Bose: Legit Audio Company or Slick Marketing?

[William Lemmerhirt]

 

[Auditor55]

Tell me a company that doesn't use slick marketing. Especially in the A/V world, there's a term used across A/V forums like this, it called "Upgraditis", which primarily a result of slick marketing.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Tell me a company that doesn't use slick marketing. Especially in the A/V world, there's a term used across A/V forums like this, it called "Upgraditis", which primarily a result of slick marketing.

Except for when you get what you pay for!!!
Obviously every market uses slick, or smart marketing, and many times there’s not much to gain. But for me, in the case of BLOSE, there’s nothing to gain in the first place. The return on investment is very low, and to the uninitiated, it’s almost a crime against them. IE: snake oil...

Informed shoppers will many times find that upgraditis can be fulfilled with a valuable return in investment, and a worthy upgrade. Upgrading isn’t always a screw job as I think you’re implying. BLOSE certainly isn’t the only company who’s guilty of overselling their wares, but they’re one of the most widely known, and imo that means they should be the most responsible.

 

[FreeTzin]

I am an Engineer, but a Mechanical one, and this is what I believe makes Bose speakers popular:
In a perfect world, accurate (High Fidelity) sound reproduction would mean, as some have stated, making the sound system "disappear" leaving only the illusion of a live performance with live, actual, physical instruments and performers. That concept works for acoustic instruments but the sound of electronic ones will always be colored by the electronics and speakers that make them work, so electronic instruments have no actual "real" sound, unless you consider "real" a "perfect" acoustical rendition of whatever signal is fed the Amplifier. So, accurate sound reproduction means accurately capturing said sound, storing it and reproducing it, usually by means of paper cones with precious little resemblance to wood resonance chambers, vibrating strings, metal tubes or discs, and flat, tense leather membranes (maybe what speakers resemble the most are drums). The issue here is that a "good" "High Fidelity" system will (at least in theory) accurately reproduce whatever it is fed, so it must be fed an extremely high-quality signal in order for it to produce high-quality sound. The worse the input signal is, the more its undesirable effects will be exacerbated by a high-quality system. As a result, a poor input signal tends to sound worse the better the system it is fed into is.
On the other hand, as far as I understand, what Bose does is process the input signal to get rid of any perceivable negative artifacts (by means of psychoacoustics) and "adapt" it to whatever their hardware is capable of doing "best" and the listener's ears and brain feel "comfortable" with. In other words, Bose will not ask of neither the input signal, nor the speaker, nor the listener, something they are not capable of doing reasonably well. That may definitely not be "High Fidelity", but the effect is that, in my experience, Bose speakers always sound just "as well" regardless of the input signal they are being fed, and they are not tiring to listen to. One can listen to them all day long using any practically any source material imaginable, and never grow tired or end up with a headache or ringing ears, something that cannot always be said of high-end equipment. Plus, they're much more practical to carry around than huge speakers with 15-inch drivers and welding-plant amplifiers. They may be inaccurate, but simply more practical in most real-world scenarios. And it's all about perception.

 

[Verdinut]

I am an Engineer, but a Mechanical one, and this is what I believe makes Bose speakers popular:
In a perfect world, accurate (High Fidelity) sound reproduction would mean, as some have stated, making the sound system "disappear" leaving only the illusion of a live performance with live, actual, physical instruments and performers. That concept works for acoustic instruments but the sound of electronic ones will always be colored by the electronics and speakers that make them work, so electronic instruments have no actual "real" sound, unless you consider "real" a "perfect" acoustical rendition of whatever signal is fed the Amplifier. So, accurate sound reproduction means accurately capturing said sound, storing it and reproducing it, usually by means of paper cones with precious little resemblance to wood resonance chambers, vibrating strings, metal tubes or discs, and flat, tense leather membranes (maybe what speakers resemble the most are drums). The issue here is that a "good" "High Fidelity" system will (at least in theory) accurately reproduce whatever it is fed, so it must be fed an extremely high-quality signal in order for it to produce high-quality sound. The worse the input signal is, the more its undesirable effects will be exacerbated by a high-quality system. As a result, a poor input signal tends to sound worse the better the system it is fed into is.
On the other hand, as far as I understand, what Bose does is process the input signal to get rid of any perceivable negative artifacts (by means of psychoacoustics) and "adapt" it to whatever their hardware is capable of doing "best" and the listener's ears and brain feel "comfortable" with. In other words, Bose will not ask of neither the input signal, nor the speaker, nor the listener, something they are not capable of doing reasonably well. That may definitely not be "High Fidelity", but the effect is that, in my experience, Bose speakers always sound just "as well" regardless of the input signal they are being fed, and they are not tiring to listen to. One can listen to them all day long using any practically any source material imaginable, and never grow tired or end up with a headache or ringing ears, something that cannot always be said of high-end equipment. Plus, they're much more practical to carry around than huge speakers with 15-inch drivers and welding-plant amplifiers. They may be inaccurate, but simply more practical in most real-world scenarios. And it's all about perception.

But a real audiophile cannot listen to a Bose speaker all day long because of its inaccuracy. IMO, people who buy such product don't know much about music, they never or have not recently assisted to a live performance with acoustic instruments, or believe everything sellers are telling them.

 

[FreeTzin]

I have a pretty decent system comprised of B&W 801s powered by a Carver M1.5t playing 15-ips 2-track reel-to-reel tapes on a restored ReVox PR99 MkII that I seldom fire up because my wife starts complaining, and the dogs start howling, so I am only able to enjoy it when I'm alone in the room and I have the opportunity to just sit and listen, which I enjoy immensely. On the other hand, for everyday listening I use Bose SoundTouch speakers streaming Deezer at a steady (compressed) sound-pressure level, a constrained, midrange-intensive frequency response, and almost-single-note "simulated" bass. But it keeps me entertained, and no one complains. I can't hear beyond 5 kHz anymore anyway, so, so be it, I guess... Plus, paying monthly rent for unlimited streaming is certainly cheaper than purchasing decent studio-quality tapes, and offers much more varied listening material.
I guess I am not an audiophile and the times I remember attending live acoustic performances must be figments of my imagination, then.

 

[Kingnoob]

Honestly Bose bookshelf speakers are not about audio quality at all. This is why audiophiles dislike them so much. The primary thing Bose goes for in their bookshelves is to fill a room with background sound so you can listened to spotify while vacuuming the rugs or folding clothes. For that they do their job well as these things are bouncing sound off the walls. But for those of us that give a dam about audio quality the trade off of less direct sound isn't worth it.

Better sound threw marketing ... there technology has actually gone backwards into death

...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

I am an Engineer, but a Mechanical one, and this is what I believe makes Bose speakers popular:
In a perfect world, accurate (High Fidelity) sound reproduction would mean, as some have stated, making the sound system "disappear" leaving only the illusion of a live performance with live, actual, physical instruments and performers. That concept works for acoustic instruments but the sound of electronic ones will always be colored by the electronics and speakers that make them work, so electronic instruments have no actual "real" sound, unless you consider "real" a "perfect" acoustical rendition of whatever signal is fed the Amplifier. So, accurate sound reproduction means accurately capturing said sound, storing it and reproducing it, usually by means of paper cones with precious little resemblance to wood resonance chambers, vibrating strings, metal tubes or discs, and flat, tense leather membranes (maybe what speakers resemble the most are drums). The issue here is that a "good" "High Fidelity" system will (at least in theory) accurately reproduce whatever it is fed, so it must be fed an extremely high-quality signal in order for it to produce high-quality sound. The worse the input signal is, the more its undesirable effects will be exacerbated by a high-quality system. As a result, a poor input signal tends to sound worse the better the system it is fed into is.
On the other hand, as far as I understand, what Bose does is process the input signal to get rid of any perceivable negative artifacts (by means of psychoacoustics) and "adapt" it to whatever their hardware is capable of doing "best" and the listener's ears and brain feel "comfortable" with. In other words, Bose will not ask of neither the input signal, nor the speaker, nor the listener, something they are not capable of doing reasonably well. That may definitely not be "High Fidelity", but the effect is that, in my experience, Bose speakers always sound just "as well" regardless of the input signal they are being fed, and they are not tiring to listen to. One can listen to them all day long using any practically any source material imaginable, and never grow tired or end up with a headache or ringing ears, something that cannot always be said of high-end equipment. Plus, they're much more practical to carry around than huge speakers with 15-inch drivers and welding-plant amplifiers. They may be inaccurate, but simply more practical in most real-world scenarios. And it's all about perception.

You are right. Perception IS reality. And for many, the perception that Blose is a premium brand makes it so. To them...
Ime with their products, I’ve always felt disappointed. Good example is the Bose soundlink that i have(gift). It sounds atrocious, and cost 300 bucks. Conversely I’ve used JBL BT speakers that were 1/3 or 1/2 of the cost and sound much better. So while my Bose BT speaker won’t give me listening fatigue the way that some obnoxious tweeters can, it fatigues me in a different way, in that I’m never satisfied by listening to it, even though I’ve tempered my expectations. Even my wife who hates having 7.3.4 in the LR and messing with remotes, prefers NOT using the soundlink. I won’t even talk about the acoustimass lifestyle junk, or the wave radio. My iPhone XR sounds as good as that the wave radio. I have a couple friends that each have 501’s and 301’s. While they definitely don’t hurt my ears, there are much better performing speakers for AT LEAST the same price and almost always less. They don’t look any better IMO to boot.

So what I took from your point was that a Blose system will “dumb down” the signal by means of signal processing, and
driver/enclosure “design” so as not to sound poor no matter what you play on it. Maybe there is something to that...if it can’t possibly sound good with any material, it can’t possibly sound bad either. Too bad it costs so much for middling performance.....

I will say, the form factor of the soundlink is pretty nice.

 

[tbgillespie]

I should mention, i don't think the first series of 901's had the equalizer. I'm pretty sure it was an afterthought which is more indication it wasn't part of the original design intent and was used to compensate for shoddy design.

You said "I don't think". If you are going to give your opinion then you ought to get the facts straight beforehand. The Bose 901's have always come with an equalizer. They don't sound good at all because they were designed to use the Bose equalizer.

 

[tbgillespie]

And a simple check on the web confirms you are correct. Still, i think the eq is a sign of an inherent deficiency in the design.

The Bose 901 EQ is not a design deficiency. It is part of the design that makes the speakers sound so very much better than they would without it.

 

[tbgillespie]

Honestly Bose bookshelf speakers are not about audio quality at all. This is why audiophiles dislike them so much. The primary thing Bose goes for in their bookshelves is to fill a room with background sound so you can listened to spotify while vacuuming the rugs or folding clothes. For that they do their job well as these things are bouncing sound off the walls. But for those of us that give a dam about audio quality the trade off of less direct sound isn't worth it.

I can't believe how many people have a negative opinion of Bose 901 speakers when they have never owned and correctly set up a pair in their own home. Audiophiles are into specifications on paper. The 901's are all about the experience of enjoying being immersed in sound and not just from two points in front of you.

 

[Pogre]

I can't believe how many people have a negative opinion of Bose 901 speakers when they have never owned and correctly set up a pair in their own home. Audiophiles are into specifications on paper. The 901's are all about the experience of enjoying being immersed in sound and not just from two points in front of you.

Most of us here prefer accurate speakers. The 901s don't even try to be accurate. I have a pair of speakers that fill the room very nicely and have a huge soundstage. They have excellent dispersion characteristics and most importantly, they're accurate and clean sounding speakers. Honestly I wouldn't even want the 901s in my garage.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

They don't sound good at all because they were designed to use the Bose equalizer.

No. They don’t sound good at all, because they don’t sound good at all...

I’ve heard enough of them(not speaking to setup parameters) to say they’re just not that good. For ME.
Glad you seem to like them, but they’re are multitudes of better speakers out there. Ones with accuracy, power, clarity, great imaging, and room FILLING sound. Sorry, I poor Bose kool-aid down the sink whenever I can.

 

[Pogre]

I can't believe how many people have a negative opinion of Bose 901 speakers when they have never owned and correctly set up a pair in their own home.

Inversely, how many high quality accurate speakers with great imaging and good dispersion characteristics, with a good subwoofer blended in, have you owned and set up correctly in your home?

 

[rickatk]

I enjoyed reading this article, a nice trip down memory lane.

I held off buying any Bose products for years even though I was impressed and attracted to the sound and form factor of the Bose products. I kept reading so much hate about Bose products I was swayed. Over time though I started buying Bose products despite all the negative comments, which started to wain in later years.

I moved off high end mainstream consumer products like Sony and later Yamaha as well Boston Acoustics speakers(my favourite for years) in search of a product that’s was simple to set up, had no big wires and sounded good. After almost ten years with a Yamaha receiver and BD player, a Samsung plasma tv and full 5.1 suite of Boston’s big heavy cabling and stands I grew tired of the setup. So did my wife. After trying a Yamaha 2500 sound bar I settled on a Cinemate 130 bar with Soundtouch. I purposely tried the system without rear speakers in an attempt to soften the rear stage via the speaker bars phase guides speakers. Success! I still have that setup today seven years later. I have taken my AV to its maximum capability with HDMI ARC.

I have also built out my home speaker network after trialling a number of wireless speakers including B and W. Bose SoundTouch did the job I have music in pretty much every room. I remain very happy with my Bose products. I have always been very happy with the sound. Just the right amount of detail and very warm deep low’s.

I don’t regret for one minute buying Bose products. I consider myself a fan of music and audio/video. That’s it!

 

[flwolf]

I haven't read the article and don't know if/when I will!

However, I reject the fundamental premise that Bose is one or the other and they must be mutually exclusive!
I think it very unreasonable to believe that Bose is not a "Legit Audio Company"! They started out introducing some significant innovations. The 901's may not be the best speakers by many measures, but they would fill a room in a (good) way no other speaker I had heard at the time could. The 201's, 301's, 501's all were decently good sounding and I believe competitive speakers for their price in the late 70's/early 80's. While they did a good job with marketing, they certainly did not start out with the marketing end of their operations running the show and I believe they earned their niche among Audio Companies of the late 70's.

Perhaps I should add that I consider Pyle to be a legit audio electronics company - many of their products are sh!t, but I still think they are a legit player.

If you ask about value or orientation towards quality, that is a totally different question, but I fail to understand how you can begin to consider Bose NOT to be a legit audio company (guess I'll have to read the article).

As far as their marketing, yes they are a slick marketing operation.

I dislike Bose because I do believe they use slick marketing to compensate for overall poor value. I do have a pair of noise cancelling headphones from them, otherwise they have nothing of interest to me.

My band had a BOSE speaker system on stage in the early 1970's and we sounded spectacular! That was 50 years ago and I have used BOSE ever since, including Wave radio, PC speakers, TV surround system, etc. I'm not claiming that BOSE is the best or only good sound system, but anybody who claims that their products are bad, must have an agenda or several screws lose!

 

[isolar8001]

My band had a BOSE speaker system on stage in the early 1970's and we sounded spectacular! That was 50 years ago and I have used BOSE ever since, including Wave radio, PC speakers, TV surround system, etc. I'm not claiming that BOSE is the best or only good sound system, but anybody who claims that their products are bad, must have an agenda or several screws lose!

Mr Bot, you do know they no longer make stage speaker products like you describe and havent for many years, don't you?