Bose Speaker Measurements & Frequency Response Graphs

[camelialong]

halo

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]

"Bose Speaker Measurements & Frequency Response Graphs"

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.

 

[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. 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

For comparison, an expensive floorstander has a typical graph like this:
Snell Acoustics Signature Series C7 Speaker

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?

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...

 

[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.