Bose: For Real or Not?
I recently started dating a woman's who has a family member (and a friend as well) who sell Bose products. I've never been convinced on Bose at all, but I was always curious about some of their claims.
Recently I had a chance to listen to a Wave Music System...expecting good but not great sound. I mean, we all know advertising is usually bullshit, right? Well I must say...the thing was pretty amazing. As a trained musician with a critical ear, I was very impressed with this thing. It really did fill the room and did not distort. I was listening to rock/pop though, which is generally the easiest for these systems to reproduce. Still, I was very impressed.
Then I had a listen to my girl's Bose Lifestyle system at her house. Her Mom got it for free since she works for them. One thing I was curious about was the mid-lows, since Bose had no mid-range rivers per se...just the cubes and the sub. Overall I was very impressed with its sound as well. Things were exceptionally clear. There was excellent separation as well. I think I still missed some of the mid-low "punch" a true woofer can produce in combo with a sub and good mid-range, but overall the sound was great.
At some point I will be in the market for a system, so I've done some research (I may well get a Bose product free if I stay with this girl....that might be the subject of another thread...hahaha!). What I've found is an enormous amount of BOSE SUCKS opinion out there. Here is an example:
http://www.intellexual.net/bose.html
Then again, he writes this:
My brother is a patent agent and member of the Patent Bar. I can assure you this is NOT possible. Patents are not granted unless the patent idea is significantly unique. I know this beyond any doubt whatsoever. The US Patent Office makes its dough from denying patents as many times as possible. So this statement doesn't follow.
Anyway, that source is one of many. Every time you search you'll come up with lots of BOSE SUCKS opinions (usually capitalized just like that). Yet my own experience is different. True, their better system are $3000. But what is that? If I by nice receiver and a good set of surrounds with sub, that's what I'll pay.
Your thoughts are welcome. Oh, and say a little prayer for me about getting free shit. Thanks.
Recently I had a chance to listen to a Wave Music System...expecting good but not great sound. I mean, we all know advertising is usually bullshit, right? Well I must say...the thing was pretty amazing. As a trained musician with a critical ear, I was very impressed with this thing. It really did fill the room and did not distort. I was listening to rock/pop though, which is generally the easiest for these systems to reproduce. Still, I was very impressed.
Then I had a listen to my girl's Bose Lifestyle system at her house. Her Mom got it for free since she works for them. One thing I was curious about was the mid-lows, since Bose had no mid-range rivers per se...just the cubes and the sub. Overall I was very impressed with its sound as well. Things were exceptionally clear. There was excellent separation as well. I think I still missed some of the mid-low "punch" a true woofer can produce in combo with a sub and good mid-range, but overall the sound was great.
At some point I will be in the market for a system, so I've done some research (I may well get a Bose product free if I stay with this girl....that might be the subject of another thread...hahaha!). What I've found is an enormous amount of BOSE SUCKS opinion out there. Here is an example:
http://www.intellexual.net/bose.html
Quote:
Bose equipment, even the flagship LifeStyle 50, resembles the sonic performance of the 11-year-old Aiwa minisystem in my garage. For $500, the Wave Radio is an overpriced alarm clock. If you're impressed by it, have a listen to a Henry Kloss radio for a fraction of the price! For $1000, the Bose 3-2-1 can not be described as anything less than a crime against sound reproduction.
Bose equipment, even the flagship LifeStyle 50, resembles the sonic performance of the 11-year-old Aiwa minisystem in my garage. For $500, the Wave Radio is an overpriced alarm clock. If you're impressed by it, have a listen to a Henry Kloss radio for a fraction of the price! For $1000, the Bose 3-2-1 can not be described as anything less than a crime against sound reproduction.
Then again, he writes this:
Quote:
To quote from Michael Wong, a visitor to this site: "...a casual perusal of their website reveals that they have used money and lawyers to repeatedly abuse the patent system. They have patents for the Acoutimass (Helmholtz resonator), the Direct/Reflecting technology (multipolar speakers), their Acoustic Waveguide (transmission line), and their JewelCube technology (amalgam of transmission line and other old ideas). In each and every case, their patent is a joke; an obvious example of the all-too-common trick of making one minor alteration upon a pre-existing idea and then using an army of lawyers to get it patented...
To quote from Michael Wong, a visitor to this site: "...a casual perusal of their website reveals that they have used money and lawyers to repeatedly abuse the patent system. They have patents for the Acoutimass (Helmholtz resonator), the Direct/Reflecting technology (multipolar speakers), their Acoustic Waveguide (transmission line), and their JewelCube technology (amalgam of transmission line and other old ideas). In each and every case, their patent is a joke; an obvious example of the all-too-common trick of making one minor alteration upon a pre-existing idea and then using an army of lawyers to get it patented...
My brother is a patent agent and member of the Patent Bar. I can assure you this is NOT possible. Patents are not granted unless the patent idea is significantly unique. I know this beyond any doubt whatsoever. The US Patent Office makes its dough from denying patents as many times as possible. So this statement doesn't follow.
Anyway, that source is one of many. Every time you search you'll come up with lots of BOSE SUCKS opinions (usually capitalized just like that). Yet my own experience is different. True, their better system are $3000. But what is that? If I by nice receiver and a good set of surrounds with sub, that's what I'll pay.
Your thoughts are welcome. Oh, and say a little prayer for me about getting free shit. Thanks.
Comments
These are all pretty much just facts about my Bose history because I'm still pretty undecided - I definitely don't dislike Bose, however.
My biggest gripe was with the Triport headphones. They *sounded* fine but the build-quality was shockingly bad. The adjustable cans were mounted on a spring-steel-inside-plastic-runner assembly. When flexed the spring steel shattered the plastic shell leaving a broken mess. Avoid these. I am not the only person to have encountered the exact same design flaw.
The new Triport OEs look more rugged, but what appears to be an aluminum hinge is really silver-painted-plastic.
This is a $170 product, surely an ounce of real aluminum is not going to break the bank?
C.
My brother is a patent agent and member of the Patent Bar. I can assure you this is NOT possible. Patents are not granted unless the patent idea is significantly unique. I know this beyond any doubt whatsoever. The US Patent Office makes its dough from denying patents as many times as possible.
That's got to be the biggest load of horse manure you've ever posted, and that's saying something
Seriously, many of the things that companies (including Apple) manage to patent in America (and probably around the world also) beggars belief. Patent offices get so swamped it's like they've stopped caring and grant just about anything, leaving up to litigation to decide whether it's patentable or not.
Back on topic: I know a guy who has a Bose system that's basically just two very large speakers and a center channel. I'm not sure if they make it anymore, but it's great. It definitely does not fail where other Bose systems do; it can drive the mid-lows really hard and really clearly, which is great for everything under the classical umbrella as well as full-bodied rock and metal. I have some basic JBLs, but I live in a flat and am a nice neighbor. They never get tested!
If I remember correctly, Bose is an MIT company. They still hire really bright people. If you buy a Bose product, you're going to be guaranteed that the product is at least reasonably good and has attributes that you'd expect it to have. There's consistency in the Bose sound across product lines, with some deviation based on exactly what you're buying. For example, the 3-speaker system mentioned above is going to have more mid-range power than the acoustimass, but there will be similarities in "character." The boutique companies that audiophiles like to flaunt don't have the manpower to engineer consistent character across the entire product line (if they even have a formal product line). I swear that 90% of being an audiophile is about bragging to your friends how much money you spent and what sorts of esoteric components you just bought. If you aren't interested in going through the laborious process of mixing and matching components from a dozen different boutique manufacturers, Bose is a great choice. Audiophiles hate Bose because the sound is often about as good as the system they put together for a lot more money and with a lot more of their own time: Bose makes them look foolish or frivolous.
I'm a bit dumbfounded by the claim that it takes $3000 for decent sound in any case. Physics dictates you're taking a hit from the form factor, and obviously you're paying for the brand - so what if you didn't pay much at all for a brand, and used the best form factor for the sound, such as found on pro audio (not hifi enthusiast) gear? How can that system not outperform the Bose with significantly lower cost? The manufacturers pre-match their subs and speakers, and everything has an internal amplifier, so Splinemodel's "esoteric component" and "matching problem" scenarios don't apply any more than they do to Bose.
Oh, and powers that be: let there be free shit for SDW2001.
Their radios are neat for being able to produce a lot of good sound out of a small device ... most box radios don't even have a "designed" speaker enclosure, and the Bose radios are easy to use as well. But as far as their speakers go, I wouldn't be fooled into believing that something better can't be bought for the same price (or less). Some of their very high end models are nice because you can pump a lot of watts into them at low impedance (at least in the past that was true, but they were low efficiency so you had to). I'd do some serious comparisons before heading down that route.
My brother is a patent agent and member of the Patent Bar. I can assure you this is NOT possible. Patents are not granted unless the patent idea is significantly unique. I know this beyond any doubt whatsoever. The US Patent Office makes its dough from denying patents as many times as possible. So this statement doesn't follow.
Patents are very often a minor alteration of something previously done.
I honestly don't see anything in Bose's designs that look much beyond what a second semester, maybe second year, grad student in acoustical engineering might come up with. And they could probably patent it too, but folding a chamber at a slightly different angle/length isn't anything to write home about.
I am an audio engineer and musician and know I have good ears and experience for evaluating sound systems. Unfortunately I do not know how good most Bose systems are. I have heard some and have good things to say about the systems I heard. Other systems didn't do so well. However, they offer many systems so the question is what system specifically are you interested in. I am sure Bose sells low and high end systems.
Also, it depends what you are using as a reference. I use Mackie HR824 studio reference monitors for my speakers and use a Mackie Sub. It is a $2400 system and sounds awesome. Also, as any audio engineer knows, speakers are but one link in the signal chain. Good D/A converters and amplifiers also make a difference. So before somebody knocks Bose, they have to mention which system, its price point, and how it compares to another similar priced system and setup.
I would to A/B some of their systems against my recording studio reference monitors in a test environment to see exactly how they sound. Even the room can make a huge difference. But the important test is not with any measuring instrument. Rule one in a studio is to trust your ears. And in this case, everybody has exactly what they need to test. Unfortunately most people never get to A/B multiple systems and setups to do proper testing.
However, that may be part of the bias against Bose. They do things differently then most companies. For example, speakers individually may sound great but combine them into matrix and you may end up with terrible problems. Things might sound great in one place only to have the sound ten feet over sound terrible. Getting smooth consistent sound over a large space is hard, especially at big live concerts. That's why live audio engineers use special speaker systems called line arrays. So, one needs to evaluate multi speaker systems in context not just in isolated tests.
Also, take a quality 2.1 system and A/B it up against a average 5.1 system. Which is better? That is a hard question. I think Bose works hard to have their 2 channel stereo systems sound like a surround sound system. Isolate any one of their speakers and the stats disappoint. However, listen to them in context working together and you hear something totally different.
So some people love Bose and some people hate them. It depends what criteria you use. It also depends what you are use to hearing. So many people who knock Bose do so by looking at the stats. Forget the stats. Trust your ears. Just make sure you do the best testing you are able to do.
Then once you make your decision, don't second guess yourself. Remember, ignorance is bliss. Once you are use to hearing good sound, you quickly become dissatisfied with most other sound systems. With much wisdom come much sorrow.
....Remember, ignorance is bliss. Once you are use to hearing good sound, you quickly become dissatisfied with most other sound systems. With much wisdom come much sorrow....
Haha I totally understand. Particularly in the creative industry, once you learn the "secrets" of design, music, audio engineering, you realise how crap most stuff is.
That said, if you like the sound of Bose, go for it. If you are researching it more, you'll find some better alternatives. But once you delve into audiophile land, well... lets just say you will start to want *every single sound you hear* delivered in 5mbit/sec uncompressed or something like that.
...One thing I was curious about was the mid-lows, since Bose had no mid-range drivers per se... just the cubes and the sub. ..
The mid-range on a lot of Bose products is "blended" with the subwoofer unit.
Your thoughts are welcome. Oh, and say a little prayer for me about getting free shit. Thanks.
WTF? You're already getting laid! (I assume, or at least 3rd base?)
*tsk* *tsk* and you want free Bose stuff as well. You should be happy with free Logitech.
I had a 5.1 HT set made from NHT SuperOnes/Zeros that went with my ex-housemate that were under a grand (not including my M&K sub). PSB makes decent budget speakers in the 200 ea range...the well regarded PSB Alphas. The NHT Absolute Zeros ($229 ea) are decent from my brief listen to them.
Contrary to Splinemodel's assertion, most boutique makes at that level have a certain sound even if they evolve over time. Klipsch, NHT, etc have characteristic sound to them that are part technology (Klipsch and their horns) and part design. NHT is a good example as they have two sounds now: the classic forward NHT sound from the 80s that are now in their "classic" line and the later smoother sound design from the 90s, 00s. Not much different than the way Bose tend to sound based on their design and technology choices.
I guess my opinion of Bose is similar to my opinion of Bang and Olufsen (expensive for what you get). Just a different price point.
That's got to be the biggest load of horse manure you've ever posted, and that's saying something
Seriously, many of the things that companies (including Apple) manage to patent in America (and probably around the world also) beggars belief. Patent offices get so swamped it's like they've stopped caring and grant just about anything, leaving up to litigation to decide whether it's patentable or not.
Uh, perhaps you missed the part about my brother being a patent examiner. You are simply wrong. I have talked with him at length. Minor and obvious variations are NOT patentable. Period.
I second the patent thing: if you have enough money, you can patent almost anything. In addition to having a patent in my name, I have been through the system many times.
False. See above. You guys really don't understand who you're talking to here, do you? I'm not making this shit up. Perhaps I'll have my brother shoot over some approval guidelines so you can see for yourselves.
Back on topic: I know a guy who has a Bose system that's basically just two very large speakers and a center channel. I'm not sure if they make it anymore, but it's great. It definitely does not fail where other Bose systems do; it can drive the mid-lows really hard and really clearly, which is great for everything under the classical umbrella as well as full-bodied rock and metal. I have some basic JBLs, but I live in a flat and am a nice neighbor. They never get tested!
They make something like that now. I don't now what it's called.
If I remember correctly, Bose is an MIT company. They still hire really bright people. If you buy a Bose product, you're going to be guaranteed that the product is at least reasonably good and has attributes that you'd expect it to have. There's consistency in the Bose sound across product lines, with some deviation based on exactly what you're buying. For example, the 3-speaker system mentioned above is going to have more mid-range power than the acoustimass, but there will be similarities in "character." The boutique companies that audiophiles like to flaunt don't have the manpower to engineer consistent character across the entire product line (if they even have a formal product line). I swear that 90% of being an audiophile is about bragging to your friends how much money you spent and what sorts of esoteric components you just bought. If you aren't interested in going through the laborious process of mixing and matching components from a dozen different boutique manufacturers, Bose is a great choice. Audiophiles hate Bose because the sound is often about as good as the system they put together for a lot more money and with a lot more of their own time: Bose makes them look foolish or frivolous.
SDW, does being a trained musician actually make you good at discerning deviations in sound volume per frequency? I'm sure it makes you able to hear a wrong note or something of that nature. Everyone can hear crackle, and stereo imaging to a degree. But "hearing" how much volume is missing from a given frequency seems more like the domain of a pro audio guy or a hifi enthusiast. My dad loves music and has played it for all his life as a hobby, but he doesn't seem to mind at all listening music on a boombox (!)... If anything, I'd guess knowing music makes him indifferent to the sound system. I'd hate listening to that thing, but when he hears most of the sound, I imagine his head sort of fills in the rest and it sounds good.
Well, the short answer is yes, absolutely. I can listen to anything, mind you...but I notice a lot that's missing or wrong. Often it's subjective, like the sound is lacking warmth or what not. For me it's always the mid-range that's the most noticeable. I hear problems a lot with trombones and trumpets...mid low and mid high, respectively. Classical music is just a whole different ball of wax for these systems, and it's easy to get one to cry uncle pretty quick. A shitty system betrays itself through the mid-range. I have a pretty cheap Sony system at school, and it's fine for rock/pop/jazz, etc. But when I play classical clips cranked up, the speakers just can't handle too much mid-range volume.
I'm a bit dumbfounded by the claim that it takes $3000 for decent sound in any case. Physics dictates you're taking a hit from the form factor, and obviously you're paying for the brand - so what if you didn't pay much at all for a brand, and used the best form factor for the sound, such as found on pro audio (not hifi enthusiast) gear? How can that system not outperform the Bose with significantly lower cost? The manufacturers pre-match their subs and speakers, and everything has an internal amplifier, so Splinemodel's "esoteric component" and "matching problem" scenarios don't apply any more than they do to Bose.
Oh, and powers that be: let there be free shit for SDW2001.
Thanks for the prayer
Patents are very often a minor alteration of something previously done.
I honestly don't see anything in Bose's designs that look much beyond what a second semester, maybe second year, grad student in acoustical engineering might come up with. And they could probably patent it too, but folding a chamber at a slightly different angle/length isn't anything to write home about.
Again...wrong. Patents are not minor alterations. If they are, they get denied. There must be some significant differences. I was just speaking to the bro about this not long ago. He's showed me denial correspondences he's sent and often the reason in that the patent submission is an obvious extension of an existing patent.
[quote]
The mid-range on a lot of Bose products is "blended" with the subwoofer unit.
Actually I think it's blended with the cubes.
WTF? You're already getting laid! (I assume, or at least 3rd base?)
*tsk* *tsk* and you want free Bose stuff as well. You should be happy with free Logitech.
Yep, getting laid. This one is a FREAK too. OH YEAH!!!!
Bose does an excellent job of marketing their products and are generally one of the few audio brands that people have actually seen advertising for. Thus, when your average Joe goes to upgrade their system, they frequently try out some Bose products.
Bose doesn't try to reproduce incredibly accurate sound. Instead, their products try to create a pleasing spectrum of sound. Accurate and pleasing aren't necessarily the same thing.
It really is a philosophical debate as to which a listener should strive for in their audio entertainment. Is accuracy or pleasure a better goal? For audiophiles, accuracy is pleasure. But this isn't true for the unwashed masses. They tend to prefer punchy, detailed sound even if it means that there are holes in the frequency response.
Beyond that philosophical quandary, it all comes down to price. many of Bose products are pricier than other alternatives. But Bose also features industrial design that may be to some people's liking.
The funny thing is when young audiophiles try to prove that they're knowledgeable by denouncing Bose. They feel like they're in on a secret and that everyone else just hasn't heard yet. I myself was guilty of this at one time. In my opinion, more mature audiophiles have no hatred for Bose. They realize that people have differing tastes and that Bose products are suitable for some of those tastes.
I'm always amazed at the amount of Bose hate there is from the 'audiophile' crowd. Generally speaking, their mid and higher end speakers produce a very life-like representation of the source audio. When I mix an album for a label like Sony Classical or Telarc I'm mixing on a simple pair of $6k Genelecs- not an 'audiophile' system. As Visionary said, there are other parts of the signal chain that also have a dramatic effect on the sound.
Bose offers an uncolored version of source material at moderate volumes. They are not ideal for high volume reproduction. Klipsch and other boutique mid level brands offer more volume but often change the timbre of the source music due to their acoustic design (which could be to some people's liking).
If you have money to spend on a high end system, look at what audio professionals use (Genelec, Adam, Tannoy) rather than being suckered in to the 'audiophile' market.
I would venture that the vast majority of audiophiles have reasonable views on Bose. Bose haters are vocal and vehement as a method to prove that they're superior and more of an audiophile than the next person. Most audiophiles feel no such urge to prove superiority. But by this very nature, they are the silent majority. It is the few bad apples that sometimes give audiophiles a bad name.
Bose is the Microsoft of the audio world - with all the negative aspects that entails.
Uh, perhaps you missed the part about my brother being a patent examiner. You are simply wrong. I have talked with him at length. Minor and obvious variations are NOT patentable. Period.
. . .
False. See above. You guys really don't understand who you're talking to here, do you? I'm not making this shit up. Perhaps I'll have my brother shoot over some approval guidelines so you can see for yourselves.
For one, not all examiners are equal, for two, there's a tremendous amount of subjectivity in "sufficiently original," and for three, there are different classes of patents. There are things that, yes, would be difficult to patent on their own: for example, a plastic guide for a few wires. But often you can find an angle that can make it seem esoteric enough that, after a few passes through the system, someone will approve it. I too work in technology IP, just from the other side as your bro. I've seen it happen.
With that said, to me it seems like Bose's patent portfolio is plenty impressive and hardly "derivative." The "acoustic waveguide" is non-trivial.