Not to beat a dead horse...

[jneutron]

You are missing the point, the bose systems can not hit a 13kHz note or higher, end of story. Bose is a laughing joke in the audio world.

Again, where are you getting this???

BTW, tens of thousands of copies of a system that sells for 3Kilobucks...I'm sorry, who did you say is laughing?

John

 

[WmAx]

Besides the localization issue you deftly pointed out, what else?.

.

The poor choice of using a low-grade paper standard dynamic driver[resonances excessive and poor polar response] for a mid/tweeter, and the seemingly very resonant cabinet.

-Chris

 

[jneutron]

The poor choice of using a low-grade paper standard dynamic driver[resonances excessive and poor polar response] for a mid/tweeter, and the seemingly very resonant cabinet.

-Chris

If the use of what you consider to be low grade anything, results in a sound that is deemed very good by their target market, then, who cares?

Besides, I always shy from judging based entirely on measurements..I'd want to listen and see if those "peaks" are really there..and if so, if they are of concern.

Don't forget, at $3K per pop, the target market probably doesn't have hearing capabilities very far over 15 Khz...sad, but true..and, most of them think a polar plot is a map of Antartica..

I'm confident the Bose enclosures do not resonate within the bandwidth of the unit..that would be a really stupid thing for Bose to do..they are not stupid..and a coupla more ounces of injection molded plastic is pennies..

Cheers, John

 

[WmAx]

If the use of what you consider to be low grade anything, results in a sound that is deemed very good by their target market, then, who cares?

As I stated earlier, I do not approach this issue from the perspective of the average[uninformed] buyer. So, I don't disagree with your perspective, in it's context.

Besides, I always shy from judging based entirely on measurements..I'd want to listen and see if those "peaks" are really there..and if so, if they are of concern.

You and I differ, in this regard. I trust measurements, under the provision that they are the right measurements and aquired under reliable circumstances. But I also stated earlier, that I did not find the [S&V] measurement to be very insightful, but only as a real caution in the presence of resonances due to the [particular] transducers.

I'm confident the Bose enclosures do not resonate within the bandwidth of the unit..that would be a really stupid thing for Bose to do..they are not stupid..and a coupla more ounces of injection molded plastic is pennies..

And I have no such confidence. Besides, why would it be 'stupid' for Bose to have resonant enclosures, under the former premise that you made a case for? They don't[seem] to care about other issues, that the target market won't notice, so why should they care about this additional detail? Pennies are very important to Bose, as evidenced by the design of the cube system. Why would they spend additional pennies that the target market won't notice?

-Chris

 

[jneutron]

You and I differ, in this regard. I trust measurements, under the provision that they are the right measurements and aquired under reliable circumstances.

Sorry, you are incorrect...we do not differ. When the data is relatively close, HOW the measurements were done can skew the results....

And I have no such confidence. Besides, why would it be 'stupid' for Bose to have resonant enclosures, under the former premise that you made a case for? They don't[seem] to care about other issues, that the target market won't notice, so why should they care about this additional detail?

Because if either enclosure type resonated badly, a potential sale could be lost. Subtle resonance levels, who knows..

Pennies are very important to Bose, as evidenced by the design of the cube system. Why would they spend additional pennies that the target market won't notice?

If unnoticed, they have maximized profit..

If noticed, they lose a sale..at 3kilobucks, one sale is what, a grand profit? 500 dollars? If increased plastic cost is 10 cents per cabinet (I'm confident the total cost of the cabinet plastic is there or below, so it's an exaggerated example), then 4 cabinets is half a buck...for the cost of one lost sale, they can beef up a thousand to two thousand units?...as I said, dey ain't stupid..

Cheers, John

PS..this has been a wonderful thread.thank you wm, privateer, resident, steve..

 

[WmAx]

Sorry, you are incorrect...we do not differ. When the data is relatively close, HOW the measurements were done can skew the results....

Then this would come under the latter part of what which you are responding to: "under the provision that they are the right measurements and aquired under reliable circumstances."

Because if either enclosure type resonated badly, a potential sale could be lost. Subtle resonance levels, who knows..

If unnoticed, they have maximized profit..

I'll take B.) have maximized profit.

If noticed, they lose a sale..at 3kilobucks, one sale is what, a grand profit? 500 dollars? If increased plastic cost is 10 cents per cabinet (I'm confident the total cost of the cabinet plastic is there or below, so it's an exaggerated example), then 4 cabinets is half a buck...for the cost of one lost sale, they can beef up a thousand to two thousand units?...as I said, dey ain't stupid..

I'll not respond directly to this, as I feel as if it's a red herring.

-Chris

 

[jneutron]

I'll not respond directly to this, as I feel as if it's a red herring.
-Chris

I do not understand your statement..

You referred to this:

If noticed, they lose a sale..at 3kilobucks, one sale is what, a grand profit? 500 dollars? If increased plastic cost is 10 cents per cabinet (I'm confident the total cost of the cabinet plastic is there or below, so it's an exaggerated example), then 4 cabinets is half a buck...for the cost of one lost sale, they can beef up a thousand to two thousand units?...as I said, dey ain't stupid..

I re-state that, for the incrementally small increase in manufacturing cost, they could potentially gain a sale with resultant profit. It is of course, a tradeoff for them, one of maximizing profit..this would be decided within the boardroom, not by the engineers..

After all, it's all about profit for Bose..not some grand scheme of providing affordable very high quality sound to the masses, but providing a product that meets a need..and, working to make the public understand that they need that which is provided by Bose..simple.

Bose bashing, as has been demonstrated here, does nothing to really increase the sales of infinity, or B&O...or any other high end manu..in fact, some of the incorrect arguments tendered here could affect opinion contrary to your desires..it doesn't take much effort to see that the graphs don't show -10 dB at 13 Khz, so, what else were "they" incorrect at??

This is not a rant against either you or pvt...I enjoyed the dialogue...

Cheers, John

 

[Privateer]

are quite capable of reproducing smooth, deep and balanced organ pedal work and gut-punching tympany

Obviously your idea of smooth sound is far different from mine, if you consider a bose product to produce smooth sounds them I am batman.

Where are you getting this -10 dB at 13K number you keep using as justification???

I am not basing it on that particular graph, it is based on another site were they tested on of there 3-2-1 systems and it could not produce a 13kHz signal.

 

[jneutron]

I am not basing it on that particular graph, it is based on another site were they tested on of there 3-2-1 systems and it could not produce a 13kHz signal.

Ah, ok..do you have this data available, or perhaps a link?

Thanks, John

 

[Privateer]

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

Here is one link I will try to find the other one.

 

[WmAx]

I do not understand your statement..

I meant that, the statement you made seemed to be going into a specific reasoning[which is all guesses from both of us] as to why they would choose one thing over another. I don't want to dive far into that specific issue[of predicting/reading minds].

I re-state that, for the incrementally small increase in manufacturing cost, they could potentially gain a sale with resultant profit.

That's true. But they already make so many tradeoffs, that I[nor you]can predict what other compromises they are willing to make.

It is of course, a tradeoff for them, one of maximizing profit..this would be decided within the boardroom, not by the engineers..

Right. Just like the choice to crossover the sub to mid modules at such a high frequency or the choice not to use drivers better suited to the mid-high frequency band, such as coaxial drivers[with a dedicated tweeter in the center] or bending-mode drivers.

After all, it's all about profit for Bose..not some grand scheme of providing affordable very high quality sound to the masses, but providing a product that meets a need..and, working to make the public understand that they need that which is provided by Bose..simple.

Right. I don't think anyone could[validly] claim otherwise.

Bose bashing, as has been demonstrated here, does nothing to really increase the sales of infinity, or B&O...or any other high end manu..in fact, some of the incorrect arguments tendered here could affect opinion contrary to your desires..it doesn't take much effort to see that the graphs don't show -10 dB at 13 Khz, so, what else were "they" incorrect at??

I'm not sure if my responses to the Bose Acoustimass product would be considered 'Bose Bashing', or not. I'm just trying to point out the technical deficiencies that are evident.

This is not a rant against either you or pvt...I enjoyed the dialogue...

Same here. It's been a pleasant discussion.

-Chris

 

[jneutron]

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

Here is one link I will try to find the other one.

Ah..thanks..

I note that this is the graph I've been talking about..it does NOT show -10dB at 13Khz, but 16 to 17 Khz, and zero at about 14Khz..

An awful lot of ranting going on at that site...some of it entirely unfounded..case in point, the slamming of "space age paper"...god knows what Bose is referring to there, but this website you point me to, the guy goes off the deep end, stating: it LOOKS to me like....yada yada..

Not really playing with facts a lot, but a whole lot of unsubstantiated garbage..

Honestly, the arguments presented at that link don't show the writer in a good light...just another bose basher, intent on slammin without regard to many facts..

Unfortunately, I can't decode facts from fiction on that site..and I'm sure, the same with others who read it.

Cheers, John

 

[jneutron]

You got me...what's a "bending mode" driver..a piezo?

John

 

[WmAx]

You got me...what's a "bending mode" driver..a piezo?

John

A bending-mode driver is a transducer that is engineered to work optimally, in a bending mode fashion, as opposed to engineering it to work optimally as a rigid piston. Typically, a diaphgragm that has been designed to have a high level of mechanical dampening, that increases losses rapidly as frequency rises and you move outwards from the center of the diaphragm. The result[in practice] is a driver that responds to a broader band of frequencies, but with fewer resonances[in the upper frequency bands] and wider high frequency dispersion, as compared to standard drivers[which design with the goal of retaining a perfectly pistonic behaviour -- which is usually not achieved anyways] that are used in an extremely wide bandwidth. Examples of bending mode drivers that were effective are: Manger, Airfoil and Linaeum produced drivers.

-Chris

 

[Privateer]

Will everyone agree that for the "price" bose is a rip off, for half the price you can buy better sounding and performing speakers.

 

[furrycute]

Will everyone agree that for the "price" bose is a rip off, for half the price you can buy better sounding and performing speakers.

I am in agreement with the above statement.

Wow, the cube system actually uses 5.5 inch drivers in the sub, this is even worse than what I assumed.

I usually avoid bookshelf speakers with 5.25 inch woofers. Even 6.25 inch woofers wont give you satisfactory bass in a bookshelf speaker. 5.5 inch woofer for a sub?! Go figure.

 

[Gatorchong]

I have to disagree with some of the posts on this thread, I think Bose designs are based more on business principles rather than audio. If you look at it like an average consumer, the Bose satellites would have to be smaller and cuter than the competition or there is no reason for them to cost so much. The subwoofer has to have a different design and sound to it, or there is no reason for it to cost so much. If Bose based their designs on well known and often used audio principles, what would differentiate them? When you listen in the store they emphasize certain frequencies to make the satellites sound more exciting and to make the bass sound clean and powerful. Think about it. . . average people who have other hobbies besides audio, are convinced that a "Lifestyle" system should cost $2500.00. As far as running a successful business goes, I'd love to own a piece of Bose. I'd be the first one asking the engineers if we could make the satellites smaller and cheaper. I'd ask if we could use thinner pressboard and less glue for the bass module. And if I could find a few more places to advertise the "New and Improved Lifestyle System", I'd be spending money like crazy. Then I would retire to my listening room with some very expensive scotch and my reference audio system crafted passionately by hand somewhere in Europe. JMO.

 

[furrycute]

So you admit:

1) The Bose cube system is an INFERIOR audio product
2) The Bose cube system is WAY over priced
3) Bose intentionally DECEIVES the consumer into thinking the cube system is hi-fi.

Good, we are in agreement.

I have to disagree with some of the posts on this thread, I think Bose designs are based more on business principles rather than audio. If you look at it like an average consumer, the Bose satellites would have to be smaller and cuter than the competition or there is no reason for them to cost so much. The subwoofer has to have a different design and sound to it, or there is no reason for it to cost so much. If Bose based their designs on well known and often used audio principles, what would differentiate them? When you listen in the store they emphasize certain frequencies to make the satellites sound more exciting and to make the bass sound clean and powerful. Think about it. . . average people who have other hobbies besides audio, are convinced that a "Lifestyle" system should cost $2500.00. As far as running a successful business goes, I'd love to own a piece of Bose. I'd be the first one asking the engineers if we could make the satellites smaller and cheaper. I'd ask if we could use thinner pressboard and less glue for the bass module. And if I could find a few more places to advertise the "New and Improved Lifestyle System", I'd be spending money like crazy. Then I would retire to my listening room with some very expensive scotch and my reference audio system crafted passionately by hand somewhere in Europe. JMO.

 

[rumble]

Why does not a single Bose speaker have THX certification? Surely the cost of certification is not a barrier for a company as large and profitable as Bose.

With all the money they spend on R&D, the fantastic engineering that goes into their speaker designs, the "better sound through research" claims, why I would think they could breeze through the tests.

 

[Gatorchong]

I'm not saying that I like the sound of Bose, or that I think their claims about advanced engineering and research are true. What I'm saying is that they are very good at making money, which is their primary intention. Consumers decide the value of products not Bose. If people weren't willing to pay for these systems, either the price would go down or the technology would change. Bose is simply trying to appeal to the mainstream, which for audio means the smallest satellites you can possibly make while still producing acceptable audio quality. And while they charge what I may think is a ridiculous price for their speakers, they're certainly not alone in this. (Does anybody really think Krell monoblocks should cost $90,000) Point is, Bose goes where the consumer points them not the other way around.