Bose specs aint half as bad as "branded" sats/sub

[dack]

I browsed through Bose site the specs of their tiny sats/sub reads as

2 x 2.5" driver per cube x 5 cubes = 25" @ 1kg each

3 x 5.25 subwoofer mass unit = 15.75"

Total of 40.75"

An average branded sats/sub uses a 0.75" tweeter and 3.5" woofer per cube and an 8" sub. We can have a larger center of dual 3.5" woofer, still that adds up to about 32.75" of material.

We move to 1" tweeter, 4" woofer and 10" sub, that gives 35" total.

The cabinet of Bose is of course way smaller per cube.

Im bored.

 

[MDS]

Bored indeed. The physical dimensions of a speaker is not a 'spec' of any value.

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

Bored indeed. The physical dimensions of a speaker is not a 'spec' of any value.

LOL..... yea, no kidding.

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

An average branded sats/sub uses a 0.75" tweeter and 3.5" woofer per cube and an 8" sub.

The "average" sub sucks donkey.

But since the average buyer of average systems can't even point the speakers in the proper direction, I don't think they'll care anyway.

 

[Geno]

The "average" sub sucks donkey.

But since the average buyer of average systems can't even point the speakers in the proper direction, I don't think they'll care anyway.

Sheesh. I guess that means that Theatre Research speakers must be the best honkin' speakers out there, since they're so big!

 

[billnchristy]

I think the tiny woofer + tweeter is better than a tiny woofer that doesnt do good as a woof or tweet any day.

 

[highfihoney]

Im sold,bose it is,with specs like that who needs Mcintosh gear

 

[mtrycrafts]

I browsed through Bose site the specs of their tiny sats/sub reads as

2 x 2.5" driver per cube x 5 cubes = 25" @ 1kg each

3 x 5.25 subwoofer mass unit = 15.75"

Total of 40.75"

An average branded sats/sub uses a 0.75" tweeter and 3.5" woofer per cube and an 8" sub. We can have a larger center of dual 3.5" woofer, still that adds up to about 32.75" of material.

We move to 1" tweeter, 4" woofer and 10" sub, that gives 35" total.

The cabinet of Bose is of course way smaller per cube.

Im bored.

Did you copyright this spec? You need to, but too late. Bose will get a huge advertising advantage from this new spec

 

[rumble]

I browsed through Bose site the specs of their tiny sats/sub reads as

2 x 2.5" driver per cube x 5 cubes = 25" @ 1kg each

3 x 5.25 subwoofer mass unit = 15.75"

Total of 40.75"

An average branded sats/sub uses a 0.75" tweeter and 3.5" woofer per cube and an 8" sub. We can have a larger center of dual 3.5" woofer, still that adds up to about 32.75" of material.

We move to 1" tweeter, 4" woofer and 10" sub, that gives 35" total.

The cabinet of Bose is of course way smaller per cube.

Im bored.

Lookout for my sub with 18 1" tweeters!

 

[Bassman2]

I was in circuit city recently and after hearing all the negative talk about bose....(my only experience with them was in high school and friends had 901's, 501's and 301's and I thought each was pretty good for the money back then).....As I walked past a Bose display I decided to give em a try even though I was looking for something else entirely. It was one of those small flat amp's or receivers (couldnt really tell) with those double cube speakers and a sub. Well, the sub was very loud and muddy and the cube speakers sounded like farts through a cardboard tube. And this "system" was over a thousand dollars as I recall. I was shocked! How could they sell any if people just listen to more than the one system?

I was at a party a few weeks earlier and someone was saying to another...oh yeah, just get one of those little Bose systems, they're great! Oh brother...

 

[ichigo]

I'd say Bose would be a decent deal...if they sold them as PC speakers and competed with the rest of the one-way systems at $150. Sure, the sub sucks, but the system looks cuby and cute so I'll give it the design factor.

 

[mouettus]

It's not just about specs, its about SQ. And i'm pretty sure a lot of companies can do a lot better than that for the same so-called specs.

Talking about woofer sizes, my logitech 4.1 computer system died a couple of months ago which consisted of 4 3" satellites and 1 subwoofer. I'm glad it died in the end cuz it was so boomy it was giving me headaches. Anyway, to make a long story short, I decided do dissect that little bummer to see what was inside. I then discovered that the so-called 8" woofer was in fact a 4" woofer pushing pressured air to some kind of 8" piece of material. What a hype! Computer system no more! Long live to 5.25" bookshelf speakers!!!!

 

[Seth=L]

I browsed through Bose site the specs of their tiny sats/sub reads as

2 x 2.5" driver per cube x 5 cubes = 25" @ 1kg each

3 x 5.25 subwoofer mass unit = 15.75"

Total of 40.75"

An average branded sats/sub uses a 0.75" tweeter and 3.5" woofer per cube and an 8" sub. We can have a larger center of dual 3.5" woofer, still that adds up to about 32.75" of material.

We move to 1" tweeter, 4" woofer and 10" sub, that gives 35" total.

The cabinet of Bose is of course way smaller per cube.

Im bored.

Please tell me this is a joke. This reminds me of the kid who thought he was a big badass because he had Pioneer speakers with 15" woofers and paper tweeters.

 

[jonnythan]

I browsed through Bose site the specs of their tiny sats/sub reads as

2 x 2.5" driver per cube x 5 cubes = 25" @ 1kg each

3 x 5.25 subwoofer mass unit = 15.75"

Total of 40.75"

An average branded sats/sub uses a 0.75" tweeter and 3.5" woofer per cube and an 8" sub. We can have a larger center of dual 3.5" woofer, still that adds up to about 32.75" of material.

We move to 1" tweeter, 4" woofer and 10" sub, that gives 35" total.

The cabinet of Bose is of course way smaller per cube.

Im bored.

Someone should call SVS and tell them that 3 4" drivers equals a 12" driver.

They could save a bundle on their subwoofers.

 

[BMXTRIX]

I browsed through Bose site the specs of their tiny sats/sub reads as

2 x 2.5" driver per cube x 5 cubes = 25" @ 1kg each

3 x 5.25 subwoofer mass unit = 15.75"

Total of 40.75"

An average branded sats/sub uses a 0.75" tweeter and 3.5" woofer per cube and an 8" sub. We can have a larger center of dual 3.5" woofer, still that adds up to about 32.75" of material.

We move to 1" tweeter, 4" woofer and 10" sub, that gives 35" total.

The cabinet of Bose is of course way smaller per cube.

Im bored.

LOL - This is funny...

Just for fun...

http://www.us.onkyo.com/model.cfm?m=HT-SR800&p=s&class=Systems

56" of incredible speaker power for under $500.00

That must mean that this setup is about 40% better than Bose! Quite the deal considering it likely runs 50% or more less than most Bose setups.

Anyway, speaker 'material' should be considered in this joke of an example only by determining the actual suface area of the speakers involved.

3.14 x radius of speaker x radius of speaker.

For your example that equals:
BOSE: 114 square inches of speaker material
AVERAGE BRAND: 100.5 square inches of speaker material
MY ONKYO EXAMPLE: 232 square inches! (subtract 16.5 square inches to go from 7.1 to 5.1 if you want)

Anyway, quite clearly the Onkyo, at $500, is over twice as good as the Bose, or average HTIB setup.

REALLY BORED!

 

[Seth=L]

LOL - This is funny...

Just for fun...

http://www.us.onkyo.com/model.cfm?m=HT-SR800&p=s&class=Systems

56" of incredible speaker power for under $500.00

That must mean that this setup is about 40% better than Bose! Quite the deal considering it likely runs 50% or more less than most Bose setups.

Anyway, speaker 'material' should be considered in this joke of an example only by determining the actual suface area of the speakers involved.

3.14 x radius of speaker x radius of speaker.

For your example that equals:
BOSE: 114 square inches of speaker material
AVERAGE BRAND: 100.5 square inches of speaker material
MY ONKYO EXAMPLE: 232 square inches! (subtract 16.5 square inches to go from 7.1 to 5.1 if you want)

Anyway, quite clearly the Onkyo, at $500, is over twice as good as the Bose, or average HTIB setup.

REALLY BORED!

This kind of logic will save me a lot of money, or it will cost me a fortune.

 

[rumble]

LOL - This is funny...

Just for fun...

http://www.us.onkyo.com/model.cfm?m=HT-SR800&p=s&class=Systems

56" of incredible speaker power for under $500.00

That must mean that this setup is about 40% better than Bose! Quite the deal considering it likely runs 50% or more less than most Bose setups.

Anyway, speaker 'material' should be considered in this joke of an example only by determining the actual suface area of the speakers involved.

3.14 x radius of speaker x radius of speaker.

For your example that equals:
BOSE: 114 square inches of speaker material
AVERAGE BRAND: 100.5 square inches of speaker material
MY ONKYO EXAMPLE: 232 square inches! (subtract 16.5 square inches to go from 7.1 to 5.1 if you want)

Anyway, quite clearly the Onkyo, at $500, is over twice as good as the Bose, or average HTIB setup.

REALLY BORED!

Interesting....

My Mangepans have speaker elements that are 10"x36", so both speakers are 720 inches. They are dipoles so that would double the radiating area to 1440 inches. So using Bose's pricing model I should have paid around $14,000 for them.

 

[Seth=L]

Interesting....

My Mangepans have speaker elements that are 10"x36", so both speakers are 720 inches. They are dipoles so that would double the radiating area to 1440 inches. So using Bose's pricing model I should have paid around $14,000 for them.

Bose has a pricing model? If they have one I assure you it is simpler than that. The put all their money into marketing and pockets of douchebags. The pricing model is this, "sell crap for lots of money", very simple.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Bose refuses to publish specs. They know that it would be embarassing if they were ever compared with actual speakers.

 

[pikers]

Bose has a pricing model? If they have one I assure you it is simpler than that. The put all their money into marketing and pockets of douchebags.

That's fair, since they appeal to douchebags anyway.

True story: A Bose rep about five years ago said to me that "Bose prices product at what the market has said it will pay." While that's great and makes perfect sense, it gives one an idea about where their priorities lie in the profit/performance equation.