I find Bose's marketing strategy deceptive and the overall value of its products to be very poor.
I am a cop and another enormous hobby of mine is the use of tactical firearms. When a firearm company claims to have expended a metric shitload of money toward improving some aspect of a gun or an individual part, the tac community expects to see tangible results of that expenditure.
Example 1: When a company states that they have developed an advanced coating for AR15/M16 bolt carrier groups that reduces friction (like IONbond or Fail Zero) and increases part life, that claim will be measured against a known standard (such as a standard mil-spec phosphated bolt carrier group). Claims of additional reliability will be documented in terms of mean-rounds-between-failure, etc.
Bose constantly claims to be the penultimate in sonic reproduction. These claims are rather concrete, in that they are claims to more 'realistically' recreate the live sonic experience. This despite the vast majority of sonic material being added in post production, or created in the music recording studio.
My big question is this: if Bose uses cheap paper-cone mid-tweeters, crossovers of cheap (and poor) architecture, cheaply constructed (and poorly damped) cabinets, cheap speaker connection terminals, and under-performing/weak amplifiers (for the "systems" & self powered setups)...how can one, on a MORAL basis, justify the outrageously high prices that they charge?
I mean, in terms of firearms manufacture, the best components only BEGIN with the best materials.....and these components are further separated from the pack by exceptional heat treats, post HT coatings, etc.
How can the additional performance be realized using such inferior components? And how is the use of $4 2" paper cone tweeters reflective of any amount of research? Sh*t.....they used those in "hifi" speakers from 40 years ago. Going down the list....the same could be asked of virtually EVERY aspect of their products. Drivers, crossovers, cabinets, connections, amplifiers.....WHERE is the research ending up if so much is being/has been conducted? It sure as hell ain't in the quality of manufacture of the products.
There is only so much that can be accomplished through DSP signal manipulation and phase-change.
Then there is this complete farce: Bose has no f**king clue what the "reflected" sound will do when it bounces off of Gawd-knows-what-surface in your home and is somehow magically beamed back to your ear. Why knowingly depend on a variable like that? I mean, we're not talking about DefTech who sends an accurate sonic image to your ear which is reinforced (on some models) with a same-phase reflection from the rear of the cabinet.....not to mention DefTech using vastly higher quality (and more accurate) drivers, crossover components and design, and cabinets.
For instance, I actually like the Bose 2.1 Lifestyle 235 setup. I heard it and it sounded okay.
http://www.bose.com/controller?url=/shop_online/home_theater/21channel_systems/index.jsp
&
http://www.bose.com/controller?url=/shop_online/home_theater/21channel_systems/lifestyle_235/index.jsp
It is simply not worth $2300. That's total bullshit. I defy anyone to explain how an HONEST company can charge that much for so little? Just because people are dumb enough to pay for it is irrelevant; it's still deceptive and dishonest to charge that much. Having other shitty electronics on the market has nothing to do with Bose. Two wrongs does not a right make.
$1000 or even $1200 for the 235 system would be a decent value for what it is. It had better tonal balance than any Bose system I've heard recently. It still had an overwhelming bass hump at ~80hz, but overall it was as good as I've heard a Bose system sound.
I could care less what Dr. Bose does in terms of philanthropic (and tax deductible) donations to his alma mater; the prices he charges for most of his products are immoral.
I have a good friend who works at a local best buy and I can tell you that there are good reasons why digital inputs of equal program quality are NOT fed to Bose systems and the 'other' receivers/speakers. The good reasons involve store payoffs for "premium product placement" for Bose products, minimum distances to comparable products, and a guarantee of no 'direct competition' near the Bose display from any manufacturer. Also, you'll notice that the receivers powering the BB speaker displays are fed by an adjacent CD player running ultra-cheap RCA stereo cables...never optical or coaxial. Whereas Bose are run optical/coaxial/HDMI if they have the capability and are fed custom program material. I was also told that the DVDs that play in their demos are NOT supposed to be played in non-Bose equipment under any circumstances. My buddy, being curious, did so (in the magnolia room, after hours) and he stated that after taking out a live bruce springsteen DVD, the Bose disc sounded 'horrible', with dialog that sounded 'wierd' and un-natural in my buddy's words. He played the Bose disc through some small B&W towers, Martin Logan electrostat towers, and some Vienna Acoustics bookshelf speakers....all fed by a Denon receiver. He has since become a geek squad manager and does not deal with audio directly anymore, but nonetheless. This indicates to me that the Bose demo disc may have a special EQ applied to further nullify any product weaknesses.
If Bose products stand on merit and product quality/performance alone, why the need for 'custom source material'?
What. A. Joke.
