receive the monthly mag "M" from Magnolia Hi-Fi here is Seattle; I think I qualified for the free subscription when I spent x amount of dollars in their stores -- there has only been two issues so far. Don't get me wrong, this isn't intended to be anecdotal of buyers remorse, actually on the contrary I enjoy the great service I get there. Anyhoo, the mag features full length pictorials (ooh, sounds dirty) on member systems that coincidentally :rolleyes: feature products that Magnolia carries. Some of the systems are breathtaking, but seriously there are plenty of members here whose systems put theirs to shame. They also do an industry "insider" look at certain companies, the first month featured the Pioneer Kuro line of plasmas, the current issue has a great article on McIntosh with some neat pics of the assembly line and their in house anechoic chamber.
Here's the rub:
Both issues feature an "informative" article written by an industry insider explaining the ins and outs of HT for the common man. The first issue's article was written a Magnolia employee explaining the qualitative differences between LCD and Plasma panels; no big deal.
The second issue however, features an article by Bill Low (president of AudioQuest) titled "Why all HDMI cables are not the same". >groan<
I quote: "AudioQuest is also pushing the frontier of HDMI assembly technology, using cold welding or wave soldering to ensure secure, reliable connections between the cable and connector."
Ok ok, I know this is the company that sells cables with batteries for thousands of dollars, everybody knows that and that isn't the point here.
What is "cold welding" and "wave soldering", and what benefit if any does it have on the digital signal transmitted over HDMI?

[Halon451]

Sounds like a bunch of BS to me, as usual. Cold soldering techniques, best as I can recall have to do with pressing two metals together under vacuum in order to molecularly bond certain points along each surface, or some such thing to that effect.

Wave soldering is a technique commonly used with printed circuit boards - instead of taking time to manually solder every single component onto the board, all components are placed in their positions and then the entire PCB is "washed" through molten solder, so that all components have the exact same specifications WRT each solder joint - uniformity. Works well as a means of increasing production while lowering costs in this application.

What I fail to see is how either of these techniques have anything to do with a freaking HDMI cable... :confused: I wouldn't say that either one would lead to any difference in digital signal transmission whatsoever, just a cool catchphrase to get people's attention and make them buy into it, even though they have no idea what it is in the first place. :rolleyes:

[fiosmeup]

I just got a Bose wave radio ll. Took it out of the box and the remote did not work, thats the only way to control the radio I called Bose on Saturday and got great customer service within 5 minutes, I completed call and they said they would ship out a new remote right away, Tuesday night I got the remote( 2 days)
The radio works great( only a radio), but it is not worth the retail of $349.00. The reason I have it because I won it in a sales contest.
The support was impresive though.
Dave

[captiankirk28]

I was goofing around and thought i would see what bose had to say about frequency response, thought i would share it with everyone.




Bose Response to me:
Bose's Response: Thank you for your inquiry. Bose Corporation does not publish frequency responses, simply because they are not accurate and usually will mislead the customer.
Frequency responses are usually measured with testing equipment set up in an anechoic chamber. An anechoic chamber is an isolated room designed so that sound will not reflect off any surfaces. Giving out such frequency response results is terrific- for those people who live in anechoic chambers! Most of us listen to our systems in rooms with very reflective surfaces, such as plaster, brick, glass, and dry wall, so the frequency response that a manufacturer may supply is no longer accurate. Just as no two rooms have the same dimensions, nor are they decorated exactly the same or have the same construction, no two rooms will sound the same when using the exact same speakers and amplifier.
For example, if you were to place any speaker in a room with no carpeting and wooden furniture, you would hear something completely different than if they were placed in a room with shag carpeting and plush furniture. Perhaps
this can be equated by imagining a single lighted candle placed in a room with completely black floors, walls and ceiling. Obviously, the same candle when placed in a room with white surroundings will appear to be emitting
much more light than when placed in the first room with black surroundings, as the light will reflect a great deal more off the white surfaces. Sound reflects off surfaces, much like light does. The surroundings make the speakers sound different in the same manner, because they actually are able to reproduce different frequencies via sound reflection and speaker placement.

We hope you do not take the fact that we do not publish speaker frequency responses personally. We do not publish our speakers specifications to anybody, whether it be before or after they have purchased a speaker system of ours. We simply invite our customers ....

[Seth=L]

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t161/SethKL/464.jpg

[no. 5]

Bose speakers with tweeters! Far out!

[Halon451]

I was goofing around and thought i would see what bose had to say about frequency response, thought i would share it with everyone.




Bose Response to me:
Bose's Response: Thank you for your inquiry. Bose Corporation does not publish frequency responses, simply because they are not accurate and usually will mislead the customer.
Frequency responses are usually measured with testing equipment set up in an anechoic chamber. An anechoic chamber is an isolated room designed so that sound will not reflect off any surfaces. Giving out such frequency response results is terrific- for those people who live in anechoic chambers! Most of us listen to our systems in rooms with very reflective surfaces, such as plaster, brick, glass, and dry wall, so the frequency response that a manufacturer may supply is no longer accurate. Just as no two rooms have the same dimensions, nor are they decorated exactly the same or have the same construction, no two rooms will sound the same when using the exact same speakers and amplifier.
For example, if you were to place any speaker in a room with no carpeting and wooden furniture, you would hear something completely different than if they were placed in a room with shag carpeting and plush furniture. Perhaps
this can be equated by imagining a single lighted candle placed in a room with completely black floors, walls and ceiling. Obviously, the same candle when placed in a room with white surroundings will appear to be emitting
much more light than when placed in the first room with black surroundings, as the light will reflect a great deal more off the white surfaces. Sound reflects off surfaces, much like light does. The surroundings make the speakers sound different in the same manner, because they actually are able to reproduce different frequencies via sound reflection and speaker placement.

We hope you do not take the fact that we do not publish speaker frequency responses personally. We do not publish our speakers specifications to anybody, whether it be before or after they have purchased a speaker system of ours. We simply invite our customers ....

Priceless..... And par for the course. :D

[captiankirk28]

Priceless..... And par for the course. :D

Thats what i thought also.

[Twexcom]

Yes, very helpful article.

[SpunkyDDog]

Well, as long as bose is buying up ad space via google, then audioholics will continue to afford keeping this great site up:

http://cosmos.champlain.edu/people/bergeron/stuff/bosead.jpg

It's almost ironic, eh? :rolleyes:

[stratman]

Now that's just evil!:eek:

[dorokusai]

I forgot about that link and didn't have it in my favorites.....thanks! :)

Mark
Polk Audio CS

[Len44]

VERY interesting...this "intellexual" entity. Anyone ever noodle around further on this individual's site? "Axe to grind" is almost an understatement...

I realize that every audioholic instantly recognized the Bose 901's as inferior, bad-sounding speakers from the moment they were introduced -- unlike a fairly wide segment of the audio reviewers at the time. But, I also recognize that it is fashionable to bash anything Bose these days...

BTW, while I have long since moved on, my Series IV 901's sounded mighty good driven by a (also lowly) Sansui 5000 -- about 65 watts per channel, as I recall. PLENTY of power. Of course, I actually READ the manual and FOLLOWED the set-up directions. I have actually witnessed folks who had 901's set up with with their rear pointed INTO THE CORNERS of their room.:eek: Sound was not too good... :( Also, had to have the equalizer utilized properly.

Anyhoo, just my (contrarian) thoughts...:)

[no. 5]

But, I also recognize that it is fashionable to bash anything Bose these days...

How about because it's inferior? Seriously, did you SEE the frequency response graph from Sound & Vision?

[mike c]

+-10.5db?

that's like saying i look like Brad Pitt +-a gazillion points.

[jamie2112]

Well, as long as bose is buying up ad space via google, then audioholics will continue to afford keeping this great site up:

http://cosmos.champlain.edu/people/bergeron/stuff/bosead.jpg

It's almost ironic, eh? :rolleyes:

Thats freakin great!!!!!!!!

[Len44]

How about because it's inferior? Seriously, did you SEE the frequency response graph from Sound & Vision?

Um...was that for the 901s -- or the cubes? (I only intended to comment on the 901s.)

However, I had thought (evidently in error, for which I apologize) that Audioholics were more interested in the actual sound (or presence, or whatever other term one might choose to use), as opposed cold, hard data...as helpful as data may be in many ways. FWIW, the 901s were thought of as pretty sensational by a number of reviewers when they were introduced, and, anyway, I am willing to admit that I enjoyed mine for quite awhile, with my particular (humble) setup.:)

[Pyrrho]

Um...was that for the 901s -- or the cubes? (I only intended to comment on the 901s.)

However, I had thought (evidently in error, for which I apologize) that Audioholics were more interested in the actual sound (or presence, or whatever other term one might choose to use), as opposed cold, hard data...as helpful as data may be in many ways. FWIW, the 901s were thought of as pretty sensational by a number of reviewers when they were introduced, and, anyway, I am willing to admit that I enjoyed mine for quite awhile, with my particular (humble) setup.:)


Those numbers tell you quite a bit about the actual sound. Typically, those who decry specifications and measurements for "just the sound" often also speak disparagingly of level matched, double blind listening sessions, which would be actually just the sound, in favor of seeing what they are hearing and judging based on what they see and hear. This allows the placebo effect full sway, and often makes them suckers for all the mumbo jumbo BS snake oil that comes along, which does nothing at all for the sound. It is also hypocritical, because the combination of seeing and hearing is not just the sound.

Incidentally, I am NOT saying that the above applies to you; I mean the above generally, as it is written. I do not know if it applies to you or not; you did not say anything about double blind tests and level matching.

Of course, you are right that the 901s are different from the speakers at the link in the opening post of this thread, and therefore are an entirely different matter. Of course, this does not mean that the 901s are any good, nor does it mean that they are bad. It just means that they must be judged separately from the other speakers (and, of course, the different versions of the 901s should be judged separately from each other as well).

Here is a link to a purportedly old review of the Bose 901:

http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/425/index.html

It is neither all complementary nor all condemnation.

I have not been able to find a frequency response measurement for any Bose 901, in my brief time searching. If you know of one on line, please post a link.

[caupina]

I concur with your thoughts Pyrrho, and certainly one can make a good purchase based on what the specifications of a certain speaker say, but that just one step of the whole process, and once you get the speakers set up at your HT, there's a whole bunch of variables that come into play, the main one being the way you perceive sound, and that at the end of the day, IMHO, is what this hobby is all about.
Bose response might be wishy-washy but it holds certain truth, because what you read on a spec sheet might not translate into a reality once you are seated on your sweet spot at you HT due to different circumstances. With that being said,when it comes to a speaker with above average specs, chances are their under performance is more likely due to your own fault, ie: poor set-up, than the speaker's. Unfortunately the only way you can be sure you get what you pay for, is by taking the speakers home and try them there, but by reading the specs you might get a very good idea of what to expect.

[Shadow_Ferret]

Here is a link to a purportedly old review of the Bose 901:

http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/425/index.html

It is neither all complementary nor all condemnation.

I have not been able to find a frequency response measurement for any Bose 901, in my brief time searching. If you know of one on line, please post a link.
I'm not sure what he means by a "big, fat low end." Can 4" speakers produce a big fat low end? I guess theoretically 9 4" speakers works out to be 36" of air movement, but somehow I doubt that there is an equivelency there.

I just remember the 901s being good party speakers. They're loud and they fill the room with sound, whereas with other speakers the party goers keep getting in the way of the direct sound waves. I seem to recall, however, that they were great in the mid-range but lacking in the real low and high ends.

[Pyrrho]

I concur with your thoughts Pyrrho, and certainly one can make a good purchase based on what the specifications of a certain speaker say, but that just one step of the whole process, and once you get the speakers set up at your HT, there's a whole bunch of variables that come into play, the main one being the way you perceive sound, and that at the end of the day, IMHO, is what this hobby is all about.
Bose response might be wishy-washy but it holds certain truth, because what you read on a spec sheet might not translate into a reality once you are seated on your sweet spot at you HT due to different circumstances. With that being said,when it comes to a speaker with above average specs, chances are their under performance is more likely due to your own fault, ie: poor set-up, than the speaker's. Unfortunately the only way you can be sure you get what you pay for, is by taking the speakers home and try them there, but by reading the specs you might get a very good idea of what to expect.

I do not advocate buying speakers based upon specifications alone. Primarily, this is because they don't give enough information in the specifications. For example, when was the last time you saw a Total Harmonic Distortion rating for a speaker? The reason you don't, of course, is because the numbers would typically be so high that it would make one feel ill.

[Pyrrho]

I'm not sure what he means by a "big, fat low end." Can 4" speakers produce a big fat low end? I guess theoretically 9 4" speakers works out to be 36" of air movement, but somehow I doubt that there is an equivelency there.

I just remember the 901s being good party speakers. They're loud and they fill the room with sound, whereas with other speakers the party goers keep getting in the way of the direct sound waves. I seem to recall, however, that they were great in the mid-range but lacking in the real low and high ends.

Your geometry is off. Forgetting about the slope of the cone, and just thinking about diameter, and assuming that the sizes are all for the moving portion of the speaker, nine 4" speakers would have the same area as one 12" speaker. Feel free to calculate for yourself; the area of a circle is πr². (In case the Greek letter or the superscript does not come through, the area of a circle is "pi" times the radius of the circle squared, the radius being, of course, half the diameter.)

For movement of air, of course, it gets more complicated, as there is also the amount of movement of the speaker that matters, as a speaker that moves 1" moves more air than one of the same size that moves 1/2". But, if we are talking about all of the speakers moving the same amount, then nine 4" speakers will move the same air as one 12" speaker (again, with the assumptions mentioned above).

[Len44]

Thanks Pyrrho for your post and the link to the Sterophile review. After I took a look I looked for other reviews, but that was the only one I could quickly locate. I would certainly like to find the other reviews (especially those written closer to the '68 introduction) to which Dr. Bose refers in his comments: "Since the final test of a speaker is in its sound with actual program material, we urge Stereophile readers to audition the Bose 901 and then judge for themselves whether Stereophile or the 15 other US and foreign reviews, which draw completely different conclusions, is correct."

BTW, I am a HUGE fan of TRUE blind tests. Seems like a good way to objectively determine one's preferences when comparing equipment.

I was fortunate to have been able to set up my 901s pretty much IAW the instructions supplied, and used the back and side walls to great advantage. With plenty of punch from the Yamaha seperates, the music always seemed pretty smooth to me...

Of course, as they say, "your mileage may vary..."

[audioholix]

The Bose speaker came up, again, in a post just below on seeking the hi-end.
I thought I had something substantial on this and found a review and measurement of one of their systems. Very interesting indeed: :D:D

http://www.intellexual.net/bose.html

I don't reality impress with those Bose life style or small system. But I do like my Bose speakers
Denon Avr- 987 _ pair of Bose 502
come out from the pre-out of Denon is Crown802 another pair of Bose 502
double Velodyne dls-5000r
4 surround Bose 161 speakers
1 Bose vsc-10 center.
I like my Bose speakers... These set up for every occasion . Movie.. Music.. Pick the right speaker doesn't matter what brand you get...

[mike c]

double Velodyne dls-5000r

you have pics of this setup? :D

[whateverman]

If you guys really want to laugh at something... I e-mailed Bose about a week ago:

I was looking at your home theater speakers and was intrigued. Although they look nice, I could not find any specifications on the speakers. Could you tell me what the frequency responses are at +/- 3dB and also provide a frequency response graph? These should be posted on the website but are nowhere to be found. Thank you.

Their response:

Thank you for your inquiry.

Bose does not publish data on the acoustic properties of our products because we don't believe it is an adequate indication of performance. Such data is based on analyzing various types of devices, and measurements are made in a wide variety of conditions. At this time, we are not aware of a simple, clear-cut way to compare analytic responses. Measurement techniques and test setups also vary from manufacturer to manufacturer, which can make interpreting the results misleading.

Bose offers a 30-day, risk-free test of our products. We recommend trying them in your own listening environment to evaluate them for yourself.

[pzaur]

You can find select graphs for specific products. You just have to search your butt off to locate them. I've never found anything for the average consumer. Their Professional line does have graphs as part of their "Technical Data". At least they do for the Panaray LT 9403 Loudspeaker. Checkout page 7 for their impedance vs. response graph (http://pro.bose.com/pdf/pro/tech_data/panaray_lt_9403/td_panaray_lt9403.pdf).

-pat

[gwilks98]

Great, we all know that acoustimass isn't the greatest value out there. What about the 201/301 lines? Those are far more popular. Got any data on those?

[no. 5]

Um...was that for the 901s -- or the cubes? (I only intended to comment on the 901s.)

However, I had thought (evidently in error, for which I apologize) that Audioholics were more interested in the actual sound (or presence, or whatever other term one might choose to use), as opposed cold, hard data...as helpful as data may be in many ways. FWIW, the 901s were thought of as pretty sensational by a number of reviewers when they were introduced, and, anyway, I am willing to admit that I enjoyed mine for quite awhile, with my particular (humble) setup.:)

That was a flippant comment I made about Bose.

The important thing about the cold hard data is the right data will directly correlate with the "sound". But it should be known that much more is meant by 'data' than just something like "8 Ohms, 56Hz to 20kHz +/- 3dB".

If you like your 901's fine, there is nothing wrong with that, but if a person is interested in good sound, how would they find out what "good" is? They could go to as many stores as they could find, and listen to as many speakers as they could find, but could they say exactly what made the speakers they liked sound good? They wouldn't be much farther along then when they started, for how much of that good sound was because of their mood? From the room? Even from how the speakers were setup? Really, how good is their memory, that they can say without doubt that speaker A is much better than B, or a problem Dr. Bose ran into, and that is consistency in evaluations, that is, speaker A doesn't sound as good now as it did five months ago.

My point in all of this is people can be trained to be consistent in evaluations, and those people can be used to evaluate hundreds of para mutations in speaker characteristics, then correlations can be drawn between extensive high resolution measurements and listener evaluations as to what things that are seen in the measurements make a speaker subjectively good or bad. I do not advocate buying speakers based upon specifications alone. Primarily, this is because they don't give enough information in the specifications. For example, when was the last time you saw a Total Harmonic Distortion rating for a speaker? The reason you don't, of course, is because the numbers would typically be so high that it would make one feel ill.
I agree, however, if useful measurements can be found, that would be very useful for buying speakers.

[audioholix]

you have pics of this setup? :D

I can't find the way to insert those pix email me at NYfishaholix@yahoo.com I can sent you those set up.

[rtcp]

If anyone's interested, I posted some pictures of the inside of a Bose 701 a year ago.
http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=177693&postcount=28
http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=192321&postcount=38

[no. 5]

If anyone's interested, I posted some pictures of the inside of a Bose 701 a year ago.
http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=177693&postcount=28
http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=192321&postcount=38

Thanks, that was interisting... so that's what the best speakers in the world look like with their marketing pulled off. :rolleyes:

[Len44]

I am unaware that anyone ever claimed that the 701s were..."the best speakers in the world." In fact, not even Bose claims this for the 701s. However, it is OK with me if you don't like Bose speakers, or believe them to be overpriced or overvalued.

But, not everyone believes this to be true, based on their own experiences.

[Len44]

But it should be known that much more is meant by 'data' than just something like "8 Ohms, 56Hz to 20kHz +/- 3dB".

If you like your 901's fine, there is nothing wrong with that, but if a person is interested in good sound, how would they find out what "good" is? They could go to as many stores as they could find, and listen to as many speakers as they could find, but could they say exactly what made the speakers they liked sound good? They wouldn't be much farther along then when they started, for how much of that good sound was because of their mood? From the room? Even from how the speakers were setup? Really, how good is their memory, that they can say without doubt that speaker A is much better than B, or a problem Dr. Bose ran into, and that is consistency in evaluations, that is, speaker A doesn't sound as good now as it did five months ago.

My point in all of this is people can be trained to be consistent in evaluations, and those people can be used to evaluate hundreds of para mutations in speaker characteristics, then correlations can be drawn between extensive high resolution measurements and listener evaluations as to what things that are seen in the measurements make a speaker subjectively good or bad.
I agree, however, if useful measurements can be found, that would be very useful for buying speakers.

Thanks for your comments. Some Qs:

1. What measurements do you consider critical regarding speakers?
2. Is there a great example that you could share?
3. How does one go about deciding whose ears are better than another's?

Speaker evaluation seems to be quite subjective, as we all come to the listening with our own prejudices regarding "quality." So, the best way to establish, say, the top ten speakers (current, and/or vintage/all-time), would be ???

Appreciate any thoughts...:)

[Len44]

Those numbers tell you quite a bit about the actual sound. Typically, those who decry specifications and measurements for "just the sound" often also speak disparagingly of level matched, double blind listening sessions, which would be actually just the sound, in favor of seeing what they are hearing and judging based on what they see and hear. This allows the placebo effect full sway, and often makes them suckers for all the mumbo jumbo BS snake oil that comes along, which does nothing at all for the sound. It is also hypocritical, because the combination of seeing and hearing is not just the sound.

Incidentally, I am NOT saying that the above applies to you; I mean the above generally, as it is written. I do not know if it applies to you or not; you did not say anything about double blind tests and level matching.

Of course, you are right that the 901s are different from the speakers at the link in the opening post of this thread, and therefore are an entirely different matter. Of course, this does not mean that the 901s are any good, nor does it mean that they are bad. It just means that they must be judged separately from the other speakers (and, of course, the different versions of the 901s should be judged separately from each other as well).

Here is a link to a purportedly old review of the Bose 901:

http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/425/index.html

It is neither all complementary nor all condemnation.

I have not been able to find a frequency response measurement for any Bose 901, in my brief time searching. If you know of one on line, please post a link.

On further review...

I was able to find this link:

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/12222003171856.pdf

regarding the original Julian Hirsch review of the 901s. I believe this adds to the quest for data that many have requested. While there are several passages from his excellent article (many praising, others not so much, All Factual) that I am tempted to quote, perhaps it is better to allow the review to speak for itself.

Again, my comments have been intended to focus on the 901s, vice the broad-brush condemnation of Bose products in general...:)

[MinusTheBear]

How much do the Bose 901 cost. I am just curious at what other speakers these can be compared too in their price range.

[Len44]

I think they List for about $1349 or so (Bose.com), but can be had for less...perhaps in the $1100 (ballpark) range.

[no. 5]

I am unaware that anyone ever claimed that the 701s were..."the best speakers in the world." In fact, not even Bose claims this for the 701s. However, it is OK with me if you don't like Bose speakers, or believe them to be overpriced or overvalued.

Just another flippant comment about Bose...
1. What measurements do you consider critical regarding speakers?

High resolution on and off axis frequency response is the most important. Preferably in an anechoic environment, covering a field of 180 degrees or better.
2. Is there a great example that you could share?

Example of what?
3. How does one go about deciding whose ears are better than another's?

Better than another's in what way? If you mean actual ability to hear, a test of a persons thresholds of upper and lower frequency, perception of resonance, harmonic distortion, etc, could decide that. But if you mean ability to be consistent in evaluations, that is a learned ability, that I think almost anyone can become good at.
Speaker evaluation seems to be quite subjective, as we all come to the listening with our own prejudices regarding "quality." So, the best way to establish, say, the top ten speakers (current, and/or vintage/all-time), would be ???

Appreciate any thoughts...:)

The extent that speaker evaluation is subjective depends largely on the specific case; take an ugly and an attractive speaker that are rated very nearly the same in a blind evaluation and put them in a sighted evaluation and the attractive speaker will be preferred, or a coloration that sounds pleasant today may sound unbearable tomorrow, or one person may like a coloration another dislikes.
But enough research has been done on the subject that a person can say that a speaker with flattish response, wide bandwidth, wide dispersion, and low distortion will generally be preferred.
Again, my comments have been intended to focus on the 901s, vice the broad-brush condemnation of Bose products in general...

I think a lot of people talk of the awfulness of Bose as a knee-jerk, but in the case of the 901's, I think some credit is due to Dr. Bose for the idea that a mulitipoler speaker is better than a monopole. Which is similar to what Floyd Toole has shown. Granted, the 4" full range driver will likely have dismal off axis high frequency response.

[Len44]

"High resolution on and off axis frequency response is the most important. Preferably in an anechoic environment, covering a field of 180 degrees or better."

Are you aware of speaker manufacturers who provide these specifications? I am not...

"Example of what?"

Please see above. I meant to ask if any examples of loudspeaker companies that provide what you consider to be critical measurements regarding speaker performance. I apologize for the lack of clarity regarding the reference.

"I think a lot of people talk of the awfulness of Bose as a knee-jerk, but in the case of the 901's, I think some credit is due to Dr. Bose for the idea that a mulitipoler speaker is better than a monopole. Which is similar to what Floyd Toole has shown. Granted, the 4" full range driver will likely have dismal off axis high frequency response."

Yeah, the Julian Hirsch review referenced above was quite enlightening.

Thanks for your comments.

[Len44]

P.S. Sorry I couldn't figure out the multi-quote after multi-quote stuff...

[bandphan]

[QUOTE=Len44;418835 Are you aware of speaker manufacturers who provide these specifications? I am not...

"Example of what?"

Please see above. I meant to ask if any examples of loudspeaker companies that provide what you consider to be critical measurements regarding speaker performance. I apologize for the lack of clarity regarding the reference.



Thanks for your comments.[/QUOTE]

bowers and wilkens for one

[Len44]

bowers and wilkens for one

Fair enough. My brief foray looking at a few leading speaker manufacturers did not include b&w, and of course they should have been included. No mention of the "anechoic environment, covering a field of 180 degrees or better", tho.

I did look at Wilson Audio and Martin Logan, among others...and of course nearly all do include some frequency response specification.

[no. 5]

"High resolution on and off axis frequency response is the most important. Preferably in an anechoic environment, covering a field of 180 degrees or better."

Are you aware of speaker manufacturers who provide these specifications?

To the general speaker buying public? I do not know of any manufacturers off hand that include frequency response data of the kind I spoke of in their product information. However, good measurements can be found in Stereophile magazine and a number reviews from SoundStage! (http://www.soundstageav.com/avreviews_speakers.html) have measurements conducted by Canada's NRC.

[bandphan]

To the general speaker buying public? I do not know of any manufacturers off hand that include frequency response data of the kind I spoke of in their product information. However, good measurements can be found in Stereophile magazine and a number reviews from SoundStage! (http://www.soundstageav.com/avreviews_speakers.html) have measurements conducted by Canada's NRC.

its the 3rd party measurements that count, as no5 mentioned. Martin Logan will provide a complete white sheet if requested(full measurments), as will David Wilson. There are a few members here that do testing when it permits.

[musiclover0608]

Claim: We cannot hear differences between speakers.
True when using poor quality mass market gear and poor quality mass market speakers.
False when using good high quality source components and good speakers. The differences are easily discernible.

Claim: Measurements don't count.
True if you just want to win an argument by ignoring facts.
False because measurement is what made synthesizers possible. Measurement is what makes HT room treatment possible. Measurement is how a LOT of good speaker companies get customers. Measurement is what gives a hint of what a speaker is capable of achieving before we actually listen to it.

Claim: Personal preference trumps all measurements.
True if we care only about making noise, not making music.
False if we care about reproducing as best as possible what is recorded.

Claim: Julian Hirsch reviewed it eons ago, it must be good.
True if nothing better existed at the time. Ford Model-T was the "best" too for its time. Is it still good today?
False given today's technology.

Look in Stereophile for the types of measurements that are meaningful.

Consumer Report measured Bose once and published the finding and Bose sued CR to stop the publication but Bose lost. Why the desperate attempt to hide meaningful scientific data? Is there something worth hiding?

Bose is just another business trying to make money. It will do the marketing and the advertisement to get its customers. People who don't care or are unaware of what is truly available will assume Bose is "high end". People who care and are aware of what is available will know Bose is just run of the mill; just another mass market company who charges a premium.

I just want to point out the facts so people can decide for themselves. If someone loves Bose, so be it. At least they know what they are getting.

[krajnik]

Looking at that frequency response, I'm reminded of a catchy little phrase I heard a few years ago:

"no highs, no lows, just Bose"

[spkrdtr]

I have not been able to find a frequency response measurement for any Bose 901, in my brief time searching. If you know of one on line, please post a link.

I'm new to this forum but stumbled on this discussion regarding Bose's lack of frequency response data and wanted to add my 2 cents worth.

I am aware of only one standard test method for measuring loudspeaker frequency response and that is via an anechoic chamber. The objective of the chamber is to remove as much a possible, reflected sounds and measure ONLY the output coming directly from the speaker itself. Thus, confounding first, second and third reflections which can vary with each speaker's design are eliminated and all (well most) speakers are tested on a level playing field.
Acutally, an anechoic chamber is man's way of duplication an open field response indoors.
So here we have a novel design (Bose 901) which relies on reflected surfaces with 89% of the driver's output coming out the back of the cabinet. Now, picture a 901 in an anechoic chamber in a standard test set up with a test mic pointed at the front of the speaker. What do you think the results will be after the most of the sound has been absorbed by the walls of the chamber?
I feel Bose's position on not providing st'd test data on the 901 or any of their speaker systems which rely on multi-directional sound is justified - UNTIL a test method is developed for these types of speakers.

Now, perhaps they have carried over their position to their more traditional front firing speakers which doesn't make sense other than to hide poor performance. But the discussion here has been focused to a large extent on the 901 which prompted me to make this post.

[no. 5]

So here we have a novel design (Bose 901) which relies on reflected surfaces with 89% of the driver's output coming out the back of the cabinet. Now, picture a 901 in an anechoic chamber in a standard test set up with a test mic pointed at the front of the speaker. What do you think the results will be after the most of the sound has been absorbed by the walls of the chamber?

If the speaker is measured for more than on-axis response, the results will give a pretty good picture of what the speaker will sound like. In fact, there are many reliable sources that provide more than just on-axis response, check out the measurement portion of this (http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/mirage_omni60/) review of an omnipolar Mirage Omni 60; measurements to 75 degrees off-axis, and deviation from on-axis response to 180 degrees.

Concerning speaker measurements, Floyd Toole's keynote address from the 111th AES convention is a good read (here (http://theaudiocritic.com/cwo/Back_Issues/), number 28, page 6).

[spkrdtr]

I'll try to make my point a different way.

If a loudspeaker is designed to rely heavily on reflections, it will test poorly in an environment (anechoic chamber) designed to mitigate those reflections. The test will be meaningless because it failed to take into account the key property the speaker relies on to disperse sound.

[WmAx]

I'll try to make my point a different way.

If a loudspeaker is designed to rely heavily on reflections, it will test poorly in an environment (anechoic chamber) designed to mitigate those reflections. The test will be meaningless because it failed to take into account the key property the speaker relies on to disperse sound.

Let me make this clear: proper loudspeaker analysis includes measuring on and off axis in small increments. This is done properly in an anechoic chamber using a turn table.

-Chris

[no. 5]

The test will be meaningless because it failed to take into account the key property the speaker relies on to disperse sound.

If only on-axis response is measured, but any manufacture or reviewer that knows the importance of, and the methods needed, to accurately and usefully measure a speaker will measure what is going toward the walls as well as the listener.

Think about it, if it's important to know what the direct sound is like, is it not just as important to know what the indirect sound is like too? If the anechoic measurements shows a 20dB wide band resonance in a speaker's off-axis response, do you think that that problem would be solved when the speaker is placed in a room? Wouldn't good speaker designers know that?

[Len44]

"Look in Stereophile for the types of measurements that are meaningful."

Sterophile? You're kidding, right?

[Len44]

Claim: We cannot hear differences between speakers.
True when using poor quality mass market gear and poor quality mass market speakers.
False when using good high quality source components and good speakers. The differences are easily discernible.

Claim: Measurements don't count.
True if you just want to win an argument by ignoring facts.
False because measurement is what made synthesizers possible. Measurement is what makes HT room treatment possible. Measurement is how a LOT of good speaker companies get customers. Measurement is what gives a hint of what a speaker is capable of achieving before we actually listen to it.

Claim: Personal preference trumps all measurements.
True if we care only about making noise, not making music.
False if we care about reproducing as best as possible what is recorded.

Claim: Julian Hirsch reviewed it eons ago, it must be good.
True if nothing better existed at the time. Ford Model-T was the "best" too for its time. Is it still good today?
False given today's technology.

Look in Stereophile for the types of measurements that are meaningful.

Consumer Report measured Bose once and published the finding and Bose sued CR to stop the publication but Bose lost. Why the desperate attempt to hide meaningful scientific data? Is there something worth hiding?

Bose is just another business trying to make money. It will do the marketing and the advertisement to get its customers. People who don't care or are unaware of what is truly available will assume Bose is "high end". People who care and are aware of what is available will know Bose is just run of the mill; just another mass market company who charges a premium.

I just want to point out the facts so people can decide for themselves. If someone loves Bose, so be it. At least they know what they are getting.

Now that I have re-read this, I really can't figure what point you're trying to make, other than to join in the pile-on mania against Bose. Again, my comments have only referenced the 901's.

Do I think that 901's are the best speaker out there? No, of course not! But, at the time they were reviewed, they were thought of as pretty damn good, even revolutionary. More than I can say for many speakers manufactured before -- or since. Although there are a number of exceptions, of course. Certainly, it is fair to say most areas of audio / video have improved since the time of the referenced review.

"Bose is just another business trying to make money." Well, hell yeah! Like, uh, Wilson, B&W, and YOUR favorite speaker manufacturer isn't??? Geez!

Regarding the reference to measurements...one might wonder what your position is on differences in speaker wire...and measurement of the differences in various applications. Interesting because so many who place such a huge importance on measurement in one area of audio (or video) often dismiss the importance of measurement in another area. I presume this does not apply to you, of course.

"We cannot hear differences between speakers" I don't think anyone has even suggested such a thing. I know I certainly haven't, and furthermore can assure you that I can quite clearly hear differences between speakers.

Finally, I think spkrdtr and no. 5 both make some very interesting points, valid to the discussion, and have thanked them both.

[no. 5]

"Look in Stereophile for the types of measurements that are meaningful."

Sterophile? You're kidding, right?

Curiously enough, Stereophile does provide useful measurements. Just don't read the rest of the review. ;)

[R-Carpenter]

It's like saying: “This car that we make is extremely fast, handles like god and very comfortable at the same time but we can't tell you how fast it is and what is it pulling on a skid because there's a lot more to the speed and handling then test”
There's no shortage of other commercial speaks with bad FR and high distortion levels but the level of arrogance and fuller y from B is simply astonishing.

[davestradamus]

the bose acoustimass and 901s are a bit ridiculous, and they might suck. but not all bose equipment is bad. for example:

wave radio - although a bit overpriced

various 201/301 speakers can be had used, for less than 100 bucks. not too bad i say. they arent the best but they arent bad and theyre cheap.

bose 2.1 system. great for people who are a bit intimidated by the whole home theater deal, and dont want to learn a bunch of stuff to have decent sound. (old people, the stupid and people too busy to care).

i agree that acostimass sucks ****... i mean cmon, how can you get decent sound out of a bunch of little creppy speakers???

and capitalism sucks sometimes.... but hey, who would want "their little secret" speakers or whathaveyou getting into the mainstream. bose is actually helping you out by steering people away from buying your equipment and making you less "cool".

peace love and all thats associated.
and take a shower you hippie.

-david

[JackVa1]

Any value in using this unit with other than the bose cubes? I am very curious about this...also on another note...

When talking of the acustimass systems does anyone ever consider that using these with a quality SUB does take care of the Base response shortcomings or am I all wet?

My system is greatly enhanced by the SUB, but I guess there are other gaps I am missing.

Thanks

Jack

[pzaur]

Any value in using this unit with other than the bose cubes? I am very curious about this...also on another note...

When talking of the acustimass systems does anyone ever consider that using these with a quality SUB does take care of the Base response shortcomings or am I all wet?

My system is greatly enhanced by the SUB, but I guess there are other gaps I am missing.

Thanks

Jack

Any quality sub will take of any bass response shortcomings of any system. The acoustimass has all sorts of issues and shortcomings. The bass response is the least of them...imho.

-pat

[JackVa1]

What about with other speakers...would there be any value in running my speaker wire through the Acoustimass Base unit before connecting to towers or my Classic Sansui or even to my real Bose 161's?

Is there anything bad it would introduce?

[pzaur]

It all depends if the unit has a crossover built in. If it doesn't, it'll reproduce as much of the signal that goes through it, full range the the given speaker. Not a good thing for any subwoofer, or in this case, bass module. You'll hear the sounds coming from two different locations.

-pat

[spkrdtr]

Post without links to meet my quota of >5.

[spkrdtr]

Another post without links to meet quota of >5 in order to satisfy the link 'police' :)

[spkrdtr]

A blog article at the link below written by someone who paraphrased (as best he could) some remarks made recently by 'the man' to a group of journalists.
For what it's worth. I'm sure the Bose bashers won't be swayed a bit by this.

http://www.crunchgear.com/2007/09/19/dr-bose-tells-all-company-sercrets-why-they-dont-publish-specs-and-more/

[bandphan]

A blog article at the link below written by someone who paraphrased (as best he could) some remarks made recently by 'the man' to a group of journalists.
For what it's worth. I'm sure the Bose bashers won't be swayed a bit by this.

http://www.crunchgear.com/2007/09/19/dr-bose-tells-all-company-sercrets-why-they-dont-publish-specs-and-more/

nothing new in the article that hasnt been discussed. His thoughts on human perception is right and he has made a good living based on that;)

[TjMV3]

nothing new in the article that hasnt been discussed. His thoughts on human perception is right and he has made a good living based on that;)


He can say what he wants. But this human's perception when auditioning the 601 and 701 was that of pure junk. Worst sounding pieces of garbage I have ever had the displeasure of hearing.

I've heard $100.00 Boom Boxes that have sounded monumentally better, than those two Bose speakers.

[no. 5]

A blog article at the link below written by someone who paraphrased (as best he could) some remarks made recently by 'the man' to a group of journalists.
For what it's worth. I'm sure the Bose bashers won't be swayed a bit by this.

What exactly are we to be swayed to? Am I to read that and come to the conclusion that of every perceptual researcher and loudspeaker designer, Dr. Bose is the only one who knows anything about sound quality?

Consider some things from the article:
I decided I woud like to test loudspeakers in our chamber. At that time, I had no interest in acoustics. My field was a different field at the time. But this became a problem that began to obsess me: How could something measure so well and not sound good?
How did he know that the right thing was being measured? Why was he sure that the measurements were 'so good'?

When we launched [the 901] it caused quite a stir in the industry because it had no woofers and no tweeters and worse yet, eight of the those full-range drivers were facing back agains the wall, with one facing forward. Imagine this in a community of people who still believe in measurements. They didn’t know how to measure it. They measured it in a chamber with a microphone in front, so 80 percent of the sound went away from the microphone!
Who evaluates a loudspeaker's performance with only one measurement??

There are two reasons we cut out the specifications:
1) We don’t know of any measurements that actually determine anything about a product, and 2) Measurements are phony, in general, as they are printed.
That first statement is alarming (the second is usually true), is he saying no measurements reflect audible performance? If a speaker's input level changes 10dB, but the output level changes only 4dB, that would be clearly audible and measurable compression, but Dr. Bose is apparently saying it means nothing; if a speaker measures as having no treble, that apparently means you will have to listen to it to determine if it does in fact have no audible treble.

Sorry that I'm not swayed, but what he says contradicts too much research from people that don't have their names attached to the company that pays their bills.

[highfigh]

A knock-off brand (white van scam) that mimics the look of the Bose logo.

You mean, the "Hey- you wanna buy some speakers? They're left over from a job and my boss'll never miss them. What he doesn't know won't hurt him, right?"?

[EYEdROP0]

Ive got a question. We all know Bose typically uses lower quality drivers and sometimes poor wood. How is it that they get sound like that out of such cheap material? I mean, lets be honest. Bose isnt THAT bad. Ive heard plenty worse. Ive noticed their box designs are unconventional. Sometimes I wonder what their stuff would sound like paired with high quality drivers. Why doesent Bose make a true flagship speaker?

[no. 5]

Ive got a question. We all know Bose typically uses lower quality drivers and sometimes poor wood. How is it that they get sound like that out of such cheap material? I mean, lets be honest. Bose isnt THAT bad. Ive heard plenty worse. Ive noticed their box designs are unconventional.

It's a question of tolerable mediocrity. There truly is a huge number of mediocre loudspeakers on the market, picking a "good" one is just a question of which is less offensive. Even with bad speakers, the sound quality often has to be absolutely grotesque before many people will say that it sounds bad.

We as humans have an amazing ability to listen past the often bad sound quality of loudspeakers, and tune in to the sound that is being reproduced, largely ignoring the objectionable parts of what is being heard. Side by side comparison with another product will make flaws readily apparent.
But that is not to say that flaws can't be heard without comparison, they can, just that our hearing will tend to adapt to what is being listened to.

And remember that quality of drivers and materials alone does not dictate sound quality.
Sometimes I wonder what their stuff would sound like paired with high quality drivers.

Although it may produce some improvement, the very designs of many of their products are not optimal for high sound quality.

Why doesent Bose make a true flagship speaker?
I don't know, and in my opinion it's a shame they don't, because I suspect they have all the ability to.

[Seth=L]

Of course they have the ability to. Money is a means to produce research, but they dump all their money into researching marketing tactics. To be honest, they haven't changed their tactics too much. If they don't change their tactics soon they will find themselves going south. More and more people are learning about Bose for what it really is. A lot of Bose customers are not tech savy, but we are a generation of tech savy people. Of course, there will always be stupid people.:D

[EYEdROP0]

Of course they have the ability to. Money is a means to produce research, but they dump all their money into researching marketing tactics. To be honest, they haven't changed their tactics too much. If they don't change their tactics soon they will find themselves going south. More and more people are learning about Bose for what it really is. A lot of Bose customers are not tech savy, but we are a generation of tech savy people. Of course, there will always be stupid people.:D

Bose claims to have extensive research in psychoacoustics and sound reproduction technology. Yet they havent given us anything new since "Direct Reflecting" and "Acoustic Waveguide" stuff that actually impressed people. I mean, the 901 was obviously a huge hit and sounded like nothing else at the time. Acoustic Waveguide made small speakers sound "bigger". But since then, nothing has changed. I mean, all this stuff was developed in the 60's-80's. Nowadays the products are unimpressive, to be honest. Bose needs another "901". And until then, their products clearly perform inferior to what certain manufacturers have nowadays at similar prices.

Lets get realistic Bose. Your clearly letting down music lovers and audiophiles alike. Please shock us:eek:.

[Clownfish]

Of course they have the ability to. Money is a means to produce research, but they dump all their money into researching marketing tactics. To be honest, they haven't changed their tactics too much. If they don't change their tactics soon they will find themselves going south. More and more people are learning about Bose for what it really is. A lot of Bose customers are not tech savy, but we are a generation of tech savy people. Of course, there will always be stupid people.:D

I am a Bose owner.*** :eek:


(Whew) That said, I am new to this fourm. I was duped into the system by my spouse, who was duped by the sales pitch, because they didn't like all my large components in the house.

We have the 3-2-1 Lifestyle system. It was sold to my spouse as a "Fantastic sound system that will fill the room with music, play movies in surround sound, and do an amazing job!" It was sold to my spouse at an "outlet" store, and they were pressed for time shopping...

I AM NOT AN AUDIOPHILE. What I can tell you is, the system did NOT play in surround sound, and when I played CD's, the music lacked. I didn't know what or how, again, I'm not an audiophile. There was no real bass, the music seemed to be missing, and I didn't enjoy it at all. I played music over our new plasma 50" Panasonic TV... BECAUSE IT SOUNDED BETTER!

Sad, huh? I do not really have a good understanding yet of "testing" or what some of the information is telling about music or sound, frequency response, impedence, mgz, hz khz, etc. What I can tell you is it sounded like krap when we got it home.

I have finally convinced my spouse the Bose blows, and after reading on these fourms, I now understand why. I want to listen to music again, so I will study up, and make a better choice for my family.

My friends and neighbors thought I was crazy for wanting to dump the Bose system. It's one of the best, or so many people who are not audiophiles, are misled to think. A guy I work with wants to buy it, because it a Bose, a fantastic, high end system, so he told me.

Why should Bose make a better speaker, or system? They are selling enough to turn a large profit. What they are doing is working, for them. Their marketing is the best. Most people who are not into audio, video, or "techies" are under the marketing myth that Bose makes top of the line equipment. I don't see Bose going south anytime soon.

Are people stupid? Were we stupid? I don't know, I suppose so, we bought a Blose.

***WOW, that was very embarassing to 'fess up to, and tough to post on this fourm.

:o

[Nemo128]

My 2c for what they're worth...

Blindtested Bose myself while working retail and the Bose rep was showing off a Lifestyle system. Blindtested pretty much everything else they made from the cheapy PC 2.1 speakers up to the $2k HTiB set at the time (2003).

They were always compared to something in their immediate price group (+-a few dollars) that our store sold. In every comparo, almost every employee picked the other option over the Bose. Out of 10, 1 or 2 would say system A was better, but because it sounded more "smooth". We learned that their idea of smooth was lacking in low and high detailing, so their opinions were summarily discarded and they were moved from selling AV to cameras and cell phones. =)

Interestingly enough, even crappy PC speakers like the Logitech Z-680s beat the comparably priced Bose PC stuff and cheaper Lifestyle stuff just because they had more sound and detail throughout the reproduction. Everyone said Bose lacked the bass and highs that the Logis (which are pretty craptastic for highs) at least had in spades (bass) and had a hint of (highs).

Is Bose absolute trash? I wouldn't say so. Are they handily crushed by stuff in their immediate price range? Absolutely. Does the wife love the look of the cutesy lil cubes? Unfortunately yes, but I convinced her to get Def Techs all around for our place. =D

[captiankirk28]

I am so glade i never got suckered into a Bose system.

My brother in law did (3-2-1) but after listing to my system he is far from proud of his Great Bose Lifestyle 3-2-1. He is going to sell it and get something that has some sound to it. Im sure all the info i printed of here for his reading pleasure probley did'nt help his feelings any:D

[BillP2R]

Reading this thread brought to mind that back in the day when the 901 was the "latest and greatest", my friends just could not understand why I was not impressed with their performance.

While the 901s were not unlistenable, I thought they were just average (and over priced).

--------------- Bill

[CraigV]

B.O.S.E.

Better Off w/Something Else

Maybe they should call them the “Bose Acousti-mass-market” speakers:D

[camaraderie]

The review of the AM15 was great and confirms everything I've thought about that whole series since its' inception.
I will take exception to some of the comments on the 901's as I think they were pretty decent speakers for the money in their day and by Series IV had evolved pretty nicely to eliminate some of the deficiencies of the earlier models. YES...you did need the right setup in the room to get good performance and YES they were different in concept but at least they weren't a rip off and the concept made good sense in its' day. They were the only speaker Bose ever made that I could understand people buying. Could you get better sound for the $$...sure, in lots of places...but at least that was a pretty subjective choice with the 901's rather than a slam dunk.
As an aside...some may remember the point1 series that Bose made for mass merchants in the 90's. I once happened to see a bill of materials for the drivers and crossover network for the "top of the line" $800 speaker in that range which were imported from Japan. Total was less than $30. Outrageous markup to pay for that marketing.
BTW...they are not immune to the recession. Layoffs are happening on the Mountain.

[Hipnotic4]

..yea this is nothing new, but either way..charts and numbers is not the way to buy speakers..ears ears ears..its all that matters..and no lol never had and never will buy BizOez

[ChristopherN]

..yea this is nothing new, but either way..charts and numbers is not the way to buy speakers..ears ears ears..its all that matters..and no lol never had and never will buy BizOez

True, but before I check speakers, I always make sure they can do the 20-20 spectrum, or 40-20.

anything that doesn't meet that, I don't even bother to look at. Of course thats mid high speakers + sub, or a full range cab if I'm lucky.

[E-Lab]

If someone loves the Bose sound, that's fine, but it certainly isn't faithful in its audio reproduction.

Faithful audio reproduction is what I seek. I use specifications as a guide and my ears as the final judge when I make a purchase. A piano should sound like a piano. If the piano was recorded in a specific venue, it should sound that way in the reproduction.

How many top recording studios use Bose speakers? How many high quality recordings were mastered using Bose speakers? I wonder how many audio engineers worth their salt would even consider a Bose product if Bose claims performance specifications do not hold any merit.

If performance specifications are meaningless, what metric does the Bose quality control department use as a standard?

[jonnythan]

But, if we are talking about all of the speakers moving the same amount, then nine 4" speakers will move the same air as one 12" speaker (again, with the assumptions mentioned above).

Assuming, of course, that the 4" speakers have the same excursion as the 12" speaker.

And I can guarantee you that the 4" speakers in an Acoustimass module do not have 15+mm of excursion like a decent 12" sub.

It would take a lot more than nine 4" speakers to move the same volume of air as a decent 12" sub.

[krabapple]

Before pointing and laughing at Bose buyers, y'all might consider the frequency with which much higher priced loudspeakers with terrible measured performance, get positive reviews from 'audiophile' ears:

example Zen Druid 2, $4000/pr

reviews:

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue11/zudruid.htm
http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/zucable_druid.htm

measurements :

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurem.../zucable_druid/ (http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/zucable_druid/)

When I posted a link to these on Hydrogenaudio (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=70702&view=findpost&p=625645), Sean Olive said they were some of the worst measured performance curves he's seen for a loudspeaker in quite awhile.. HE's also got an interesting story to tell about an electrostatic loudspeaker rated 'Speaker of the Year' by one of the audiophile mags....and what happened when its reviewers were asked to rate the same loudspeaker under blind conditions:


"The best example is a high-end $11k electrostatic speaker that was awarded "Speaker of the Year" in a well-known audio magazine, and yet it measured horribly. When I invited 6 professional audio reviewers (including some from the same magazine) to evaluate it under controlled, double-blind conditions they rated it dead last -- just like the other 300 listeners (see speaker M here (http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2008/12/part-3-relationship-between-loudspeaker.html) ). The other speaker P that they rated in first place, was also deemed "speaker of the year" in the same magazine the following year. How can reviewers be so grossly inconsistent from year to year? It's because they don't do comprehensive measurements like SoundStage or now Consumer Report, but instead rely on poorly controlled, sighted, biased, casual listening."

[AVIA-Designs]

This probably qualifys as "not really worth mentioning" but the dates just jumped out at me. The 901 was the second design of Dr. Amar Bose and the 901 actually hit the scene in 1968, near the time Dr. Bose released his paper to the AES (Audio Engineering Society) entitled: "On the Design, Measurement and Evaluation of Loudspeakers"

I am not strictly a BOSE fan, just want to get the facts right.

THX, Doc

He sure sounds like someone with an axe to grind but I will have to admit that he speaks the truth. The Bose 901 were a sensation when they hit the scene back in the 1950's. I give them credit for successfully carrying that initial success for all these years with nothing but marketing. Hard to argue with success.

[romantic]

i wish i had done my research instead of trusting my friend

[keyz]

Hi,
Well the sound system in Samsung mobile phone is very good and speaker which is in Samsung mobile is very best any time we can change the frequency and can set any good place.

[ozmedia]

..yea this is nothing new, but either way..charts and numbers is not the way to buy speakers..ears ears ears..its all that matters..and no lol never had and never will buy BizOez

Than again, if your ears can't determine that they are being robbed of half the frequency range, you're better off spending $150 at Future Shop, and all the power to you if that's all it takes to please your ears.

[Robof83]

Before pointing and laughing at Bose buyers, y'all might consider the frequency with which much higher priced loudspeakers with terrible measured performance, get positive reviews from 'audiophile' ears:

example Zen Druid 2, $4000/pr

reviews:

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue11/zudruid.htm
http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/zucable_druid.htm

measurements :

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurem.../zucable_druid/ (http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/zucable_druid/)

When I posted a link to these on Hydrogenaudio (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=70702&view=findpost&p=625645), Sean Olive said they were some of the worst measured performance curves he's seen for a loudspeaker in quite awhile.. HE's also got an interesting story to tell about an electrostatic loudspeaker rated 'Speaker of the Year' by one of the audiophile mags....and what happened when its reviewers were asked to rate the same loudspeaker under blind conditions:


"The best example is a high-end $11k electrostatic speaker that was awarded "Speaker of the Year" in a well-known audio magazine, and yet it measured horribly. When I invited 6 professional audio reviewers (including some from the same magazine) to evaluate it under controlled, double-blind conditions they rated it dead last -- just like the other 300 listeners (see speaker M here (http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2008/12/part-3-relationship-between-loudspeaker.html) ). The other speaker P that they rated in first place, was also deemed "speaker of the year" in the same magazine the following year. How can reviewers be so grossly inconsistent from year to year? It's because they don't do comprehensive measurements like SoundStage or now Consumer Report, but instead rely on poorly controlled, sighted, biased, casual listening."


That is the placebo effect at work:D

[shivang222]

wow this saved me a lot of money

[myriad1973]

My (Sony) speakers and sub sound better than Bose. I would never buy Bose.... ever.

[cwall99]

I don't know, and in my opinion it's a shame they don't, because I suspect they have all the ability to.

They do have a line of professional PA gear. I don't know anything about it, but I have seen it in some pro gear catalogs.

[cwall99]

A blog article at the link below written by someone who paraphrased (as best he could) some remarks made recently by 'the man' to a group of journalists.
For what it's worth. I'm sure the Bose bashers won't be swayed a bit by this.

http://www.crunchgear.com/2007/09/19/dr-bose-tells-all-company-sercrets-why-they-dont-publish-specs-and-more/

If you read the article, the only other brand of products mentioned by Dr. Bose are Radio Shack (Realistic). So he bought a system from Radio Shack without listening to it, brought it home, and was disappointed by its performance.

Ummmm.... does that really come as a surprise to anyone here?

Then, the article makes it sound as if the good Dr. Bose set out to design a system that could outperform a Radio Shack / Realistic system.

Gee, nothing like setting the bar high!!!!

[Below10hz]

Interesting while I'm reading the review of the performance of the Bose speakers, I'm looking at an ad to my right for the very same product????:confused:

[cwall99]

Interesting while I'm reading the review of the performance of the Bose speakers, I'm looking at an ad to my right for the very same product????:confused:

Well, I hope that shows a degree of editorial independence.

[eddy123]

I never understood the popularity of Bose speakers. They must have a marvelous marketing tool and invest a lot in advertising. They some how manage to get the attention of the average listener who just wants a reasonable sound but doesn't know what to buy. Just buy the brand you know and you are OK.

Ed

[Boerd]

There is an old saying:
No highs, no lows - it's a BOSE.

For the money of a BOSE system I own a active system with digital crossover from NHT - NHT XD 2.2 - the frequency response is flat and it has 1600 W of amplification

[camelialong]

Don't let that thread scare you. There are plenty of quality used AV123 products available for sale that will get you around having to deal with the drama. But I agree that we need to know specific model comparisons to give an opinion.

[surgeon4men]

sounds like someone with an axe to grind but I will have to admit that he speaks the truth.

[superted]

The intellexual page is pure bunkum and full of untruths. I don't care for Bose's sub-sat systems personally, but let's pursue the truth about that infamous graph.

First, S&V measurements are not anechoic at all, they are an averaged in-room response including off-axis measurements. The Bose graph is therefore actually pretty good. Audioholics recommend an Infinity TSS system - here are the lab results from S&V for the TSS-1100: soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/InfinityTSS-1100lab.pdf. For comparison, an expensive floorstander has a typical graph like this: soundandvisionmag.com/speakers/3133/snell-acoustics-signature-series-c7-speaker-test-bench-page3.html. I haven't cherry-picked some bad measurements, these are entirely representative of how graphs look in S&V. (Sorry, cant post direct links due to post count).

Second, look at the numbers quoted on intellexual. "Satellites: 280 Hz to 13.3kHz at ±10.5 dB" Now look at the graph. The curve doesn't even extend to cover that range! It is more like +/-4dB 280hz to 16khz which again for this type of measurement isn't bad whatsoever. It's a nonsense to say "this Bose system only produces 13,176 of the 19,980 Hertz in the audible sound spectrum. That's roughly 66% of the actual recording being played back to you!" Yeh, right.

Third, look at the graph - you need to add 3dB to the crossover intersection point - this means there is indeed a slight dip in this region but no worse than many top of the range audiophile floorstanders. It is a nonsense to say "That is 80 hertz of sound that is completely erased".

Fourth, yes there is a sharp high frequency rolloff after around 16khz, but this is perfecly judged speaker design given engineering versus audibility - above 16khz is very subtle stuff even for critical listening, let alone for a 3 inch cube lifestyle system.

[Halon451]

Interesting...so how do I convince my own ears that what they're listening to isn't merely over-priced marketing hype? Graphs and numbers paint an interesting picture and like anything else one can always twist numbers to suit their own side of the debate, but bottom line is I've YET to ever listen to a Bose system that justifies the outrageous price tag... period. :cool:

[son-yah-tive]

I read that article a little while back. It got me to join AUDIOHOLICS. It also made me decide to sell my Bose Acoustimass 15s. Today is the first day they'll be on Ebay. I ended up finding 'Definitive Mythos 2s' on Amazon. And bought 5 of those and a Polk Audio Micro 1000 sub. I hope to get something worth while for the Bose system. It would help with the new speakers I bought. :rolleyes: Thanks to this site I took the plunge. But I got such a good deal on the Defs and the Polk, that it was only 44.00 more than the Bose system! Added up retail wise it would have been 3750.00 instead of the 1350.00 I paid. WHAT A DIFFERENCE in sound quality. I noticed my wife doesn't have to hold her ears anymore when there is a loud applause. And no more EAR RINGING! Thanks fellas.;)

[Gior]

The intellexual page is pure bunkum and full of untruths. I don't care for Bose's sub-sat systems personally, but let's pursue the truth about that infamous graph.

First, S&V measurements are not anechoic at all, they are an averaged in-room response including off-axis measurements. The Bose graph is therefore actually pretty good. Audioholics recommend an Infinity TSS system - here are the lab results from S&V for the TSS-1100:

Infinity TSS-1100 (http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/InfinityTSS-1100lab.pdf)

For comparison, an expensive floorstander has a typical graph like this:
Snell Acoustics Signature Series C7 Speaker (http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/speakers/3133/snell-acoustics-signature-series-c7-speaker-test-bench-page3.html)

I haven't cherry-picked some bad measurements, these are entirely representative of how graphs look in S&V. (Sorry, cant post direct links due to post count).

Second, look at the numbers quoted on intellexual. "Satellites: 280 Hz to 13.3kHz at ±10.5 dB" Now look at the graph. The curve doesn't even extend to cover that range! It is more like +/-4dB 280hz to 16khz which again for this type of measurement isn't bad whatsoever. It's a nonsense to say "this Bose system only produces 13,176 of the 19,980 Hertz in the audible sound spectrum. That's roughly 66% of the actual recording being played back to you!" Yeh, right.

Third, look at the graph - you need to add 3dB to the crossover intersection point - this means there is indeed a slight dip in this region but no worse than many top of the range audiophile floorstanders. It is a nonsense to say "That is 80 hertz of sound that is completely erased".

Fourth, yes there is a sharp high frequency rolloff after around 16khz, but this is perfecly judged speaker design given engineering versus audibility - above 16khz is very subtle stuff even for critical listening, let alone for a 3 inch cube lifestyle system.

A disclaimer - the only Bose stuff I own is a pair of QC2 headphones for airline travel. I do think that there is other stuff on the market for the same price that would offer me more bang for the buck, but for WAF, the Bose stuff really isn't that bad which is what superted is trying to point out by debunking the debunker - that the intellexual's site said that the graphs were measured in an anechoic chamber and that possibly only superted has mentioned it so far has me wondering how many people just jump on the Bose bashing bandwagon simply because they have lapped up what they read on the intellexual's site rather than doing proper testing and listening themselves. superted, in defence however of the S&V tests figure of the +/- 10.5db @13.3kHz, the graph is kind of small but it looks like the Center channel was playing up as its response was quite different to the fronts and surrounds.

Like superted, I'm just trying to be a voice of reason here and am not saying Bose is GOOD, but I don't believe in bashing them without seeing a lot more people put up their own 'in-room measurements and FR graphs' of their Bose systems and then the systems that they have replaced the Bose with to be able to in some way objectively qualify their statements.

[bandphan]

Ive had many years of selling and installing BOSE products, and when compared to others, you dont get your monies worth. Their lifestyle systems are always behind the curve in regards to current codecs and spec connections. As for their cube/midbass combo speakers, in smaller rooms they can sound ok, but once the are in a larger room and the mids become localized; they suck;)

[Gior]

Ive had many years of selling and installing BOSE products, and when compared to others, you dont get your monies worth. Their lifestyle systems are always behind the curve in regards to current codecs and spec connections. As for their cube/midbass combo speakers, in smaller rooms they can sound ok, but once the are in a larger room and the mids become localized; they suck;)

This is a perfectly fair, reasonable and valid assessment :) It's just the laws of physics and marketing :)

[superted]

which is what superted is trying to point out by debunking the debunker - that the intellexual's site said that the graphs were measured in an anechoic chamber and that possibly only superted has mentioned it so far has me wondering how many people just jump on the Bose bashing bandwagon simply because they have lapped up what they read on the intellexual's site rather than doing proper testing and listening themselves. superted, in defence however of the S&V tests figure of the +/- 10.5db @13.3kHz, the graph is kind of small but it looks like the Center channel was playing up as its response was quite different to the fronts and surrounds.

Hi Gior,

The center channel measurement should be ignored because if satellites are identical, S&V mag places one horizontally, calls it the center channel and thus measures it at an axis that may not be intended by the manufacturer. Please see the text accompanying measurements here where this routine method is detailed. Intellexual misses this commentary out and thus its presentation is completely bogus in this way too.

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/1222003153710.pdf

Indeed, like you I have no "side" nor am I "twisting numbers" - exactly the opposite.

[Gior]

Hi Gior,

The center channel measurement should be ignored because if satellites are identical, S&V mag places one horizontally, calls it the center channel and thus measures it at an axis that may not be intended by the manufacturer. Please see the text accompanying measurements here where this routine method is detailed. Intellexual misses this commentary out and thus its presentation is completely bogus in this way too.

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/1222003153710.pdf

Indeed, like you I have no "side" nor am I "twisting numbers" - exactly the opposite.

Thanks for this, I hadn't bothered to go and check the original source review for the Bose but what you have said here makes complete sense if S&V are just flipping a random speaker on its side and calling it a centre channel as seen in their testing procedure in the link you provided.

For a thread that is titled "Bose Speaker Measurements & Frequency Response Graphs" I've seen surprisingly few of these linked in the last 13 pages or so. I've personally never measured a Bose system at listening positioning but would be very interested to see its FR graph and measurements and then see them compared to a different system in the same location. Surely someone on this forum must have gotten round to doing this?

[superted]

S&V measurements were always done in the same room and the same procedure, so the graphs I linked to for other products can be used to compare.

As I said, the Bose is pretty good FR measurement wise.

I just noticed in the corner - "Pursuing the truth in audio". Should this really remain a sticky in that case?

[Halon451]

^ Heh... sure didn't take that guy long to wear out his welcome huh? :rolleyes:

Ah... got to love trolls.

[ichigo]

I see Bose ads sitting between forum posts...just gold.

[no. 5]

The center channel measurement should be ignored because if satellites are identical, S&V mag places one horizontally, calls it the center channel and thus measures it at an axis that may not be intended by the manufacturer. Please see the text accompanying measurements here where this routine method is detailed. Intellexual misses this commentary out and thus its presentation is completely bogus in this way too.

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/1222003153710.pdf

Indeed, like you I have no "side" nor am I "twisting numbers" - exactly the opposite.

I do not believe that is correct with regard to the S&V review of the AM-15, as Tom Nousaine mentions in his lab results: "the best response for all the satellites was obtained when the dual cubes were rotated about 15 degrees apart".

Nevertheless, the biggest difference between the center channel and the other satellites is above ~10kHz, not where a difference in horizontal/vertical orientation would present itself.

Anyway, I see he was band, but I felt it needed to be said... :rolleyes:

[cerwinmad]

Well i have listened to a proffesionaly installed bose system and it was easy to hear the weaknesses of the sound. They seem to over emphasize the treble, and the midbass seems kinda "boomy" to me, as for low bass there was definitely a lot of sound missing and it was addressed by having the bloated midbass. It was my ex boss system and he was very proud. he even said one day i might have a "top of the line" system like his. I prayed to god and the rest this would not come true!!!

[Soundman]

OK, just checking to make sure this was still a sticky. I just saw a Bose add on the Audioholics home page. I was pretty disappointed about that. :rolleyes: