# Bose Quality?



## aceinc

Did Bose ever make a set of speakers that would be considered good by today's standards?

For example, KEF made speakers from the '70s through today that are considered good by todays standards. 

<opinion>

Bose has made a number of speaker systems that rely on a gimmick such as the direct reflecting series. These speakers were never considered entry level audiophile quality. They seem to be successful because their marketing program is far superior to their technology.

</opinion>

However of late I have seen some Bose tower speakers and others that I am not familiar with on Craigslist and I was wondering if Bose made anything worth looking at (listening to)?

Paul


----------



## lsiberian

aceinc said:


> Did Bose ever make a set of speakers that would be considered good by today's standards?
> 
> For example, KEF made speakers from the '70s through today that are considered good by todays standards.
> 
> <opinion>
> 
> Bose has made a number of speaker systems that rely on a gimmick such as the direct reflecting series. These speakers were never considered entry level audiophile quality. They seem to be successful because their marketing program is far superior to their technology.
> 
> </opinion>
> 
> However of late I have seen some Bose tower speakers and others that I am not familiar with on Craigslist and I was wondering if Bose made anything worth looking at (listening to)?
> 
> Paul


Good is in the ear of the beholder. Some folks might actually prefer current Bose systems. Most won't, but that doesn't change the fact that speaker selection is largely based on personal preference. 

I'm sure many folks view the 901s as good.


----------



## drdoan

Having owned a few sets of Bose, including the 901 series IV, I can tell you that they weren't very good on producing the entire frequency range. In their time, they did do a pretty good job of dispersing the sound to give a somewhat less fatiguing sound experience. This was before both surround sound, and Quadraphonic sound. I think, however that you would be better served to look elsewhere. But, always remember that it is your ears that have the final authority. Have fun. Dennis


----------



## mdrake

Personally I feel using BOSE and quality in the same sentence is an oxymoron. The quality of BOSE products does not seem to match their prices. They use cheap paper drivers in most of the speakers. 

Matt


----------



## aceinc

I actually have a pair of 901 series 1 with EQ in my living room, that I need to sell for my sister-in-law. In my opinion they do not come close to any of the other speakers I have.

<opinion>

Regarding the ear of the beholder, I would never hesitate to have anyone listen to a number of different models of speakers by Mfrs. such as Vandersteen, KEF, Martin Loagn or Thiel and expect that they would find them "acceptable." They may not consider them the best they had heard, but they would recognize the quality and put them in a different league than the Bose I have heard.

</opinion>

Paul


----------



## taoggniklat

I think BOSE has its applications....but not in quality home audio systems. 

For the money, quality can be found elsewhere.


----------



## bambino

When i was a kid Bose was the brand to get (i never did). I started shopping at our local HIFI store and the salesman told me back then (20years ago) not to get sold into bose as they are mostly just hype and marketing i also remember him saying that they use cheap $2 drivers and to stay away.

Needless to say i have never owned BOSE. I have also stuck with this shop ever since as there customer satisfaction is unbeleivable.


----------



## JoeESP9

If I found some Bose speakers really, really cheap on CL I might buy them as a present for someone I really dislike. I mean really dislike!!!!


----------



## Moonfly

Slightly OT, but the Bose (marketing) terminology does make me giggle. Direct reflecting? Just think about what that means for a minute.


----------



## aceinc

It's a "direct reflection" on your intelligence?

Sorry, that was a cheap shot.

To coin a phrase, "We have not come to bury Bose, but to praise him." My original question is, are there ANY Bose speakers that could be considered entry level audiophile?

Who amongst you has a tale of some forgotten Bose speaker that has redeeming qualities? Perhaps a renegade engineer that snuck some decent speaker past the nose of the marketing department, or a serendipitous accident.

Paul


----------



## recruit

There is not one in there current range that you could use the term audophile, I know Bose does take a bashing but there is a place in the market for them or else people would not be buying them, I think ultimately it must be something to do with the WAF :scratch:


----------



## Moonfly

:bigsmile:

Ive read many a comment along the lines of, Bose used to make very good speakers, etc. Ive not had any experience of old Bose stuff, but some people seem to have held them in pretty high esteem years ago.


----------



## recruit

I owned many years ago now a pair of AM5 Bose speakers and have also had there computer speakers and headphones and I liked the headphones a lot tbh, the AM5's were the originals and came with there bass unit and I had a Sony Stereo amp powering them as they were passive ones and it did not sound too bad, but I have moved on a lot since then.


----------



## gsmollin

To my knowledge, the 901's were their best effort. These speakers had some good uses in the past, and "audiophile quality" has been a moving target. Bose equipment was <expletive deleted> before it was fashionable. 

In booksheld speakers they made a decent 3-way, although it was not audiophile stuff, it was reasonably priced, lightweight, and made a good extension speaker.


----------



## gsmollin

recruit said:


> There is not one in there current range that you could use the term audophile, I know Bose does take a bashing but there is a place in the market for them or else people would not be buying them, I think ultimately it must be something to do with the WAF :scratch:


Do you think? I think "WAF marketing" was invented by Bose. Is there any chance the lifestyle systems, and all their clones, would exist without WAF?


----------



## recruit

gsmollin said:


> Do you think? I think "WAF marketing" was invented by Bose. Is there any chance the lifestyle systems, and all their clones, would exist without WAF?


Lol! your probably right :whistling:


----------



## nova

Many years ago I had a pair of Bose 601 Series III speakers. They were reasonably priced and sounded quite good. I'd say they were better than most entry level speakers. Also, a friend of mine had some 501 Series II speakers that I would rate much better than many entry level speakers.
Were they fantastic? "I" don't think so but, I'd pick them over a number of other speakers I've heard.


----------



## vann_d

As I type these words this thread is sponsored by Bose Wave music system (Google Ads). Awesome.


----------



## class a

Direct reflecting what a great marketing term. Basically all speakers are direct reflecting that's why we add room treatments, carpets,:sn: curtains & move our speakers either near or away from side and back walls. I must admit before I got into this hobby I had a bose 2.1 lifstyle system. Let's face it if your just someone that's just happy with a few cubes and not a critical listener it's a pretty easy choice. I'm curious to see how well the new $5000 Bose surround sound TV does. Has anyone seen it?? Should I trade in my Aerials and Pioneer Elite TV for this cutting edge system?????????


----------



## lsiberian

FWIW I the KEF 3000 series is what Bose claims to be, and looks better IMO. If you need WAF just pick one of those sets up.


----------



## vann_d

For casual music play (like for something in the background) the bose systems are not that bad until you factor in the price.

For movies they are horrible. I made the mistake of showing a friend of mine (who has been a bose fan for years) the thx calibration feature one one of his dvds. The lifestyle unit was sending the individual channel test tones all over the place. Wrong locations, bass module played all the time, it was a total mess.

I did't want his feelings to be too hurt so I told him that the test was meant for Dolby surround systems and that his Bose wasn't meant for playing Dolby surround. It has it's own special processing.

I think he spent about $2k on his lifestyle system. Deary deary.


----------



## Moonfly

That is the precise reason I got rid of mine and found internet forms. I noticed my Lifestyle system was just all over the place at times and was very fatiguing for any kind of actual listening.


----------



## Andre

I heard the Bose Cinemate II and like it for a small room and not being played at 80db, I may even have bought it if it was 60% off. Sure they are not MLs or Tannoy or Revels. but not bad for their size if the price was ALOT lower. The waveradio sounds good, just not worth the price.

Bose = Justin Bieber Lost of hate for nothing.


----------



## Ares

Andre said:


> I heard the Bose Cinemate II and like it for a small room and not being played at 80db, I may even have bought it if it was 60% off. Sure they are not MLs or Tannoy or Revels. but not bad for their size if the price was ALOT lower. The waveradio sounds good, just not worth the price.
> 
> Bose = Justin Bieber Lost of hate for nothing.



Bose and Justin Bieber= there is something better for the money.:devil:


----------



## Andre

For the money sure. If they are on at 60% off, they become about the same as everthing else for that price.


----------



## gsmollin

class a said:


> ...I'm curious to see how well the new $5000 Bose surround sound TV does. Has anyone seen it?? Should I trade in my Aerials and Pioneer Elite TV for this cutting edge system?????????


I auditioned it a couple days ago. It was in a small, very hard room right off the main showroom floor. I watched some action movie trailer with a Hydra monster chasing some schoolboys. I wish it has been better source material, but here is what I heard: A lot of sound reflections off of the bare walls in the room. No soundstage, but the reflections were very strong and made the sound seem "large". The bass was pretty weak, especially considering all the LFE that had to be there. Oh, and it was the famous "one note bass" that Bose made fashionable. So it was a typical Bose production. Is that really $5k!? Keep looking.


----------



## ScottyRyan

I have yet to hear a Bose system that was worth even close to what they were asking for it. IMO they are way over priced.


----------



## recruit

ScottyRyan said:


> I have yet to hear a Bose system that was worth even close to what they were asking for it. IMO they are way over priced.


Agreed for what you get they are over priced but again this is where the WAF comes into play and a lot of people get dragged in by the advertising and also the wife...ie " ahhh aren't they cute I much prefer those dear " :heehee:


----------



## tonyvdb

Bose and Quality are two words that really should not be seen together however I do agree the the 901s were regarded as well built and good sounding speakers.


----------



## Theresa

Bose doesn't make anything that is high quality. At one time the 901 was considered good by many but now they make nothing decent. They use the worst quality drivers. It's sort of the Apple of audio, use cheap parts, a fancy cabinet, market well, and fool the public with an inferior product.


----------



## caper26

[THIS] article pretty much sums it all up...


----------



## guynoir

I would say that Bose stuff is generally decent quality as far as construction goes. Their sonic accuracy is not what we could call legendary. You may note that of the dozens of recording studios I have been in or built, not one has Bose speakers in the monitor chain. They have done some innovative things though.


----------



## Theresa

aceinc said:


> It's a "direct reflection" on your intelligence?
> 
> Sorry, that was a cheap shot.
> 
> To coin a phrase, "We have not come to bury Bose, but to praise him." My original question is, are there ANY Bose speakers that could be considered entry level audiophile?
> 
> Who amongst you has a tale of some forgotten Bose speaker that has redeeming qualities? Perhaps a renegade engineer that snuck some decent speaker past the nose of the marketing department, or a serendipitous accident.
> 
> Paul


Many have mentioned the 901, including myself. Its an outdated speaker these days but was innovative in its time. Mr. Bose is a genius, more at marketing than anything else, but not excluding engineering. After all he's been manufacturing speakers that would be worth $50 and selling them for more than ten times that. He did patent that bass alignment that allows you to get "big BOOMING" bass out of a tiny cabinet and maybe ten percent of the people can recognize that the "BOOMING" is inaccurate. There really haven't been any good speakers from Bose, but its success has been in the marketing. No wonder I hate marketing.


----------



## Binary

Ive drawn my own conclusion when it comes to Bose, and a few of my friends will agree with this.

My speculation is that the bose sound is so "different" I.E. missing pieces, that they can use marketing to convice the general masses that this IS what it is supposed to sound like. And just like Apple, bose has some serious marketing masterminds behind the product.

I don't think WAF is the hugest factor, but it does allow bose to play into that same "different" setup than you'd expect. people think amazing sound needs good sized speakers, and theyre right. but if you can convince them the sound coming out of bose is "right" then the small speaker seem EVEN MORE AMAZING when comparing them to large speakers that dont sound "right" when compared to bose. See what i mean?

For 2k for the 5.1 lifestyle system, with a "bass module" (not a subwoofer as it doesnt go under 40, and it plays all the way up to 240!) and the sats kick in at 320hz... (The hole i was mentioning above) i feel as though they should be spending more than $4 on stamped paper woofers, and tiny 1 inch wide range drivers (not full range as they are nowhere near bass freq's and they are also not capable above 15k.) and they might get somewhere closer to real sound, but that would kill their marketing and their huge, and i mean GIGANTIC profit margins.


----------



## DougMac

aceinc said:


> Did Bose ever make a set of speakers that would be considered good by today's standards?
> 
> However of late I have seen some Bose tower speakers and others that I am not familiar with on Craigslist and I was wondering if Bose made anything worth looking at (listening to)?
> 
> Paul


I remember the stir when Bose first introduced the 901's. They were a radical design and garnered some interest because of the non traditional approach taken. Amar Bose had bought a fancy stereo and was disappointed. His research into what he felt was missing led directly to the 901's.

I remember hearing them when they first came out. They did sound more spacious, but I was struck by the defecienicies that have been well documented (smeary/non existent soundstage, lack of bass, uneven response across the spectrum). They were also expensive, which I think added to the mystique. Back then you could get a pair of A/R's, then Advents, that sounded much better for a fraction of the price. They were also much easier to drive, you could buy an inexpensive receiver and do fine with Advents where to get anything approaching decent out of the 901's it took an expensive high powered amp.

I think a pair of refurbed Advents would be acceptable if not steller sounding compared to modern offerings where 901's would not be up to snuff. I know that for the current asking price of new 901's I could get a pair of speakers that would outperform them in any number of ways.

There is absolutely nothing in the Bose speaker line going all the way back to the first 901's that I would buy from CL or any other source. There are just too many much better speakers available that you could get for the same money.


----------



## jackfish

Replacement drivers for the Bose 901 have a frequency response of 83 Hz to 15,000 Hz. Even with nine drivers and substantial equalization emphasizing midbass I've found the 901 to not do anything very well. Back in the day a pair of Large Advent loudspeakers ($210/pair) powered by a 30 wpc Sony receiver ($300) sounded better than Bose 901s ($2000/pair) powered by a Phase Linear 400 ($650).


----------



## Theresa

This info about the 901s doesn't surprise me. My brother loved the 901s, I wasn't so impressed. AR9s really did impress me and I have often wondered why I didn't get them. The ARs were great speakers and so was their turntable. Some speakers today are much better I'm certain and the ones I have sound much better to my old ears. I remember so many good and bad speakers and until the last fifteen years or so I owned many of the bad ones. Its only since I built my own that I have liked the speakers I have.


----------



## fookoo_2011

JoeESP9 said:


> If I found some Bose speakers really, really cheap on CL I might buy them as a present for someone I really dislike. I mean really dislike!!!!


How mean!!! :sarcastic:


----------



## JoeESP9

fookoo_2011 said:


> How mean!!! :sarcastic:


Well, I did say really dislike. With that said, you can get better speakers for less money.


----------



## dat56

Greetings to all, and salutations!

As a brand new member (first post!), I hate to run so against the grain, but my experience with Bose has been very positive.

My first Bose speakers were 901 Series IV's, back in the late seventies. I liked them quite well, but only had them a short while as a move left me with no good set-up options. After owning the Bose, I have had a number of speakers over the years (ESS amt-1b's; Klipsch Cornwalls; Amrita Reference Standards; Klipschorns; B&W 703's; Polk LSi-9's w/ subs; RBH MC-6CT's) but things have now come full circle.

After being unable to find anything that sounded good in my man-cave, I decided to try the 901's again, because the problem in this room has been consistent regardless of speakers in use, that being uneven bass and a distinct lack of "air". Sound just seems to fall flat on the floor, just in front of the speakers. Very lifeless and dead sounding, even though the room would not appear to be over-damped, as it consists of textured sheet-rock walls and ceiling, with "office carpet"-on-concrete floor w/o any pad. It actually is a good room for HT sound because dialog is very intelligible. Just not so great for 2-channel music. Multi-channel music does sound pretty good. 

Anyway, my point is that I ended up ordering new 901 Series VI speakers direct from Bose in November of '09 and suspending them from the ceiling in one end of my room. And I have got to say they sound really great in that room. Better than anything I've tried in there, by far, including klipschorns, B&W 703's, a/d/s/ HT400's and RBH MC-6CT's...and everything but the horns and the 901's were augmented with two Velodyne DLS4000 subs. I have air, three-dimensionality, tons of chest-pounding bass (w/o subs!) and relatively flat response across the spectrum. The 901's are driven by an Adcom GFA5500 amp and NAD C165 pre.

True, they are not "monitor" speakers by any stretch of the imagination, so if hyper-realistic clarity and imaging specificity is your thing, the 901's will not satisfy. But Bose did not design or market them as such. They were designed to sound like live music, and this, I find they do very successfuly indeed; especially considering their "frozen in time" price of $1398. Image size and clarity just sounds life-like to me, meaning larger and more vague than most conventional speakers. Bass distortion _may _well measure high, but subjectively, it sounds wonderful to my ears. I can't imagine doing without them in this room!

Oh well, that's my 2 cents worth.

Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night!


----------



## caper26

> relatively flat response across the spectrum


 please show me some sort of graph which measures this; even remotely close to this statement and I will personally buy a pair of these speakers...


----------



## Theresa

There's no accounting for taste. I don't think "hyper realistic" is a good description as realistic is realistic, it cannot be hyper. I've been to many live concerts and never felt the 901s did them justice. Also, concerts that relied on amplification never sounded that "realistic" in the first place, unlike an orchestra in a good hall. Speakers are supposed to reproduce not produce. The drivers in the 901 are also of poor quality requiring a great deal of equalization to just reproduce a minimal frequency range without deep bass. If bipolar is desired it can be had for less money and better performance with Magnepans.


----------



## Theresa

caper26 said:


> [THIS] article pretty much sums it all up...


While I detest Bose, I think the article has some misinformation including about paper drivers. ScanSpeak arguably makes the best midwoofers there are and many are made out of paper. But as he asserts everything about Bose is cheap except the price. Also, the term WAF is an over generalization that is offensive to me. I am a woman and have been a wife and have appreciated great sound over appearance since I was nine years old when my father let me help assemble a Dynaco kit system. Its a matter of socialization not genetics and certainly not universal. I've had many woman friends who appreciated good sound and weren't impressed by Bose.


----------



## TypeA

Theresa said:


> Also, the term WAF is an over generalization that is offensive to me. I am a woman and have been a wife and have appreciated great sound over appearance since I was nine years old


Thats sad and really strange that would take it like that. Maybe I can shed some light on why it is such an accurate and specific term (especially in regards to Bose)...

All one must do is take a gender poll in these types of forums and you will quickly find that you, being a 'wife thats a home theater enthusiast', are very much the _ exception _ and NOT the rule. Then, while youre at it, take a poll on classic car forums, motorcycle forums, and to a lesser degree gaming forums, youll soon find that you are a minority in those circles as well. Hence certain circle phrases that are geared towards the majority (men)...


Just as an example, my girl (and the one before her) could care less about the details of my classic truck restoration, or my extensive home theater build. Dont get me wrong, she loves riding in one of the most distinct vehicles in town, and experiences movies in her living room that is the envy of all her friends, but she has zero interest in achieving these things for herself. Luckily I am given free rein to achieve MY goals, and a WAF has never really applied to me (being 'Type A' and meticulous with my install helps), but that makes ME the exception and certainly NOT the rule. Sadly, for most 'wives', ascetics takes a much higher priority than performance. Ascetics is part of the reason why a product with this kind of terrible frequency response:










STILL manages to be a success...


----------



## Dale Rasco

Actually I agree that the term is a generalization as many friends wives, and mine, as well as girlfriends are becoming more and more interested and versed in the ways of A/V. SAF (spouse approval factor) is actually becoming a more acurate term.


----------



## recruit

Dale Rasco said:


> Actually I agree that the term is a generalization as many friends wives, and mine, as well as girlfriends are becoming more and more interested and versed in the ways of A/V. SAF (spouse approval factor) is actually becoming a more acurate term.


Its true more and more women are actually enjoying AV than they did a few years back, so it is only when you end up with massive speakers and subs that they start to moan but maybe not as many as before :unbelievable:


----------



## JerryLove

caper26 said:


> please show me some sort of graph which measures this; even remotely close to this statement and I will personally buy a pair of these speakers...


 Let me get out my crayola big-box and draw one.

Hrm. 10-octave smoothing?


----------



## caper26

lol !!!!


----------



## Dave Upton

JerryLove said:


> Let me get out my crayola big-box and draw one.
> 
> Hrm. 10-octave smoothing?




I imagined something more like this:


----------



## TypeA

Lol, at least THATS an improvement...


----------



## dat56

caper26 said:


> please show me some sort of graph which measures this; even remotely close to this statement and I will personally buy a pair of these speakers...




I guess I'm gonna have to brush up on my Microsoft Works skills! 

But in the meantime I don't suppose you'd settle for +/- 5 dB from 31.5 Hz to 10kHz, would you? Thats measuring at 1/3 octave resolution (Stereophile Test CD 2) with my old Rat Shack analog spl meter. Response measured down 6dB at 12.5kHz, and I can't hear anything higher than that anyway, so I didn't measure beyond that band. Corrections are applied below 160Hz to compensate for the meter's known deviations. Measurement was taken in-room at the listening position. The Bose EQ was adjusted for flattest response, with no mid-bass boost or cut needed. The mid-treble level was cut about 4dB at the center frequency of the control. The Series VI EQ has a switch that lets you choose one of two bass equalization curves. One is no modification to the "built-in" eq, while the other provides a bass cut of 6dB @35Hz. I used the standard, non-filtered setting. I also did dial in a small boost with my pre-amp's bass tone control; about 3dB boost at 50Hz.

I can already hear the purist howls about using EQ and tone controls. Of course, the Bose EQ is just as much part of the 901 system as the crossover is in any conventional speaker. A little tone control use was just to make the curve look better, as I'd heard no deficiency without it. Besides, I have the speakers pulled further from the walls than they would have to be, so I see no problem compensating with a little sweetening electronically. Bose recommends 8-18" from the wall behind the speaker. I have mine maxed out at 18". 

My point hear is not to show how flat the 901 response is. I know full-well that many speakers measure flatter and are more extended. I'm just saying it's not as bad as some might think, and in fact is actually reasonably flat and extended. 40Hz - 10kHz covers most of the useful, practical, musical spectrum anyway. Like I've said before, the 901 was not designed to be a studio monitor! And yes, it even dares to go beyond "just the facts. mam", to attempt to more closely mimic the sound of live music in a good acoustic. I think Bose succeeded marvelously in that. After all, how many speakers have been in production over forty years? Other than a few klipsch heritage models, I can't think of any off hand. So perhaps they got _something_ right.:clap:

CORRECTION!: Dougy goofed! please refer to thread post #70 for corrected measurements. The figures stated in this post were obtained running test cd output through bass management of dvd player! My _very_ bad!


----------



## DougMac

dat56 said:


> So perhaps they got _something_ right.:clap:


They did. Marketing.

Bose started with a premise regarding how music works in an environment. He designed a speaker to mimic his understanding. It's interesting that for the most part Bose is a lone wolf in that regard. I know of no other speaker manufacturer that subscribes like Bose does to the direct/reflecting model. Accepting the premise that most of what we hear in a live performance is reflected sound, I subscribe to the concept that just like our ears, microphones capture the direct/reflected mix. There's no need to duplicate it in playback.

Based on my listening experience of Bose 901's, whatever is gained by the direct/reflecting design is more than offset by the well known shortcomings (lack of accurate imaging, uneven frequency response, etc.) I'm not alone, there was the famous lawsuit because Consumer Reports dared write their impressions.

I'd be more convinced regarding your experience with flat frequency response if you used REW and did tone sweeps. That would be a more accurate representation of their actual performance.


----------



## Tufelhundin

Concerning Bose, well for one if it wasn't for them I wouldn't have what I do now. Bose is what got me in home audio. When I was stationed in Japan back in the late 80's I bought my first set of speakers Bose 501's and you know what? I loved them. They were powered by my first stereo a 6 piece Technics. I eventually sold the 501'a and the stereo and bought a Sony STR-d911 "I believe", I bought it at a Japan Electronics Expo in 89 didn't see it in Crutchfield until 91 timeframe and I bought my first AM-5...missed my 501's to say the least. Please know that during this time the world of internet was only in movies like WarGames, and other than Carver, Infinity and Polk, and a couple of brands I was very ignorant of audio....back then and in Japan Pioneer & Kenwood were the big dogs. Also remember that being in the military as a young enlisted Marine, I wasn't making jack and Bose speakers have always been a big thing in Military Exchanges....and I could put my stuff on layaway to purchase.

Anyway as the years went by I eventually picked up a pair of 601's, 101's for surrounds and a VCS-10 and my first sub and Infinity Entra II to complete my 1st HT. I kept these for many years and assumed it was all good for I knew no one that was in to HT.


Small note here, I remember listening to my Onix RS450's the first time after I unhooked the 601's. I was listening to Daryl Hall & John Oates and I remember hearing the fingers slide along the guitar strings and I was like : WOW...I have never heard that before! LOL!!

I cant dislike Bose, never had a problem....I did drop an AM-5 cube one year and it broke, sent in the whole sytem and they replaced both cubes and bass module.... and this was in 1993 at Parris Island, SC and I bought the AM-5's in Japan in 1998.....not a question asked. 

So all I can say is that Bose is what got me into this expensive hobby, and their floor standers I have always thought were cool. I remember clubs back in the mid to late 80's used to have 901's hanging from the ceiling.


I dont think I ever spent a ton of $$$ on any of their speakers....not like I have with my Rockets...but I guess either way...both Companies are crooks.:rofl:


I do enjoy my RS 450's and hope to find a nice set of 850's that someone wants to get rid of "CHEAP" cause they cant stand the thought of owning them.


----------



## gsmollin

I am inserting some information here about the Bose direct/reflecting design. The graph shows how the lateral reflections from the Bose speakers impart a sense of "spaciousness" to the music. The issue with this has always been that this process happens in the reproduction of the music, whether or not it was intended in the recording. A stereo image may be as small as a soloist, or as large as a cathedral, but it always sounds "spacious" with a Bose speaker. Add to that no response above 12 kHz, whether or not you can hear it, and a rather weak bass end, witness the built-in equalization, and you get the the old saw, "Got no highs, got no lows, must be Bose."

Some people really go for this sound, and you can see that by the number of Bose Stores. What other speaker manf. has got that marketing clout? Fortunately, we live in a free economy, so people can buy Bose, eat McDonalds, and drink Thunderbird as they wish!

Image credit: Everest, F. A., Pohlmann, K. C., _Master Handbook of Acoustics, Fifth Ed._, McGraw-Hill, 2009, Fig. 6-11


----------



## dat56

gsmollin said:


> A stereo image may be as small as a soloist, or as large as a cathedral, but it always sounds "spacious" with a Bose speaker.



No argument on that point, but it's also true you could substitute "spacious" with whatever adjective you choose, and substitute the name "Bose" with whatever speaker name you choose, because every loudspeaker has it's own voice that remains fixed regardless of the source material.



gsmollin said:


> Add to that no response above 12 kHz, whether or not you can hear it, and a rather weak bass end, witness the built-in equalization, and you get the the old saw, "Got no highs, got no lows, must be Bose."



I would not describe Bose 901 bass as weak. Not particularly extended into the bottom octave, true, but really excellent above that. And it will make the bass it makes loud and clean. Many speakers can make deep bass, but they can't do it at lifelike levels. The 901 can. 

The built-in EQ is not a crutch any more than other speakers crossovers are crutches.

I wonder if people who believe that "old saw" have ever heard 901's properly set up. I went to a Bose store once and they had the EQ incorrectly hooked up to a Yamaha A/V receiver (which had no tape monitor!). The EQ was doing nothing. And yes, sure enough, I heard no highs and no lows!


----------



## Tufelhundin

I have to agree with the 901's.

As I mentioned above, most of the clubs I went too back in my younger days had 901's and they are what actually sold me on Bose at that time...the places actually shook with bass, not sure what kind of power was being pushed into them but I thought the 901's sounded incredible.....having said that, the 601 sounded nothing to me like the 501's did and neither sounded anything like the 901's.


----------



## Theresa

Yes, I heard the 901s in the seventies. Diffuse with no image would be the 
adjectives I'd use. I even heard them in someone's house. And yes they were equalized to death with their 
equalizer. Now the AR9s from that era were a great speaker. As I said, my 
brother loved Bose but he has no taste or judgement.
Yes, Bose are used for sound reinforcement. They are placed "backwards" compared with home use. Being diffuse is a plus in such venues. I wouldn't use any other speakers I've heard used in sound reinforcement either. Diffuse or horns, sort of the opposite ends of the spectrum.
You know, if you like them then enjoy them. Sometimes we like something that's unpopular. I use a Sony a850 for photography and many people pan it. They don't appreciate it's qualities while I do, same for you and Bose.


----------



## aceinc

Thunderbird ain't so bad. Try "Red Rooster 21," "The kickin' chicken:boxer:"


----------



## dat56

Bose used to sell a "pro" version of the 901 which I believe was called the 802. It looked to be basically the same speaker but in a black, pro-style finish. I think it had no driver on what is the front of the 901, just the eight in the back, and in the 802's, front and back was reversed compared to the 901. 

As for the 901's reproduction being "diffuse with no image", I can see why a person might feel that way, depending on what kind of room and setup they are being heard in. The 901 would not be the first speaker choice that would come to my mind for a large, lively acoustic. I think it tends to excel in just the opposite environment -smaller and over-damped rooms -like mine. 


Having said that, I still would point to my experience with and conclusions regarding the sound of live music, especially compared to reproduced music. Almost every Christmas at our church, three members of one particularly musically gifted family will give us a little mini-concert. Grandad on guitar and lead vocal, son on mandolin and harmony, and grandson on banjo. Even though I usually set only 10-12 feet away I can scarcely pinpoint exactly where each instrument or singer is coming from. And our church's acoustic is pretty dead sounding compared to most churches. Point is, in my limited experience, I find most live music to be much more diffuse than "hi-fi" sound usually is. Even amplified live music, heard in larger, more reverberant environments than the typical listening room, sounds much more diffuse and vague in imaging than typical home stereos, even though pro speakers almost always use horn tweeters. 

It's not that I dislike the sound of conventional speakers. I've heard (and had) plenty of good ones! It really comes down to each room and to each listener's priorities. I tend to get sensitized to certain speaker's weaknesses, and to room problems, in that once they are identified, I can't seem to get past them anymore. And so it is in this case. My room tends to suck up the reverberant decay of a pair of speakers to the point that most sound lifeless. But the 901's just seem to revel in the same environment. Seems to be a synergistic relationship between this room and these speakers.


----------



## DougMac

dat56 said:


> I wonder if people who believe that "old saw" have ever heard 901's properly set up.


Yes, I have. I have heard them in classic stereo stores where they were featured. I'm sure a great deal of care went into their setup in order to present them to their best advantage. I have also heard them in the homes of the well heeled where they were properly driven with plenty of power.

The "old saw" didn't come about to describe just the flagship 901's, which I think many would consider the pinnacle of Bose sound quality. There have been a number of other products which led to that familiar and distressingly accurate categorization of Bose products. It's most applicable to the very popular and truly nasty Acoustimass family of speakers.


----------



## Tufelhundin

DougMac said:


> Yes, I have. I have heard them in classic stereo stores where they were featured. I'm sure a great deal of care went into their setup in order to present them to their best advantage. I have also heard them in the homes of the well heeled where they were properly driven with plenty of power.
> 
> The "old saw" didn't come about to describe just the flagship 901's, which I think many would consider the pinnacle of Bose sound quality. There have been a number of other products which led to that familiar and distressingly accurate categorization of Bose products. It's most applicable to the very popular and *truly nasty Acoustimass family of speakers.*




I truelly believe that if I ever wasted any $$$$ :spend: on Bose speakers it was on their center channel and the AM-5.


----------



## gsmollin

This is truely a lively discussion, and actually relevent, unlike the "cables make a difference" threads ...and I knew my T-bird quip would spark some retorts!

Speaker coloration: Yes, all speakers color the sound. Speakers are graded based on how little they do this, how close to original sound they are. Bose speakers _have sound coloration as a feature._ This is what puts them at the bottom of the heap. Sure plenty of others fall short, but that is Bose's badge.

Acoustics: Most live venues have serious acoustical problems. Some are awful. Very often your live music will not sound too good because of this. Recordings try to present the artist in the best light possible. The recording studio is set up to capture the best and most intimate sound, and nothing like sitting in a reverberant church! So many recording give you the chance to image instruments so acurately you can hear the keys, action, strings, and soundboard all separately on a piano.

901s: I heard these speakers years ago and the first thing that strikes you is how spacious they sound. Such a big sound from such tiny speakers! And yes, I heard them too in clubs in the 70's. No age jokes pls. Thesy sounded, well, just terrible. At the time I was in my pro sound career, and I installed truely good systems (and some truely bad) in many venues. The 901s, and their pro models, were not up to the task. "Pumpin' square waves." was our asessment. They were also mis-used. Typically installed in the center of the room so they could be direct speakers in all directions. Some were also in front of a wall, installed correctly, BTW.

Acoustimas: What a curse visited upon mankind. I say _man_kind, because womankind has embraced these little snakes of HT. "Such tiny cubes you can't even see them, and the bass module goes under the couch." Never mind the sound is bad enough to make you puke, if you care about such things. If you aren't so passionate, then the sound is just bad, with all the upper bass/lower midrange imaging, well, under the couch.

The new TV: I recently auditioned this product at the Bose store. It was in a special reverberation room no doubt designed to show off the direct-reflecting speakers that you can't see. While the sales dude droned on about where "all this sound was coming from" I was being totally underwhelmed. The old saw applies here too. Well, at least Bose hasn't lost the magic.


----------



## Theresa

This is a a/v phile site and few if any audiophiles would consider Bose. So whats the point going on and on about them? Perhaps there's a Bose fan site you could take this too. Calling the 901 the pinnacle is setting the pinnacle very low. I think that nearly everyone would agree. Do you work for Bose? It wouldn't surprise me. They are over priced for a box full of cheap drivers that need a great deal of eq to even sound close to ordinary.


----------



## caper26

dat56 said:


> But in the meantime I don't suppose you'd settle for +/- 5 dB from 31.5 Hz to 10kHz, would you?


Of course not. I have settled for 21-23,000 Hz however, +/- 3db



dat56 said:


> 40Hz - 10kHz covers most of the useful, practical, musical spectrum anyway.


----------



## dat56

gsmollin said:


> Acoustics: Most live venues have serious acoustical problems. Some are awful. Very often your live music will not sound too good because of this. Recordings try to present the artist in the best light possible. The recording studio is set up to capture the best and most intimate sound, and nothing like sitting in a reverberant church! So many recording give you the chance to image instruments so acurately you can hear the keys, action, strings, and soundboard all separately on a piano.



I agree with your points in principle, but I would contend that there are many wonderful sounding halls, amphitheaters, and auditoriums that were purpose-built with sound quality as a primary consideration, and that the sound of good music performed in these acoustics is the gold standard source that home "hi-_fidelity_" seeks to emulate. Good studio sound stands or falls on it's own merits, but it not the standard we aspire to. In fact, most of the best studio sound, imho, has been sweetened with reverb and other studio band-aids to more closely resemble good live sound. 

[/QUOTE]


----------



## gsmollin

dat56 said:


> I agree with your points in principle, but I would contend that there are many wonderful sounding halls, amphitheaters, and auditoriums that were purpose-built with sound quality as a primary consideration, and that the sound of good music performed in these acoustics is the gold standard source that home "hi-_fidelity_" seeks to emulate. Good studio sound stands or falls on it's own merits, but it not the standard we aspire to. In fact, most of the best studio sound, imho, has been sweetened with reverb and other studio band-aids to more closely resemble good live sound.


[/QUOTE]

High-fidelity seeks to reproduce whatever was recorded. I have listened to music played in a concert hall, for sure, but that is only one of an infinity of venues for recordings. Home theater is somewhat more global than music in this respect, since the soundtrack is supposed to take our ears to wherever the director wanted: The deadness of a closet, the intimacy of a bedroom, the spaciousness of a cave, or even the ambience of a concert hall should all be reproduced equally well by a good HT sound system- in our dreams! Music does tend to stick with the proscenium, and that's fine.


----------



## dat56

gsmollin said:


> the soundtrack is supposed to take our ears to wherever the director wanted: The deadness of a closet, the intimacy of a bedroom, the spaciousness of a cave, or even the ambience of a concert hall should all be reproduced equally well by a good HT sound system- in our dreams! Music does tend to stick with the proscenium, and that's fine.



Brings to mind some of the Johnny Cash recordings for Rick Rubin: Way, way too dry for my taste. I couldn't stand to listen to it in two-channel. I'd play them on the HT and add some artificial ambience just to make the sound listenable. I was surprised some of those recordings won Grammys. Sure, the music and performance was good, but the sound quality? :scratch:

Oh well, I don't want to sound like a shill for Bose. (No, I'm not on the payroll!) I just hate to see them trashed so much, when my experience with them (901's only: IV's and VI's) has been very positive. Sometimes it just seems like they're the company every audiophile loves to hate. A bit of herd mentality at work, maybe. Similar to the thrashing Sony takes over the "perfect sound forever" campaign used to launch CD in the US market. I mean, it was just a bit of advertising hyperbole, for crying out loud. Get over it! Other makers have done the same thing, more or less, but are not taken to task twenty-five years on!

Back to the thread topic: Anyone who doesn't wish to talk about Bose should simply not. 

Is Bose about "high fidelity"? Some products more than others, I suppose. They are obviously more into mass-market and "lifestyle" as priorities over the limited audiophile market. Face it, audiophiles are a niche within a niche. And apparently not a growing one, either. Still, I think Bose has it's place. They no doubt have the expertise to compete in whatever audio-related market they choose, and to do it very successfully. They just haven't chosen lately to fret too much about trying to please audiohpiles.

Is Bose about quality? As far as reliability, build quality and customer service, I would have to answer an emphatic "yes!". Audio quality? I guess everyone has to decide that for themselves on a case by case basis. Personally, the 901 has always been one of my favorite speakers, regardless of price or pedigree. And I've owned some pretty decent speakers: klipschorns, la scala II's, cornwalls, B&W, ESS, Advent, blah, blah, blah. The 901 is certainly a unique design, though, with distinct strengths and weaknesses that will either please or perturb, depending on the listener and the set-up.


----------



## DougMac

dat56 said:


> I just hate to see them trashed so much, when my experience with them (901's only: IV's and VI's) has been very positive.


This is pretty much the crux of the matter. I'm glad you've had a good experience with one of the products offered by Bose. The conversation and the Bose "trashing" takes into consideration the entire Bose product line and I doubt even you would argue that all Bose products either now or in the past are at the same level as the 901's. 



dat56 said:


> A bit of herd mentality at work, maybe.


Ah, no. Try as you might, you can't dismiss the consensus of opinion as being the product of a herd mentality. I think those who know a little about audio get upset at Bose because the spend a tremendous amount of money convincing the less sophisticated consumer that they offer a quality product. It's frustrating to see our friends and family fall for the line, when they could have much better gear for the same or less money.



dat56 said:


> Is Bose about "high fidelity"?


Absolutely not, if you define high fidelity as the attempt to accurately reproduce music. No company who sells systems that don't even reproduce an important part of the audio spectrum (100-200 hz) can be represented as being "about high fidelity". No company that refuses to publish results of standard performance measurements of their products can be represented as being "about high fidelity".



dat56 said:


> Is Bose about quality?


I'm glad you've gotten good, troublefree service from your 901's. Yet again, though, you're trying to argue your personal experience with one product is indicative of the overall quality of Bose products. There is ample documentation of reliability issues regarding Bose products. There is also ample documentation that some Bose products are poorly constructed using cheap parts. On a personal and anecdotal level, I have friends and family members who own Bose products that have had equipment failures. My father-in-law has sent his Bose 1-2-3 system back for repair three times in five years. The last time they told him the unit was beyond repair. Much to his wife's and my despair, he took them up on an offer to replace the unit for 1/3 of the normal price, which is still three times what it is worth.

Again, I'm glad you've had a good experience with your 901's and they suit your needs. There are others who have not had as good an experience, especially with other Bose products. Their opinion of Bose is equally valid.


----------



## dat56

DougMac said:


> Ah, no. Try as you might, you can't dismiss the consensus of opinion as being the product of a herd mentality.


To the contrary, I think it's quite possible that is at play here, at least to an extent. I've read too many uninformed statements about Bose to think otherwise. Example: re the 901; they have to use an eq because of the low quality drivers...or words to that effect. You could say the same thing about every speaker that uses a crossover!




DougMac said:


> No company who sells systems that don't even reproduce an important part of the audio spectrum (100-200 hz) can be represented as being "about high fidelity". No company that refuses to publish results of standard performance measurements of their products can be represented as being "about high fidelity".


I think most ultra-compact, lifestyle HTiB systems are deficient in that range, not just Bose. 

Whether a company publishes specs or not, inflates their specs or not, or misuses their published specs to sway potential customers is really no indicator of the ultimate, real world performance of their products. There's a lot of truth in the saying "figures lie and liars figure".




DougMac said:


> I'm glad you've gotten good, troublefree service from your 901's. Yet again, though, you're trying to argue your personal experience with one product is indicative of the overall quality of Bose products. There is ample documentation of reliability issues regarding Bose products. There is also ample documentation that some Bose products are poorly constructed using cheap parts.


My personal experience is just that and no more. Take it for what it's worth. 

I've had problems with lot's of things electronic. Bose just isn't one of them. knock on mdf

As for cheap parts, why should I be impressed with the cost of the parts? It's the performance and reliabilty I am concerned with. 




DougMac said:


> Again, I'm glad you've had a good experience with your 901's and they suit your needs. There are others who have not had as good an experience, especially with other Bose products. Their opinion of Bose is equally valid.


I don't recall saying or implying anyone elses experience was invalid. I will say that opinions formed through years of ownership carry more weight than those formed through hearsay.


----------



## dat56

Correction:

I knew when I posted the in-room frequency response specs for my 901's that something seemed seriously off. But I couldn't figure out what it could be. I just knew the bass measurements didn't look right at all and were not consistent with what I'd previously heard and measured. The ones I presented earlier in the thread indicated a bass response falling off below 80Hz or so. In fact I had to use a little boost from my preamp to make them measure better. Today I was listening through my Squeezebox and the bass was back! So that got me thinking there was something screwy with my Pioneer Elite DV47Ai player. Bass through it was light. I first thought it was the Legato Link, but after turning that off and re-measuring, bass was the same -weak. Then it finally dawned on me to check the bass management! I just very recently got the NAD pre and previously had used my Pioneer Elite VSX55TXi receiver as a pre for the 2-channel set-up, feeding the disc player to the receiver through Pioneer's fire-wire link. I assumed the Pioneer player's bass management would not affect the analog stereo output I use to feed the NAD pre, but it does! 

Wow -what a huge difference! The measured bass at the listening position is back where it was. With the Bose EQ's number 1 setting (no bass filter at 35 Hz, and with the reference 0dB at 630Hz, the response is flat through the bass down through the 50 Hz band where it then rises to a 11.5dB peak in the 31.5 Hz band and then falls off to -4.5dB at 20Hz.

At the number 2 setting on the EQ, which puts in a 6dB filter centered at 35Hz, the variation from 160Hz down is +/- 1.5dB all the way down to the 25Hz band except for a peak of 6dB at 31.5Hz. From 200 to 25Hz it is +6/-1.5dB. Or expressed another way, you could say it's +/- 4dB down to 25Hz, again the reference (0dB) being 630Hz. 

Ah, that's more like it!:T


----------



## caper26

are you seriously trying to tell me that a speaker (I dont care which brand) is flat to 25Hz +/-1.5 dB; the same as my Monitor Audio $1,400 12" sealed sub???? I am just trying to clarify. Cheers.


----------



## recruit

I think all has been said in this thread many times over so am closing it.

Edit: I am re-opening this thread as dat56 feels that there is more input needed and am happy to do so as long as it stays friendly.


----------



## JerryLove

caper26 said:


> are you seriously trying to tell me that a speaker (I dont care which brand) is flat to 25Hz +/-1.5 dB; the same as my Monitor Audio $1,400 12" sealed sub???? I am just trying to clarify. Cheers.


 If he won't I will. I can think of several +/- 2db anyway). Without looking it up the xrt2k comes to mind as likely. So does the 800di. But I digress.


----------



## lcaillo

Just post measurements if you have them, along with the equipment and EQ applied. Let the data speak for itself.


----------



## Theresa

Crossovers are not the same as the Bose equalization. I don't have a problem with equalization per se, just that the Bose need so much at frequencies where any good speaker would not need it. The drivers are cheap, but so are many others, but hardly ever at the price of the 901s. There really doesn't need to be evangelization for your 901s, you obviously love them or being paid or working for Bose. I don't proselytize for mine except to speak of making them myself. I would not consider putting any Bose driver in any of my speakers as I appreciate what a very good, modern driver can do. The Bose are pretty unique and so some like that uniqueness and some do not, hardly any audiophiles. Audition some good bipolar speakers some time. They are somewhat similar to the Bose omnidirectionals in their design aims but do it right. I like my small monitors (well, small in comparison to floor standers) and the imaging they produce is the opposite of Bose and I believe far more realistic.


----------



## JerryLove

The 901 eq works much like the eq portion of an active crossover. You will see this in other brands. The eq on my McIntosh XR-5 for example.


----------



## lcaillo

Some very fine speakers have used custom EQ. In addition to the McIntosh, Thiel comes to mind, Infinity, etc. The bottom line is the results vs. what you expect. I know lots of people who owned 901s who loved them, and many who hated them. Same for the Thiels and other speakers.


----------



## dat56

caper26 said:


> are you seriously trying to tell me that a speaker (I dont care which brand) is flat to 25Hz +/-1.5 dB; the same as my Monitor Audio $1,400 12" sealed sub???? I am just trying to clarify. Cheers.


Not exactly: I don't have the measurements at my disposal right now, but I think they were up at 4db at 200 Hz, then flat +/-1.5dB from there down to the 31.5Hz band where they were 5-6 dB up, then rolling off below 25Hz. Not perfect, but pretty good for a compact, inexpensive speaker...with cheap drivers.:bigsmile:

I know it sounds nuts, but the 901 is a bass monster when set up properly. They go lower and louder than my Velodyne DLS4000R's.


----------



## dat56

Theresa said:


> Crossovers are not the same as the Bose equalization. I don't have a problem with equalization per se, just that the Bose need so much at frequencies where any good speaker would not need it. The drivers are cheap, but so are many others, but hardly ever at the price of the 901s. There really doesn't need to be evangelization for your 901s, you obviously love them or being paid or working for Bose. I don't proselytize for mine except to speak of making them myself. I would not consider putting any Bose driver in any of my speakers as I appreciate what a very good, modern driver can do. The Bose are pretty unique and so some like that uniqueness and some do not, hardly any audiophiles. Audition some good bipolar speakers some time. They are somewhat similar to the Bose omnidirectionals in their design aims but do it right. I like my small monitors (well, small in comparison to floor standers) and the imaging they produce is the opposite of Bose and I believe far more realistic.


I'm not trying to evangelize, proselytize, harmonize or simonize! Just sharing my experience! Sorry if I come off over-the-top. I am just thrilled with the results I'm getting in a room that I have had so much difficulty with, so it's hard not to want to "share the joy".:innocent:

As for other bi-polars, I have heard Definitive-Technology a number of times and they always sound good to me. I just can't get past the sock motif. If not for that, I might own a pair today!


----------



## eugovector

Agreed, measurements should be posted.


----------



## lcaillo

Several posts that were overly confrontational were deleted.

I have re-opened this thread. I fully expect that we WILL be able to discuss this and any other loudspeaker in a civil manner that allows everyone the opportunity to voice their opinion. No matter how popular that opinion may or many not be, everyone WILL be respected here. If you cannot post in such a manner, your posts will be removed. 

We need to be clear about what is fact and what is opinion. Requests have been made for data to support very specific claims of frequency response. These are reasonable. If the claims are not supported they need to be retracted and opinions about the sound stated as such.

Posters should not be making accusations about the motivation nor about the intent of others. If you have a problem with a post and feel that it is not within the rules, please report it.

The mission statement for Home Theater Shack reads as follows:

Supporting thoughtful exchange of knowledge, values and experience among home theater, audio and video enthusiasts.

We will live by that mission and do so under the posting rules, and we will all steer the discussion in a positive and productive direction that encourages all views. If you cannot behave in that manner, please do not post.


----------



## rdaltx

As a 40 year sound profesional, my only problem with Bose systems is summed up by the advise I have given to the many people over the years that have ask me for my opinion. "If you go listen to speakers, and not to the sellsman, you can buy better sound for 1/2 the money".

Rdaltx


----------



## lcaillo

I think that is a reasonable opinion and the advice to listen to the speakers and not the salesman is great advice. Much of the reason for Bose's success has clearly been the "story" and the difference in sound. Any difference can be framed as a positive in a demo environment, and this is a well known technique among salesmen. Those differences MAY be actual preferences for many, and this is another large part of why people buy the product. IME, and my opinion, however, you are correct, rdaltx, there are almost always much better values out there.

I would still love to see those measurements of the 901s. I wish I had some myself to show, but I have never bothered to make them. I have installed many systems where people used them because the had them, but usually in an auxilliary manner. My experience is that they are not nearly as bad as the detractors would suggest, and not nearly as flat as proponents would suggest. In the case of the latter comment, it is very unusual for ANY speaker to be as flat as claimed in an actual listening environment.


----------



## gsmollin

DAT56 has explained how the 901s in some way provide the best sound in his room where respectable speakers sound "thin". I think he has described an acoustic problem with the room that the 901s are camoflaging with their exaggerated imaging. DAT56, can you post a waterfall diagram of your room so we can move forward in our understanding of this?


----------



## dat56

Yes, that's what I meant when I said something about a synergy with the 901's and the room I have them in.

I just downloaded the REW v.5 a couple of days ago. I've been playing with it but I've got a ways to go to get up to speed. The only audio input on my pc is a ⅛" mic input, so I guess I will need to get some type of USB sound card and a few various cables and connectors. Any recommendations for an external usb?


----------



## eugovector

What are you using for a measurement microphone?


----------



## dat56

I will probably just use my old analog Radio Shack spl meter.


----------



## Moonfly

Check your PC doesnt already have a line in before you start spending on a sound card you may not need :T


----------



## DougMac

aceinc said:


> Did Bose ever make a set of speakers that would be considered good by today's standards?


I was surprised to open my mail and find that this thread was reopened.

This led me to go back and read the OP, part of which I've quoted above.

dat56 answers that he feels the 901's should be considered good by today's standards. He feels they meet his needs better than other more "modern" speakers that he has tried. 

I think the issue is clouded by the fact that the 901's were designed based on Dr. Bose's understanding of the acoustics of live music and had different goals than more traditional speakers of the era, such as JBL's or AR's.

It's hard to answer the "good by today's standards" when there's disagreement over whether they were "good" compared to other speakers in their price range when they were originally released. I think it would be easier to answer the question if it was "would large Advent speakers be considered good by today's standards?" I think those who would find the sound of 901's appealing back when they were introduced would find them appealing today, just as those who didn't care for their sound then wouldn't care for their sound now.

While I'm interested in the results that dat56 gets when he measures response with REW, I don't think the results should be used as either a condemnation or vindication of his 901's. I think a smooth frequency response, either flat or based on your favorite house curve is desirable, I wouldn't classify a speaker on it's frequency response alone. I find sound stage and imaging, which are harder to measure, to also be important.

I did find out how important a smooth frequency response can be. I thought my speakers sounded good in my dedicated HT. I recently upgraded receivers from one with no EQ to one with Audyssey Multi-EQ. I listened to the new receiver before running any EQ and it sounded pretty much the same as the older receiver. Using that as a baseline, I ran Audyssey. The difference was significant. My son summed it up by saying the EQ made the speakers "transparent". I noticed individual instruments sounded more delineated.

Going back to the OP, and based on my experience, the 901's can be arguably considered good by today's standards. Sadly, other Bose offerings over time, especially their sub/sat Acoustimass system can't be, especially when you look at other offerings at the same price point.


----------



## eugovector

The mic input may double as a line in with a setting in the sound properties. I'd get a 3.5mm to RCA adapter and give it a shoot. Make sure you load the calibration files in REW for your meter. How were you coming up with the numbers you quoted before?


----------



## Moonfly

DougMac said:


> I was surprised to open my mail and find that this thread was reopened.


Sometimes threads will be closed while decisions are made on their content. The Bose subject is obviously hotly debated. We prefer not to close threads if possible, and the Bose debate will rage on so its probably best to keep it in one place.

As long as everyone can be civilised, we will keep it open. Anything contrary to this will be removed, and the thread may be closed while this happens, but as long as the vast majority is having an involved intelligent debate, it can be kept open. Your post above is a good example of such a post :T. If it degenerates completely, it will be closed permanently.

Who knows, we may even manage to come to a conclusion


----------



## gsmollin

dat56 said:


> Yes, that's what I meant when I said something about a synergy with the 901's and the room I have them in.
> 
> I just downloaded the REW v.5 a couple of days ago. I've been playing with it but I've got a ways to go to get up to speed. The only audio input on my pc is a ⅛" mic input, so I guess I will need to get some type of USB sound card and a few various cables and connectors.  Any recommendations for an external usb?


I haven't used a notebook computer, without a line-in jack, for this purpose, so I can't give first person advice on this. I think some of the others may be able to weigh-in. Lacking that, Creative has the Sound Blaster X-Fi Surround 5.1 Pro that has line-in and line-out jacks, and even a volume control.

Oh, and to those who want the thread closed: I wasn't a party to any recriminations, and I have spent 5 years posting over at the Science forum where hurling insults is an art-form. We can handle this like adults. In the end, we may find that dat56 just prefers the sound of his 901s, and that is his right. They were the first, and possibly best home stereo speaker Bose ever made. If you enter into these forum debates expecting to "win", you have the wrong attitude.


----------



## aceinc

My original reason for starting the thread was that I prowl CraigsList and pawn shops looking for good deals on speakers (have for decades), and other audio stuff. From time to time I come across Bose speakers I have never heard of. Typically I just skip it, if it says Bose, and I was wondering if I were doing myself a disservice.

I do not buy stuff to make money, I generally do it to schlep it home & play with the stuff. I ended up buying my front speakers this way.

So if anyone has any comments on some of the more obscure Bose speakers that would be great.

Paul


----------



## ojojunkie

when I was young Bose was one of the top in my list to be part of my system. Many years past after reading and doing personal observation found that there lots of better quality in the market. So, when I bought my first set of speaker I got Paradigm and many others have come and go. Still paradigm in my top list.


----------



## DougMac

aceinc said:


> My original reason for starting the thread was that I prowl CraigsList and pawn shops looking for good deals on speakers (have for decades), and other audio stuff. From time to time I come across Bose speakers I have never heard of. Typically I just skip it, if it says Bose, and I was wondering if I were doing myself a disservice.
> Paul


Paul,
If you run across some Bose bookshelves or floor standers at a good price and in good shape, buy them. There are plenty of people who like the way they sound and you might be one of them.

My advice would be different if you were planning to buy new and spend a lot of money, but only to the extent that careful listening tests would be in order. If you did some listening comparisons with well regarded speakers at the same price range and decided to buy a new pair of 901's, I'd be happy for you.

I would advise to shy away from Acoustimass, either new or used, unless you found a set for super cheap and want to satisfy you curiosity. That probably won't be necessary, it seems that everyone knows at least one person with an Acoustimass system! 

BTW, a quick scan of the Atlanta Craigslist turned up three listings for Bose 901's. All were listed for $500. The scan also turned up a like new Bose dishwasher! I think they couldn't spell Bosch.


----------



## Chester

*They (Bose and his followers) say, "you cant just measure the speakers, the absolute frequency response does not matter; what matters is that the speakers *sound good to you*"

I say, "lets measure the speakers in a psychoacoustic way, accounting for the listener (as best we can) in our measurements, to finally put this whole thing to rest"*

If the 901's are designed to work according to Dr. Bose's work, shouldn't they produce something akin to a 'diffuse field equalized' response? In my own reading about the research of Mead Killion (CEO and founder of Etymotic Research) their earphones (in-ear monitors) are designed to have a 'house curve' (what they call a target curve) that matches a "diffuse field equalized" sound, which was generated (in short) by placing a KEMAR (acoustic dummy head) in a reverberation chamber which caused the swept sound (a series of modulated tones) to effectively 'come from every direction', hence the name "diffuse field sound". The ear-drum pressure response was measured (they had a microphone where the ear drum would be), and the resulting response turns out to be very pleasing to the ear when it comes to headphones, it sounds as if you are not wearing headphones, but just hearing the sound in a 'natural' way. Anyways, the research is in the PDF at the bottom of my post, along with a much better description of how the measurements were done.

The point is, the ER4 earphones (Etymotic Research's top of the line headphones) try to mimic the frequency response that the KEMAR head heard in the reverb chamber, perhaps if one were to use a Bose 901 (or any system) in a room and had a KEMAR head to measure the swept response, it would be a better test of whether the principles Amar Bose applied to his speakers truely 'work' or not. Etymotic Research is a very reputible company, even among 'audiophiles'...

Even if no-one has a KEMAR available to test with, we could use some HRTF data (such as the MIT KEMAR responses) to attempt to apply a 'pseudo HRTF calibration response' to the measured Bose response and then compare that to the diffuse field response of Mead Killion (it would still be optimal to use the KEMAR head). This would in the best way we can, account for the psychoacoustic effects (and marketing) that Bose uses to sell his products.

In short, if Bose claims that the measured frequency response of their speakers does not matter because 'to the ear' the response is flat, then lets measure the Bose speakers in a way where we are measuring the SPL produced in a room, at the ear drum (where the SPL should be flat).

In addition, we may need to look at whether the Equal Loudness Contours (ISO 226:2003) could play any role in the frequency response of Bose speakers (another psychoacoustic aspect that could come into play). I imagine potentially using the ISO 226:2003 loudness contours (we could check between 40 and 80 phons and see if there is any correlation with the Bose response) to verify whether or not .

With this sort of data applied to the measurements, we will truly be testing Bose's speakers on psychoacoustic terms; the same (basic) principles/terms they use to market and speak positively of their products. If they do not measure well in a psychoacoustic measurement (in addition to a poor 'normal' measured frequency response), it should be fair to say that Bose speakers are not all they are cracked up to be; if they do measure well, then there may be something to (in some sense) the things Amar Bose has claimed of his speakers.

http://www.etymotic.com/pdf/erl-0062-1979.pdf

http://sound.media.mit.edu/resources/KEMAR.html

A personal aside: I do not personally like Bose, I feel they charge WAY too much for the product (materials) they are selling (marketing). I actually gave a persuasive speech in my speech class two weeks ago about why Bose speakers are not what they are cracked up to be  I see my whole idea of psychoacousticly measuring the speakers as a way to FINALLY have irrefutable evidence 'against' the 'Bose crowd' in a way. For years the argument has raged, however, the audiophiles have always been arguing about something different in a sense, flat measured frequency response; instead of a psychoacousticly (perceptually) flat frequency response.

A last note: I could see the ideas here ('psychoacousticlly measuring' the Bose speakers) potentially catching on or greatly advancing the age old debate between audiophiles and Bose; if anyone takes these ideas off of Hometheatershack.com; I would like to be notified and/or credited to these ideas (especially if there is any sort of formal article written about any results from these ideas.) Thank you.


----------



## aceinc

I actually recently sold a pair of 901 Series 1 for my sister in law. I did hook them up in my home, and tested them, but they were not to my taste, I however did not really give them a fair shake.

I realize now I should have attached them to my main system, and auto claibrated them, to see what they might have done. They did not sound as clear and revealing as my KEF 105/4 main speakers, but the KEF's are hooked up to my main system.

I know it is an excuse, but I hated the way the wires connected, which was knurled nuts on the bottom of the cabinets. I use 12 guage wire and it just didn't want to stay. This is part of the reason I didn't play with them, the other part is a bias built up over the years for no reason other than listening to what other people say.

I have seen some 601 & 701 speakers come up on C/L, which is what prompted me to start this thread, because I had never heard of them before.

Paul


----------



## TypeA

To me it comes down to price vs performance. My previous system was Bose 901 301 and vcs 10, $1800 msrp with the 901 stands, I had this system for about 10 years. My replacement was 6 infinity primus 162s and a pc350, $800 msrp. The sonic pressure and definition is much higher in my new system then in my old Bose system. I always thought my Bose system was a good performer, it did "sound good." The sound stage was larger, as the Bose reflected sound did create a larger sweet spot, but details in both music and movies were not there like they are now. Now, especially music, sounds more "wow, thats complex and an experience" rather than just sounding "good."


----------



## Chester

A quick note, with the setup I described to psychoacousticly test the Bose speakers (or any speakers for that matter), any equalization would also need to be applied to the signal chain also, or at least be available for test; I noticed that the 901's have some sort of EQ module and never mentioned including that in my description.


----------



## Moonfly

aceinc said:


> My original reason for starting the thread was that I prowl CraigsList and pawn shops looking for good deals on speakers (have for decades), and other audio stuff. From time to time I come across Bose speakers I have never heard of. Typically I just skip it, if it says Bose, and I was wondering if I were doing myself a disservice.
> 
> I do not buy stuff to make money, I generally do it to schlep it home & play with the stuff. I ended up buying my front speakers this way.
> 
> So if anyone has any comments on some of the more obscure Bose speakers that would be great.
> 
> Paul


Honestly, the best thing you could do is pick a set up and decide for yourself. Many people have opinions, and many people base those on group opinion, or quick demos etc. I have lived with a Bose system (for the best part of 2 years), so I have a great deal more experience than some from which to draw opinion. Its still opinion though, and at the end of the day, the only one that really matters is your own. 

If you can grab a set of Bose for little effort and a good price your happy to pay, then why not try them and see for yourself.


----------



## recruit

Some good advice from Dan there, and likewise I am a previous Bose owner and have had experience with quite a few of there products, best advice is to try your self and satisfy your curiosity.


----------



## aceinc

OK, so I should stay away from Acoustimass. 

I read some fairly positive reviews on the 601 series III. Bad reviews on the 601 Series IV, and Series 701.

Any other speakers that I should look for?

Paul


----------



## eugovector

I wouldn't "look for" Bose, period. There are many better speakers to spend time, energy, and money seeking out, even on the used market.


----------



## recruit

eugovector said:


> I wouldn't "look for" Bose, period. There are many better speakers to spend time, energy, and money seeking out, even on the used market.


Agreed, but this thread has been kept open to discuss Bose speakers so a little more input is required otherwise it might as well be closed Marshall :rolleyesno:


----------



## eugovector

I think my input was worthwhile, and wasn't trying to Bose Bash. To restate: There are many better speakers to spend time, energy, and money seeking out, even on the used market.

In other words, unless you are looking for Bose specifically, say to complete a 5-channel set, or because its the only brand you buy for whatever reason, I'd suggest hunting for a bargain on Paradigm, PSB, Aperion, Infinity, JBL, SVS, EMP, and the list goes on and on. The value proposition is higher if you seek out a higher quality speaker.


----------



## Dale Rasco

eugovector said:


> I think my input was worthwhile, and wasn't trying to Bose Bash. To restate: There are many better speakers to spend time, energy, and money seeking out, even on the used market.
> 
> In other words, unless you are looking for Bose specifically, say to complete a 5-channel set, or because its the only brand you buy for whatever reason, I'd suggest hunting for a bargain on Paradigm, PSB, Aperion, Infinity, JBL, SVS, EMP, and the list goes on and on. The value proposition is higher if you seek out a higher quality speaker.


Unfortunately that is still a matter of opinion Marshall. It is one that most of us agree with heart and soul, but it is still just an opinion. I agree with John in that the thread is to discuss Bose quality. Had your statement been less generalized it would hold more water.


----------



## Jungle Jack

Hello,
While some might find the Thread Title to be an oxymoron, I will try to approach this Subject with a open mind. Much of what bothers me about Bose is the feeling that they devote more Resources to Advertising and Litigation than they do on R&D and Speaker Construction.

Regardless, many are quite pleased with their Bose Equipment and they certainly have a high WAF. The 901 was an interesting Design that has many fans, but it seems Bose's focus now is now on Acoustimass Systems, Bose Radios, and other smaller Designs. 

It is my contention that there are far better Sounding Speakers for the Money of say an Acoustimass System. However, if it makes one happy, more power to them.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## Moonfly

I think Bose simply created their own niche. They can charge what they want and thats their choice, there is obviously a market. Worth and value is purely in the eye of the beholder, so technically speaking, if you buy Bose and are happy, they are worth the money.

Trying to compete with other manufacturers in a crowded market is difficult. Creating their own market has given them the niche they seek. On the plus side, their systems have style, are sleek and generally slick. They are simple enough for anyone to use and can be truly invisible within a home. 

Bose have a lot to offer, and comparisons could be made with say Apple. Based on all that I wont personally bash them, but if asked will give my opinion. The fact I own no Bose products at all now and never plan to speaks enough I think.


----------



## Dale Rasco

I couldn't have articulated that near as well as you two just did. Very well put.


----------



## aceinc

Computers, now that is something that I may be truly qualified to talk about. I have been and am a computer consultant for the last 33 years. My background starts in DEC minicomputers, and has extended through current generation Microsoft OSes. I have spent time working with various forms of "ix" OSes as well.

The amount of time I have spent on Apple devices can be measured in minutes. I have on a number of occassions been asked to speak on Apple vs PC. When I do and I do so reluctantly, I always preface my remarks by discussing my history, and its effect on my prejudices.

I can and sometimes do defend Apple when in the presence of Microsoft bigots, I also will defend Microsoft in the presence of linux bigots. I try to learn enough to know when and where each type of computer matches what set of requirements.

I suspect that various types of speakers may be better suited to various applications, for example, you probably wouldn't want to use a set of Wilson speakers to energize a stadium. Conversly you wouldn't want the Danley Matterhorn for your parlor.

Since Bose speakers have a specific design profile, perhaps they are suited to specific room configurations. If so, what configuration suits their design best?

Paul


----------



## Moonfly

Well most speakers are extensively designed by computers, and tested in anechoic chambers to ensure they have a flat response and are as accurate as possible. Their best room is probably ideally the anechoic chamber (room acoustics arent considered as much a part of ones system nearly as much as they should), which truth be told isnt realistic for most. Still, that kind of speaker design is considered best, as your room only degrades its performance, and its upto the user to deal with that as best as possible.

Ive not extensively researched Bose, but from what I gather, Dr Bose (why is he a doctor BTW?) throws this out of the window. One reason is the idea no room is an anechoic chamber, while another is that the best sound is that of large environments, stadiums, amphitheatres etc. Those kind of environments are as far from anechoic as you can get, and its this Bose try to recreate. Their systems, if you asked Bose, would be said to work best in 'normal' rooms, which Bose claim makes them superior and its the basis upon which they state that traditional forms of measuring performance do not apply. 

How much of that you could swallow is personal preference IMO, which I guess you could only conclude upon with a prolonged home demo.


----------



## eugovector

Dale Rasco said:


> Unfortunately that is still a matter of opinion Marshall. It is one that most of us agree with heart and soul, but it is still just an opinion. I agree with John in that the thread is to discuss Bose quality. Had your statement been less generalized it would hold more water.


I'd love to offer less opinion and more objective comparison, however, Bose doesn't proffer any measurements of their products. I'd hate to have to continue to propagate worn pieces like this: http://www.intellexual.net/bose.html#number1

...but when you google "Bose Frequency Response", that's what you get. Take it up with Bose, not me.

The question posed, "Any other speakers that I should look for?", is one which can be only be satisfactorily answered by opinion in the absence of objective data. If we must stick only to Bose speakers in a Bose thread, then the answer, _in my opinion_, is "No".

EDIT: Not to mention, when shopping for speakers, it is hardly ever a good idea to limit yourself to a single brand, whether it's Bose, or any other brand.


----------



## nova

aceinc said:


> So if anyone has any comments on some of the more obscure Bose speakers that would be great.
> Paul


Not really obscure speakers, but in my experience Bose 501 & 601 models from the late 70's and early 80's were a pretty good sounding speaker with above average build quality for a reasonable price. But, as someone else once said "That's Just My Opinion, I Could Be Wrong." :whistling:


----------



## aceinc

If it is your opinion, how could you be wrong? If you were stating it as a fact, then you could be wrong.

Paul


----------



## recruit

I think Bose in many ways shares similarities with Bang&Olufsen, we have one of there shops in our high street and for a home telephone it will set you back a cool £500, then you can move up to there mushroom shaped speakers which will set you back somewhere in the region of £10,000 or actually I think they are even higher, they did not sound too bad when I heard them but....


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Moonfly said:


> Well most speakers are extensively designed by computers, and tested in anechoic chambers to ensure they have a flat response and are as accurate as possible. Their best room is probably ideally the anechoic chamber (room acoustics arent considered as much a part of ones system nearly as much as they should), which truth be told isnt realistic for most. Still, that kind of speaker design is considered best, as your room only degrades its performance, and its upto the user to deal with that as best as possible.


Not necessarily. Speakers are specified for their performance in an anechoic chamber because that is a defineable environment as opposed to the wide range of possible domestic environments. However, better designers are aware of domestic acoustic issues. See the writings of Floyd Toole.



> Ive not extensively researched Bose, but from what I gather, Dr Bose (why is he a doctor BTW?) throws this out of the window. One reason is the idea no room is an anechoic chamber, while another is that the best sound is that of large environments, stadiums, amphitheatres etc. Those kind of environments are as far from anechoic as you can get,........


Wrong. The larger the environmental space, the more anechoic it is. In fact, the bigger the anechoic chamber, the more anechoic it is.



> Their systems, if you asked Bose, would be said to work best in 'normal' rooms, which Bose claim makes them superior and its the basis upon which they state that traditional forms of measuring performance do not apply.


Nonsense. I am willing to bet that Bose engineers measure a lot of stuff, even if only for quality control. They choose not to divulge any measurements for reasons we can (and do) only conjecture.


----------



## nova

Tongue-in-cheek, from the old Dennis Miller rants.
But I do stand by my opinion, the 601s I bought in the early 80s had a pretty good fit and finish, they also sounded good and were not overpriced. I had a friend who bought one of the first AM5 systems in the mid 80s and I thought they were overpriced for what he got and didn't sound very good. Another friend had some 501s, the fit and finish was not as good as my 601 but they also sounded much better than the AM5.

I guess my point is, most people have never heard any Bose speakers other than 901s and/or jewel cube designs. I think Bose gets more than their fair share of undeserved bias. Again, not saying the 501 or 601 were great speakers, just saying they were IMO a decent speaker for a reasonable price.



aceinc said:


> If it is your opinion, how could you be wrong? If you were stating it as a fact, then you could be wrong. Paul


----------



## DougMac

*Dr. Bose*



Moonfly said:


> Ive not extensively researched Bose, but from what I gather, Dr Bose (why is he a doctor BTW?) throws this out of the window.


Amar Bose holds a PhD in Engineering from MIT. His thesis was on non-linear systems.


----------



## Moonfly

Kal Rubinson said:


> Not necessarily. Speakers are specified for their performance in an anechoic chamber because that is a defineable environment as opposed to the wide range of possible domestic environments. However, better designers are aware of domestic acoustic issues. See the writings of Floyd Toole.


Agreed



> Wrong. The larger the environmental space, the more anechoic it is. In fact, the bigger the anechoic chamber, the more anechoic it is.


Bose philosophy IIRC is based on the assumption the vast majority of what we hear is indirect sound. Large arena's etc are anything but anechoic.



> Nonsense. I am willing to bet that Bose engineers measure a lot of stuff, even if only for quality control. They choose not to divulge any measurements for reasons we can (and do) only conjecture.


I didnt say that Bose dont measure things, only that if you ask them about measurements, they will simply reply normal measurement practices dont really apply due to their own unique philosophy. Ive had this spouted at me from a Bose dealer on more than one occasion.


----------



## Moonfly

*Re: Dr. Bose*



DougMac said:


> Amar Bose holds a PhD in Engineering from MIT. His thesis was on non-linear systems.


Cheers :T


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Moonfly said:


> Bose philosophy IIRC is based on the assumption the vast majority of what we hear is indirect sound. Large arena's etc are anything but anechoic.


The disconnect is that Bose is adding indirect sound, not reproducing it. And, no, large arenas are not entirely anechoic but they are more anechoic than a concert hall or a small jazz club. The "echos" and reflections in a stadium/arena are from much greater distances and that means they are likely to have greatly reduced high frequencies and modes in the sub-sonic range.



> I didnt say that Bose dont measure things, only that if you ask them about measurements, they will simply reply normal measurement practices dont really apply due to their own unique philosophy. Ive had this spouted at me from a Bose dealer on more than one occasion.


I know that is what you said but my "nonsense" was directly at Bose.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

*Re: Dr. Bose*



DougMac said:


> Amar Bose holds a PhD in Engineering from MIT. His thesis was on non-linear systems.





Moonfly said:


> Cheers :T


Right. He's no dope. I do believe that Bose (the company) is making the products that they believe will appeal to and sell to their demographic segment and that they are very good at that.


----------



## Moonfly

That, we most certainly do agree on.


----------



## DougMac

*Re: Dr. Bose*



Kal Rubinson said:


> Right. He's no dope.


That's why at one time he was the 271 richest man in the world and a billionaire. Also keep in mind that while founding and running Bose Corporation he remained a Professor at MIT until 2000. 

While I'm heaping praise I'll mention the groundbreaking work Bose did with noise canceling headphones. I'm not a pilot, but I've always been an aviation enthusiast. I remember the first time I wore noise canceling headphones in a small aircraft (Cessna 172). I was bowled over at how much quieter the cockpit became. Their headphones get high marks in reviews and I'd sure consider them if I had to fly often.


----------



## dat56

eugovector said:


> The mic input may double as a line in with a setting in the sound properties. I'd get a 3.5mm to RCA adapter and give it a shoot. Make sure you load the calibration files in REW for your meter. How were you coming up with the numbers you quoted before?


I may go ahead and try to get some measurements as soon as Parts Express gets me some cables. I haven't found an external sound card yet, as I hate to spend the money that a good one may cost, just for measurement purposes, as I'm a little cash poor after Christmas. After all, what's it really matter how they (or any) speaker measures in-room, once I've already bought the things? I'm not gonna do anything different at that point anyway. They sound how they sound. I set them up for the best sound _to my ears_, not to a measurement microphone. I know that sounds a lot like "I know what I like; don't confuse me with the facts", but it's really true, isn't it? We don't measure speakers before we buy them.

Oh btw, I came up with my numbers just by placing my Radio Shack spl meter at the listening position and measuring using STEREOPHILE's "Test CD 2" 1/3 octave frequency response tones. It's the same source I would have if I used REW to graph and analyze the data, instead of me just writing the numbers down on paper. 

Another tidbit of fuel for the fire: Over the last few days, I've had my pair of RBH MC-6CT's in the media room to do a little comparison with the Bose. The RBH's are a nice medium-sized floor-stander with a 1" aluminum dome tweeter (a Vifa unit, I believe), and three 6½" aluminum mid-woofers in a 2½-way configuration, with the bottom two woofers rolling out above 100Hz. The speakers stand about 41" tall and weigh around 55 pounds each. I think list on them is around $1400/pr. 

The 901's are suspended from the ceiling about 18", with the back point of the speakers about 18" from the wall behind them. The outside edges are just a bit over 3' from each sidewall. They are driven by my Adcom 5500 / NAD C165 combo. 

I set the RBH's up in more of an "audiophile" arrangement, approximately 1/3 the room length out from the front wall (6') and almost 1/3 the room width in from the sidewalls (4½'). The listening position is about 4' from the back wall. I drove the RBH's with the "spare" surround back channels of my Pioneer Elite VSX55TXi a/v receiver. This set-up placed the speakers almost 6' apart and about 9' from a seated listener in the sweet spot. 

Without going into full audio-reviewer-wanna-be mode, let me just say my subjective impressions of the 901's, especially in comparison to good conventional speakers, _in this room_, were re-enforced. The RBH pair offered more clarity and focus, but were relatively dry and lifeless, while the 901's, while not neccesarily sounding any better on an octave-to-octave basis, had realistic image size, and oodles of "bloom", which is my way of saying they energized the room, much like live music does.

So now I've had klipschorns, B&W 703's, a/d/s/ HT400's, Polk LSi9's and RBH MC6CT's in this room and they all suffered from the same subjective weakness _in this room_: dull, lifeless sound that seems to radiate from the front of the box and fall to the floor. None of them really energized the room, making the air seem electric with sound the way the 901's (and live music) can do. In any other room, even in my home, all bets are off. Nothing is being claimed! I know for sure the RBH's sound much, much better in our adjacent family room than they do in the media room. Would the 901's trump them in that more lively, natural acoustic? I dunno.

So obviously there is something going on with this room. Something that works against conventional front-radiating speakers while being very synergistic with the 901's "direct/reflecting" design.

I will try to get some measurements posted asap...but don't hold your breath.:scratch:


----------



## Moonfly

dat56 said:


> I may go ahead and try to get some measurements as soon as Parts Express gets me some cables. I haven't found an external sound card yet, as I hate to spend the money that a good one may cost, just for measurement purposes, as I'm a little cash poor after Christmas. After all, what's it really matter how they (or any) speaker measures in-room, once I've already bought the things? I'm not gonna do anything different at that point anyway. They sound how they sound. I set them up for the best sound _to my ears_, not to a measurement microphone. I know that sounds a lot like "I know what I like; don't confuse me with the facts", but it's really true, isn't it? We don't measure speakers before we buy them.


The whole point of the measuring process is involved eq'ing. Every room is different and has a different effect on the speakers in room response. You can only account for this once the speakers are in room. You measure them, eq them and measure them again. This is a bit more useful for subwoofers, but even so this process can highlight any potential issues due to the room, and ensure your not missing material. Missing material is something you dont really hear, because you dont notice whats not there.

Other than that, measuring is only really to cure curiosity for those of us nerdy enough to be interested in stuff like that :bigsmile:


----------



## aceinc

Moonfly said:


> Other than that, measuring is only really to cure curiosity for those of us nerdy enough to be interested in stuff like that :bigsmile:


I resemble that remark:dumbcrazy:


----------



## gsmollin

dat56 said:


> ...The 901's are suspended from the ceiling about 18", with the back point of the speakers about 18" from the wall behind them. The outside edges are just a bit over 3' from each sidewall. They are driven by my Adcom 5500 / NAD C165 combo.
> 
> I set the RBH's up in more of an "audiophile" arrangement, approximately 1/3 the room length out from the front wall (6') and almost 1/3 the room width in from the sidewalls (4½'). The listening position is about 4' from the back wall. I drove the RBH's with the "spare" surround back channels of my Pioneer Elite VSX55TXi a/v receiver. This set-up placed the speakers almost 6' apart and about 9' from a seated listener in the sweet spot.
> 
> Without going into full audio-reviewer-wanna-be mode, let me just say my subjective impressions of the 901's, especially in comparison to good conventional speakers, _in this room_, were re-enforced. The RBH pair offered more clarity and focus, but were relatively dry and lifeless, while the 901's, while not neccesarily sounding any better on an octave-to-octave basis, had realistic image size, and oodles of "bloom", which is my way of saying they energized the room, much like live music does.
> 
> So now I've had klipschorns, B&W 703's, a/d/s/ HT400's, Polk LSi9's and RBH MC6CT's in this room and they all suffered from the same subjective weakness _in this room_: dull, lifeless sound that seems to radiate from the front of the box and fall to the floor. None of them really energized the room, making the air seem electric with sound the way the 901's (and live music) can do. In any other room, even in my home, all bets are off. Nothing is being claimed! I know for sure the RBH's sound much, much better in our adjacent family room than they do in the media room. Would the 901's trump them in that more lively, natural acoustic? I dunno.
> 
> So obviously there is something going on with this room. Something that works against conventional front-radiating speakers while being very synergistic with the 901's "direct/reflecting" design.
> 
> I will try to get some measurements posted asap...but don't hold your breath.:scratch:


It sounds as if your room has a "live-end dead-end" design where the 901s are reflecting off the ceiling, walls, and floor and providing spaciousness from just behind the speakers. Certainly the tri-corner placement facilitates modal excitation.

Behind your listening position you have anechoic conditions, which causes the direct radiators to sound "dull". 

Proper small room design has a "dead-end, live-end" construction with anechoic conditions behind the speakers and at first reflection points, then a diffuse reverberation field behind the listening position.

It makes some kind of sense that you would prefer the 901s in such a room. As I have written before, your room has serious acoustic problems that could be addressed and them you would find that direct radiators provide a far higher fidelity than anything Bose makes. 

On the other hand, there is no accounting for taste, and if you like the sound of this setup, you might as well stick with it. There is nothing left to discuss.


----------



## Jungle Jack

Hello,
Dat, I am glad the 901's are working out for you. Interesting you have them suspended, but indeed it is all about what sounds best to you.

The 901's are an entirely different design than the Bose Speakers most people think envision when thinking of Bose. That is tiny speakers and a small "Bass Module" or Clock Radio. 

As I have said prior, I do think the 901's are an interesting design. The same cannot be said of the Acoustimass or Bose Radio.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## lcaillo

I thought the bose radio sounded pretty good. Pricey, IMO, but then there are lots of pricey similar devices.


----------



## dat56

gsmollin said:


> It sounds as if your room has a "live-end dead-end" design where the 901s are reflecting off the ceiling, walls, and floor and providing spaciousness from just behind the speakers. Certainly the tri-corner placement facilitates modal excitation.
> 
> Behind your listening position you have anechoic conditions, which causes the direct radiators to sound "dull".
> 
> Proper small room design has a "dead-end, live-end" construction with anechoic conditions behind the speakers and at first reflection points, then a diffuse reverberation field behind the listening position.
> 
> It makes some kind of sense that you would prefer the 901s in such a room. As I have written before, your room has serious acoustic problems that could be addressed and them you would find that direct radiators provide a far higher fidelity than anything Bose makes.
> 
> On the other hand, there is no accounting for taste, and if you like the sound of this setup, you might as well stick with it. There is nothing left to discuss.


No...no LE/DE design effect, intended or unintended. Just a normal room, 16x18.5x8.75', although there is one unique feature: a 1.5' deep floor-to-ceiling niche located in the middle of one long wall. It is three feet wide, with 45-degree angled walls coming out to the main wall. Basically, it forms a crude parabolic reflector smack in the middle of a long wall. My short wall set-up, with the listening position towards the other end of the room minimizes the effect, though, I feel. Other than the niche, the room is very typical: concrete floor with thin, office-style carpet; ½" drywall over insulated 2x4 stud walls and drywall ceiling. All drywall surfaces are textured.

I do realize the bass issues I have had in the past with this room are directly related to it's dimensions. And the 901's placement, away from room boundaries and within Bose's recommended parameters, seems to almost eliminate that problem. As for the "dead and lifeless" sound conventional speakers have exhibited, I really have to think that the room's dimensions and relatively small size are the culprit there. In my experience, the best sounding rooms have decay signatures that are pretty much linear from the bass frequencies right on up to the limits of audibility. [Which means the room doesn't hold on to the notes at one frequency much more than another. And the duration of the decay must be natural. Too short equals dead sound. Too long equals echo-ey sound.] And that's hard to achieve in a small, rather boxy room. If you look at my room's dimensions, you'll see some problems, especially with the niche factored in.

I guess this has strayed from the thread topic a bit.:sweat: Suffice to say my experience and that of friends, with Bose has been exemplary. My own personal experience has all been with the 901, so that is the only model I can comment on. 

My "taste" has been called into question a couple of times over the course of my participation in this thread. That's OK. I will just say my "taste" is defined by the sound of live music. And my 901's give me more of that in this room than anything else I've tried. A lot of "hi-fi" sounds great on it's own terms, but just not too much like live music. I think that is key. And many people prefer hi-fi sound to live music. And yes, I've heard lots of bad sounding live music, too. And I prefer lot's of hi-fi sound to some of that. Still, the fact remains that superlative live sound is the gold standard. Otherwise the purpose of high fidelity reproduction is called into question. In other words, high fidelity to what?

I hope this thread is not shut down (euthanized), but is allowed to fade into oblivion -a natural death. Many threads go on longer than this one has. As long as there is give and take and it doesn't devolve into pure Bose bashing, why kill it off. Are you going to make Bose off limits for thread topics? 

I know there is much vitriol directed at Bose. They seem to be every audiophile's favorite object of derision. Which I don't really understand. Oh sure, even I don't like the commercial that goes something like, In the past complicated equipment was needed for lifelike sound... -but I dismiss it as advertising hyperbole. Like all the speakers that are claimed to be the best in the world; I don't really take them too seriously, either. I think there is room for everybody at the table. Krell and Wilson, and also Bose and Bang & Olufson. No?

So, at the end of the day, I consider the Bose 901 to be a classic loudspeaker and one that remains one of the best values in audio. I don't denigrate anyone else's loudpeaker choice, but I will defend mine. Some folks prefer this technology or that. I just prefer what sounds best to my ears in my room with my music, with the reference being good live sound.


----------



## nova

dat56 said:


> I just prefer what sounds best to my ears in my room with my music, with the reference being good live sound.


And that is all that really matters! I really enjoyed the 601's I bought in the mid 80's, they served me well.


----------



## aceinc

dat, When I was younger in my very over simplified view of the world, I would quite often comment on someone who would defend their position in an argument by attacking the other person, as opposed to their argument as being insecure. I was/am regularly the object of those attacks because I tend to be a "devil's advocate."

My current observation is not that a person is "insecure" but that they do not have the information necessary to defnd their position with "facts" and attempt to discredit the individual, thereby invalidating an argument that they otherwise cannot counter. If you watch political discourse you will find it used on a regular basis.

I consider that once a person attacks me personally during a discussion as winning the argument, as the other person no longer has anything of substance to say. 

I would love to hear your 901's in your room, as I believe that you have found a current personal audio Nirvana, I would also encourage you to listen to my KEF 105/4s in my room, as I feel they sound pretty good as well. In the end you may dislike my setup and I yours, but I would like to experience what you consider "great."

<Anecdote>
A few years ago I wanted to listen to some planar style speakers to see what I was missing. I contacted a local dealer who sells "Eminent Technologies" speakers. I told him what I wanted to do and set up an appointment. Arriving at the appointed time the proprietor sat me in the "sweetspot couch" and proceeded to evangelize for over an hour on high end vinyl and tube equipment. He became inceasingly more agitated as it became apparent I wasn't going to have an aural epiphany. Needless to say I never heard the ET speakers I came to listen to. He then had the gaul to tell me I was wasting his time.
</Anecdote>

Paul


----------



## gsmollin

dat56 said:


> No...no LE/DE design effect, intended or unintended. Just a normal room, 16x18.5x8.75', although there is one unique feature: a 1.5' deep floor-to-ceiling niche located in the middle of one long wall. It is three feet wide, with 45-degree angled walls coming out to the main wall. Basically, it forms a crude parabolic reflector smack in the middle of a long wall. My short wall set-up, with the listening position towards the other end of the room minimizes the effect, though, I feel. Other than the niche, the room is very typical: concrete floor with thin, office-style carpet; ½" drywall over insulated 2x4 stud walls and drywall ceiling. All drywall surfaces are textured.
> 
> I do realize the bass issues I have had in the past with this room are directly related to it's dimensions. And the 901's placement, away from room boundaries and within Bose's recommended parameters, seems to almost eliminate that problem. As for the "dead and lifeless" sound conventional speakers have exhibited, I really have to think that the room's dimensions and relatively small size are the culprit there. In my experience, the best sounding rooms have decay signatures that are pretty much linear from the bass frequencies right on up to the limits of audibility. [Which means the room doesn't hold on to the notes at one frequency much more than another. And the duration of the decay must be natural. Too short equals dead sound. Too long equals echo-ey sound.] And that's hard to achieve in a small, rather boxy room. If you look at my room's dimensions, you'll see some problems, especially with the niche factored in.
> 
> I guess this has strayed from the thread topic a bit.:sweat: Suffice to say my experience and that of friends, with Bose has been exemplary. My own personal experience has all been with the 901, so that is the only model I can comment on.
> 
> My "taste" has been called into question a couple of times over the course of my participation in this thread. That's OK. I will just say my "taste" is defined by the sound of live music. And my 901's give me more of that in this room than anything else I've tried. A lot of "hi-fi" sounds great on it's own terms, but just not too much like live music. I think that is key. And many people prefer hi-fi sound to live music. And yes, I've heard lots of bad sounding live music, too. And I prefer lot's of hi-fi sound to some of that. Still, the fact remains that superlative live sound is the gold standard. Otherwise the purpose of high fidelity reproduction is called into question. In other words, high fidelity to what?
> 
> I hope this thread is not shut down (euthanized), but is allowed to fade into oblivion -a natural death. Many threads go on longer than this one has. As long as there is give and take and it doesn't devolve into pure Bose bashing, why kill it off. Are you going to make Bose off limits for thread topics?
> 
> I know there is much vitriol directed at Bose. They seem to be every audiophile's favorite object of derision. Which I don't really understand. Oh sure, even I don't like the commercial that goes something like, In the past complicated equipment was needed for lifelike sound... -but I dismiss it as advertising hyperbole. Like all the speakers that are claimed to be the best in the world; I don't really take them too seriously, either. I think there is room for everybody at the table. Krell and Wilson, and also Bose and Bang & Olufson. No?
> 
> So, at the end of the day, I consider the Bose 901 to be a classic loudspeaker and one that remains one of the best values in audio. I don't denigrate anyone else's loudpeaker choice, but I will defend mine. Some folks prefer this technology or that. I just prefer what sounds best to my ears in my room with my music, with the reference being good live sound.


I wasn't planning on replying, I too hope this thread fades. However I must defend my statement about your taste. I did not question your taste, I stated the opposite. Your taste in speakers, food, and whatever else is yours to have. Bon appetite.

With the ceiling mount on your 901s, you must be getting spacious sound, indeed. Direct radiators on the floor have their midrange reflections absorbed by the carpet. That is why the sound seems to fall to the floor. In a sense, it is. The ceiling is drywall, which is an efficient reflector for those same sound waves coming from the 901s. Clearly, this is your choice.

My taste in speakers runs to B&W, with a set of carefully placed acoustic panels to absorb the back wave and side waves. With the acoustic panels in place, I hear a three dimensional sound stage that is as big as a concert hall when I listen to a symphony, or as small as my listening room when I play a solo recording. Without the panels I hear reflections from all over my room, which I find pretty tiring. Ciao.


----------



## dat56

aceinc said:


> I would love to hear your 901's in your room, as I believe that you have found a current personal audio Nirvana, I would also encorage you to listen to my KEF 105/4s in my room, as I feel they sound pretty good as well. In the end you may dislike my setup and I yours, but I would like to experience what you consider "great."


I've certainly read many glowing reviews of KEF loudspeakers over the years, but I've had very few opportunities to hear them myself. I'm sure your set-up sounds wonderful!

I should qualify my "great" assessment of the 901's here... It is great, but I've heard better -just not in this room! The best reproduced sound I've ever heard was at Flip's Stereo in St. Louis, MO in the mid-Eighties. It was a pair of klipschorns playing Paul Simon's "Graceland" in a huge showroom: open floorplan, high, vaulted ceiling, many hard reflective surfaces, and also much diffusion and a few absorptive surfaces, too. The only problem with that sound was the knowledge I would probably never be able to duplicate that acoustic unless I converted a barn into a giant music room.:rolleyesno:


----------



## aceinc

> I would probably never be able to duplicate that acoustic unless I converted a barn into a giant music room.


A true audiophile (audio nut) would have started moving the cows out that afternoon.:dumbcrazy:

Paul


----------



## dat56

gsmollin said:


> My taste in speakers runs to B&W, with a set of carefully placed acoustic panels to absorb the back wave and side waves. With the acoustic panels in place, I hear a three dimensional sound stage that is as big as a concert hall when I listen to a symphony, or as small as my listening room when I play a solo recording. Without the panels I hear reflections from all over my room, which I find pretty tiring. Ciao.


I've heard many great-sounding B&W models that have left very favorable impressions on me: 805's that sounded impossibly full and dynamic for their size; 801's that just blew me away! -though they do tend to be a little bass heavy to my ears; and the 703's I owned for awhile. I've also heard many sterling examples of the 600 series.

Part of my problem is that our designated "man-cave" does have some definite acoustic issues. Our family room has a much better sound. Pretty much anything you drop in there sounds very good, and with minimal fuss and bother. But, that is a _family_ room, and we have three kids at home, aged 12-17 -'nuff said. The living room would probably sound good but it is off limits according to SWMBO. So that leaves me with one room in which to play: 8.75 x 16 x 18.5 plus the niche, which I suspect is the source of much of the audio grief I've had with this room. Also, it is a closed-off room, which is both good and bad. Over the course of 11 years here, I've tried enough speakers in this room to know what works and what doesn't. And I will never try conventional direct radiators in there again. The 901's sound great, but I suspect Definitive and Mirage might also sound good. But I like the way the 901's alleviate the rooms bass problems by avoiding close proximity to any room boundary. 

Oh well, I've blathered on about the 901 for too long. Maybe our next house will have a proper room for a nice set of horns and I'll be back singing _their_ praises.:rant:


----------



## isaeagle4031

Having read thru this whole post (and needing to get my requiste 5 posts in) I thought I would add a bit of opinion and a bit of emperical data (though that does need to come off the top of my head, so take it for what its worth)

Many years ago when I first heard Bose (301/501/601) I was impressed for their size compared to others at the time. I was not impressed with the 901s at all (other than the "cool" factor of 9 drivers, I was young), but they were not in their ideal set-up either. Later I did hear them properly in-place and did not like what I heard at all. While there are many speakers that use EQ, it is an absolute must with the 901s. Why? Because of the physical limitations of the driver, simply put. The EQ adds such a high level that once the drivers are pushed they physically can not be pushed any farther and that to me is a real downfall and the place where distortion will quickly set in. My speakers simply do not need that. Eq should be more about adjusting for room anomilies than fixing what the speaker is uncapable of doing. 

I recently picked up a pair of 301 s2's at a garage sale for $10 for the pair! At that price, they were worth it to me, but certainly not at the price they origianlly sold for. IMO their are just too many others available that sound much better for the money. After removing the woofers, my suspicions were confirmed, no real x-over, jsut a cap on the tweets a bit of stuffing and an 8" woofer trying its best to replicate freqs that it just can not do correctly. If the intent is direct/reflecting, then why allow an 8" driver to beam the mid/high freqs? Why not rely on the tweets to do that? Because the tweets aren't capable of it either! They make fine garage speaks, but for me thats about it.

I believe that much of what Dr Bose originally intended is good, but much of that has been lost or simply has not progressed in the intrest of marketing (this is a business after all with the goal of making money, heaven forbid) Much of his design process just has not advanced as it should have. It has become more about taking the same basic thought process and applying it across multiple lines for many, many years.


----------



## dat56

First, welcome th the forums! (I'm a newbie here myself.)

A couple of points: Dr. Bose is not the only, or even the first to design speakers with minimalist crossovers, or even with no crossovers. Proabably the most successful, though. It's a valid design concept with many advantages, and yes, with some disadvantages. Many respected high-end designers use minimalist x/o designs. No crossovers at all is a kind of "holy grail" among speaker builders, but is certainly difficult to pull off, judging by the few such designs on the market, the 901 being obviously the most successful.

Regarding the "need" for eq in the 901, it's just part of the concept, not an indicator of weakness or poor design. What is a passive x/o if not a type of eq!


----------



## isaeagle4031

Yes a point-source x-overless setup is deemed by many to be ideal. To me the drivers in the 901 are some of the limiting factors though. The Eq is necessary to make up for the lack of real quality in this driver. Yes a x-over is a bit of an EQ, but most of the time we are trying to minimalize the amount of x-over work necessary in a design. It is really an overall "where do I comprise?" concept. The Bose line-up for the most part, the 901 in particular, is trying to be the do-all, end-all of speaker design and in so doing has some major limiting factors. A 3" driver with no throw to speak of simply can not replicate the audio spectrum necessary. Even in multiples such as it used. Something is going to give and in this case it is the upper and lower areas of that spectrum. While some may state that the driver is capable of 18Khz reproduction, the question is at what cost? what is the amount of distortion, off-axis response, and other anomolies that ALL drivers of this type will display? 

Not to take away with from the work that Dr Bose has done. Their are others that have taken some of his ideas and cues and expounded on them. My take of Bose as a company is that they believe they are the elite and that everyone else is simply playing catch-up. That is simply not the case and as such does not warrant the exorbirant prices asked for their equipment. True the same can be said of many others, but this thread is about Bose and not them....


----------



## dat56

Covering the audible spectrum with nine 4.5" drivers per speaker does definitely require...something! Creative porting, eq'ing the low and high end and specifying speaker placement within the room seems to be big factors. Of course, nine 4.5" drivers has a radating area comparable to a single 13" driver so getting some serious bass starts to look a little less impossible in light of that fact. And as for high frequency dispersion, the way the back drivers bounce sound off the the back wall and sidewalls will tend to compensate for the high-frequency beaming of the individual drivers.

I'm not sure how Bose views their place in the market. "Elite"? Maybe. I'm sure they are aware that they are generally reviled in the audiophile community, though. They probably don't care much as that is not their target demographic. They seem to really target those who want quality sound with the least muss and fuss, and with the least loss of living space. How well they succeed on those terms is, I suppose, a matter of opinion. I've got 901 Series VI speakers and AE2 headpones and I'm very happy with both. Maybe I'm not a true, golden-eared audiophile!


----------



## blackzarg

dat56 said:


> Covering the audible spectrum with nine 4.5" drivers per speaker does definitely require...something! Creative porting, eq'ing the low and high end and specifying speaker placement within the room seems to be big factors. Of course, nine 4.5" drivers has a radating area comparable to a single 13" driver so getting some serious bass starts to look a little less impossible in light of that fact. And as for high frequency dispersion, the way the back drivers bounce sound off the the back wall and sidewalls will tend to compensate for the high-frequency beaming of the individual drivers.
> 
> I'm not sure how Bose views their place in the market. "Elite"? Maybe. I'm sure they are aware that they are generally reviled in the audiophile community, though. They probably don't care much as that is not their target demographic. They seem to really target those who want quality sound with the least muss and fuss, and with the least loss of living space. How well they succeed on those terms is, I suppose, a matter of opinion. I've got 901 Series VI speakers and AE2 headpones and I'm very happy with both. Maybe I'm not a true, golden-eared audiophile!


Without reading the thread, my opinion of Bose (and other companies that audiophiles bash on) is that they don't make bad products, they just overcharge for them. I'm sure the Acoustimass are comparable with the Energy Takes, or the Boston Acoustic Soundware speakers, but the latter cost less than half of the Acoustimass.

Same with Monster... I actually like how their cables and HT products look, but wouldn't pay their MSRP for them.


----------



## dat56

Sure, they may seem a bit pricey compared to...well, to be honest, many of their products don't have direct competition. Well, they do, but usually Bose' products are so unique as to _seem_ like nothing compares. Acoustimas for instance: Yes, there are many ultra compact sub/sat systems on the market, but most are not like the Bose (3 small drivers in a bandpass sub; multiple small, full range drivers in separate, aimable enclosures in the sats). When you look at all their different products, you see similar originality of design: the 901 and 301 speakers; the Wave radio. Almost everything is unique in some ways. Whether that's a good thing or not is always a matter of opinion.

As to their relative value at the prices they ask...again, a matter of opinion. Their value depends upon what _you_, the customer values. Is John Deere really worth the premium they get? I dunno. Apparently lots of folks think so. Same with Bose.


----------



## rdaltx

As far as opinions, mine is that the most unique thing about Bose products is the percentage of cost related to marketing. It is comparable to drug manufactuers where real cost of making product is about 15% of retail cost.


----------



## TypeA

blackzarg said:


> my opinion of Bose (and other companies that audiophiles bash on) is that they don't make bad products, they just overcharge for them.


A speakers' sole intended purpose is to reproduce sound as faithfully as possible to the _artist's_ vision. 

_Any_ speaker, at any price, that performs very poorly in its intended purpose can _easily_ be considered "bad." In the case of Bose, massive chunks of both high and low missing sound frequencies, and horrendous frequency response in the sound frequencies it _does_ reproduce, is why theyre bashed. 

Dont get me wrong, if youre all for what _Dr. Amar Bose_ wanted you to hear, great, but youre robbing yourself of what the artist wanted you to hear. I personally would like to hear what the _artist_ intended I hear, and Id like to hear it _all_ please. Its not costly to get it much closer to what the artist intended, my personal speaker choice is a great example of that. Most cheap speaker lines will beat Bose in value even if Bose were _free_, and thats across the entire line of Bose speakers.


----------



## thefivestring

I've found the "Mediamate" portable computer speakers have a reasonably wide and even response. I like to use them when I travel for quick editing of live recordings. They're not very expensive and they travel well in a laptop case. I've never been a big Bose fan (I get the hype) but I've found these to be worth the money.

Buddy


----------



## gdstupak

I was trying to wait to get solid measurements with my Bose Acoustimass system before commenting on this thread, but I can't bite my tongue any longer.

---First is the Acoustimass physical qualities: 
The cubes and bass module are very well constructed and very solid. They even tinned the ends of the speaker wire. The cheapest part to me is the use of spring clips. 
My parents are still using the AM5's that I originally purchased back around 1993. All the enclosures and fabric speaker coverings still look brand new. Still feel very solid, the sats still rotate very smoothly. Never had a problem (even with the paper woofers that everyone bashes) and believe me, their first 5 years of life saw very hard usage, then they were pampered after my parents got them.
I have a set that a buddy gave me that's almost 15 years old. Not as immaculate as my original set, but still in great condition for the age.

---Frequency response:
It's been several years since the last test, but I have done frequency testing on the set in 4 different locations and found them to be very acceptable, no big chunks missing. Hopefully I will have REW running in the near future and can post some results (of course, if the results turn out bad, I probably wouldn't post them because I don't want to eat my words. Just kidding, I'll post them no matter how they turn out). I know the controversy of the "wrong" size tweeters/midrange, but we'll see.

---Sound:
They definitely sound different. Originally when they were my only speakers, I would listen to others and I liked the sound of my Bose better. Now, I'm not sure, need to do more listening (I definitely like the sound of my JBL's much better).

---Price:
Overpriced? I'm not sure because they really are made well with great materials (even all the spring clips are still very secure).
If you're expecting audiophile/accurate sound, they are overpriced and not right for you.

--My last word:
Probably not very accurate speakers, but they do sound good. Kinda comparable to CD vs vinyl, CD is much more accurate than vinyl but many people prefer the sound of vinyl.


----------



## dat56

TypeA said:


> A speakers' sole intended purpose is to reproduce sound as faithfully as possible to the _artist's_ vision.
> 
> _Any_ speaker, at any price, that performs very poorly in its intended purpose can _easily_ be considered "bad." In the case of Bose, massive chunks of both high and low missing sound frequencies, and horrendous frequency response in the sound frequencies it _does_ reproduce, is why theyre bashed.
> 
> Dont get me wrong, if youre all for what _Dr. Amar Bose_ wanted you to hear, great, but youre robbing yourself of what the artist wanted you to hear. I personally would like to hear what the _artist_ intended I hear, and Id like to hear it _all_ please. Its not costly to get it much closer to what the artist intended, my personal speaker choice is a great example of that. Most cheap speaker lines will beat Bose in value even if Bose were _free_, and thats across the entire line of Bose speakers.



A. How do you know what the artist's vision is? :huh:

B. What "chunks" are missing from what models? Virtually all ultra-compact sub/sats are light in the 100-200 Hz region; not just Bose. 

C. What cheaper speaker lines do you have in mind?


----------



## tesseract

I was pretty surprised by a pair of 10.2's a friend had. He bought them for $100 used, and they delivered well beyond that price point. I even surprised myself and offered to buy them from him for a background music system. We both agreed they were no match for the AR's I had at the time, but still... 

I liked the 10.2 better than the 901.

New BOSE? Not worth the money they ask.


----------



## gdstupak

dat56 said:


> A. How do you know what the artist's vision is?


There is equipment out there that imparts it's own sound into the reproduction. Some speakers and amps are said to produce a "warm" or "laid back" sound. The more the equipment changes the sound from the source, the less we hear of the artist's vision.

A totally neutral system will get us closest to what the artist intended us to hear.
I do not believe the Acoustimass systems are very neutral. But as mentioned earlier, they are pleasing to listen to.


----------



## smurphy522

class a said:


> Direct reflecting what a great marketing term. Basically all speakers are direct reflecting that's why we add room treatments, carpets,:sn: curtains & move our speakers either near or away from side and back walls. I must admit before I got into this hobby I had a bose 2.1 lifstyle system. Let's face it if your just someone that's just happy with a few cubes and not a critical listener it's a pretty easy choice. I'm curious to see how well the new $5000 Bose surround sound TV does. Has anyone seen it?? Should I trade in my Aerials and Pioneer Elite TV for this cutting edge system?????????


*Class*: If you do decide to get the Bose TV I'll be glad to pay you for the shipping and your time and take those Aerials and the Elite off your hands. LOL

Well in my days of retail (Circuit City A/V Sales Mgr. and road shop Mgr.) I saw many a Bose sale. I even took the Bose training they provided and got the goodies from selling Bose products. Bose had a points system where you tracked the products sold via a invoice copy and sent it all into Bose for their products. I did not know any of us who participated that actually kept the products we "earned". I gave a AM7 set to my dad for Christmas one year. Point is that those of us who were able to take time to know the products most often chose something else. If you Demoed a Bose disc w/Bose speakers against others it may have been close, but a demo w/ most any other music (not engineered by Bose) then usually the alternate and usually less $ speaker was chosen. That is if it was a informed and serious listener. Lots of folks came in with their spouses or girl friends and just said "give me that Bose set" I like the look of it. No problem, I was glad to make the sale and most of thew time they were very happy. The lifestyle systems and others are not really designed for an audiophile. they are for those who don't want to/can't learn how to operate a receiver and other separates. Also they are the "ultimate" WAF system. I don't believe any true audiophile is stopped by such a challenge.

These of course were not audiophiles (not that may audiophiles actually shopped frequently at CC though). We did carry the JBL L line and the Infinity Crescendo (think Kappa ii made for CC). To this day I still listen and use my Kappa ii's and JBL L1's. CC also carried Carver separates for a spat - I kick myself for not taking advantage of that Promo.

Bose and audiophile should not be used in the same sentence - it is an insult to those of us who care.

Yes the 10, 8 and 901 series were decent offerings from Bose but having A-B'd them next to comparable JBL or Infinity products I would go for one of the latter every time and usually pocket the $ difference. Most of my customers would do the same if they actually took the time to listen to the details.


----------



## TypeA

dat56 said:


> A. How do you know what the artist's vision is? :huh:


See gdstupak's reply above.



> B. What "chunks" are missing from what models? Virtually all ultra-compact sub/sats are light in the 100-200 Hz region; not just Bose.


AM-15 Acoustimass system ignores audible signals from 20Hz to 45Hz on the low end (deep bass), and 13KHz to 20KHz on the high end (high treble)

AM-15 Acoustimass's bass module responds to 46 Hz to 202 Hz at ±2.3 dB, while the satellites respond to 280 Hz to 13.3 KHz at ±10.5 dB....this leaves a frequency gap between the satellites and bass module of about 80 Hz.

AM-15 Acoustimass system 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! 

Not only will you be missing out on a considerable amount of sound with Bose, but the fact that the subwoofer has to respond to frequencies as high as 280 Hz means that there will be extreme amounts of localized midbass in the Bass Module. A well-mated subwoofer should never have to produce any frequencies above 80 Hz and ideally should be crossed over around 60-70 Hz.

Data gathered by S&V from an anechoic frequency sweep test of the Acoustimass-15 unit:










While the numbers arent everything, even a lowly $400 Klipsch system doesnt have the massive missing freqs:

FREQUENCY RESPONSE
System: 40Hz - 20kHz
Sats: 150Hz - 20kHz
Sub: 40Hz - 200Hz
http://www.klipsch.com/na-en/products/hd-theater-300-specifications/

A sweep:










http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/content/klipsch-hd-theater-300-0



> C. What cheaper speaker lines do you have in mind?


http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/speakers/satellite/tannoy-5-1-fx/page-8

"They will out perform any HTIB solution that I have heard to date. And if you were even remotely thinking of running out and buying a Bose system, consider that Tannoys cost about two-thirds less, and in my opinion, sound much better and have a superior build quality."





As mentioned, almost all others. Anyone who actually posts their performance numbers and systems that are reviewed (complete with measurements) by pros. Pro publications wont review Bose systems for fear of losing the millions Bose spends on marketing.

From a commenter, ehlarson, at AVS: "I think Bose automatically disqualifies itself from consideration as a company to do business with by suing reviewers. 

Combined with the fact that they don't publish any technical specifications and actively make it hard for shoppers to direct comparisons between their products and other offerings, it is clear that they are actively working to prevent informed evaluation of their product. 

I think consumers should avoid companies who act in this manner."

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


----------



## jackfish

I liked that...


----------



## gdstupak

TypeA said:


> AM-15 Acoustimass system ignores audible signals from 20Hz to 45Hz on the low end (deep bass)
> AM-15 Acoustimass's bass module responds to 46 Hz to 202 Hz at ±2.3 dB, while the satellites respond to 280 Hz to 13.3 KHz at ±10.5 dB....this leaves a frequency gap between the satellites and bass module of about 80 Hz.
> A well-mated subwoofer should never have to produce any frequencies above 80 Hz and ideally should be crossed over around 60-70 Hz.


I've never thought of the Accoustimass box as a 'subwoofer,' it works very well as the systems woofer, which plays low enough to make it a decent full range system. It does not ignore signals lower than 46hz, it plays them fine, I know, I have several.
That frequency gap between the bass module and sats isn't a black hole where there is no sound, it is a dip in the frequency response. There are many systems that do not have a flat frequency response.
I'll have to check out the upper frequencies again, but I don't remember them being that bad.

To be continued....


----------



## caper26

dat56 said:


> B. What "chunks" are missing from what models? Virtually all ultra-compact sub/sats are light in the 100-200 Hz region; not just Bose.


I think he means these chunks: http://www.intellexual.net/bose.html#number1

Wooops, guess I should read the rest of the thread before posting next time, lol !!


----------



## dat56

I think the most interesting thing is not how Bose products perform (or not). It's why Bose generates all this vitriol, and yet remains probably the best known, and I would guess, one of the most successful audio companies. I guess that's a bit of a different subject, though.

I see nothing in the posted specs of the Bose sub/sat system that I find alarming. The gap between the bass module response (Bose doesn't generally refer to them as "subwoofers") and the sats is typical of ALL ultra compact sub/sat systems. And being down 3dB at 46Hz is actually quite good for a small sub...er, I mean bass module. The top end response figure is just a bit misleading too...a typical dome tweeter gets very directional above 10kHz or so, and as such, will not benefit from the room fill, where the two "twiddlers" Bose uses can actually produce a subjectively more natural high end response when they are aimed for best coverage.

Of course the most obvious point is the writer of the article obviously was a Bose hater from the get-go and was out to try to make them look bad. I'd say he actually failed. For instance, complaining about enclosure bracing in a 3-4" cube is kind of ridiculous. The upshot is, whatever he says is automatically suspect because he was far from impartial.

I owned klipsch la scala II's for few months. 175 pounds each, $6000/pr. and no bass below 50Hz....Class A Stereophile rating. Judging them based on their bass -3dB point is stupid, right? Same with the Bose. 

I think it's obvious Bose tries build speakers that sound good to people. I don't think they put too much stock in specsmanship.


----------



## rdaltx

"Probably not very accurate speakers, but they do sound good. Kinda comparable to CD vs vinyl, CD is much more accurate than vinyl but many people prefer the sound of vinyl"
I have to take exception to the recent above statement. This may be a little off thread but I had to respond after reading it. Analog reproduction like any recording method has its own problems, tape hiss, surface noise, and a few others I need not include. All recording methods have their own unique inherent problems. But to address the term accurate, almost every person with any understanding of digital sound will agree that the best is the highest sample rate. Analog is an infinite sample rate. Try this in digital!


----------



## gdstupak

rdaltx said:


> Analog is an infinite sample rate. Try this in digital!


Just because something has a higher sample rate (even an infinite sample rate) has no bearing on accuracy.

And I've read so many of these Bose Accoustimass hater articles telling us 'facts' that I know not to be true, I'm sure the writers of these articles have never tested the speakers for themselves.


----------



## Moonfly

I think the testing that has been done is pretty ok personally, and likely to a higher standard than that some one could do themselves. That said, I think in room measurements are probably of the most value.


----------



## tonyvdb

> Analog is an infinite sample rate. Try this in digital!


Analog verses Digital has nothing to do with the quality of Bose. There is not a Bose speaker or system out there that can reproduce the full dynamics of a digital signal anyhow, I dont know of one Bose system that can go below 30Hz or for that matter above 16kHz with clean sound. As others have pointed out there is a huge hole of missing frequency response with the Bose cube/satellite system and thats not even talking about the wave radio and other systems they market.
Bose has a niche market and they cater to those people. People who have good knowledge of speaker design and sound reproduction stay away from Bose as they know better.


----------



## caper26

Has anyone here seen the movie "Crazy People". There is a quote by the head advertising guy:

With snack foods, you have to drill, drill, DRILL! that target audience until they're consuming your product, not because they want to, but because they can't escape it!"
I think that about sums it up. They know no one else really markets audio gear very much. I read somewhere about XX percent of people that go shopping for a new HT, that really know nothing about HT, actually have planned to buy BOSE, before they even get to the store. Kinda like those infomercials...how many of those "inventors" are millionaires? Same idea?


----------



## gsmollin

dat56 said:


> I owned klipsch la scala II's for few months. 175 pounds each, $6000/pr. and no bass below 50Hz....Class A Stereophile rating. Judging them based on their bass -3dB point is stupid, right? Same with the Bose.


We agree, it would be stupid to compare the La Scalas to an Acoustimass system. The bass response below the -3dB point is an issue, however. The rolloff on the La Scalas is -12 dB/octave below 50 Hz. The rolloff on the Bose bass box is -24 dB/octave below 50 Hz. Other than that difference, the 105 dB/W sensitivity, 125 dB power handling, ruler-flat frequency response, controlled dispersion, gentle crossover-phase response, low distortion, and there is more that I won't go into. Frankly, I don't know how you can tolerate a Bose system after listening to a high quality full range horn system.


----------



## gdstupak

Haven't gotten REW going so I manually took measurements and made a chart (see Adobe pdf attachment). 
As you can see there is a dip between 160hz-316hz. This dip is only 5db lower than the target db of 82hz, it is a slightly noticeable difference in testing but not enough to say that the sound is 'missing.' 
From 2Khz on up, it does a bit better than my JBL's (even above 10Khz).
Below 40hz, the Bose don't do too badly compared to either of the other 2 12" floorstanders, the JBL's and the DCM's.

Now for the testing details:
--Testing location was my great room, same physical layout that is in my pics.
--All L/R speakers were placed at the exact same spot. Each speaker was 14' from the spl meter.
--The Bose bass module was placed 4.5' from the front wall, 8' from side walls, 10' from the spl meter. It was turned so the port was facing the side wall (module placement had a great effect on the frequency response, although I did not have time to find the best spot).
--All speaker set testing used the same avr set up: no corrections (no Audyssey, no eq), no outboard amp, no outboard eq.
--The main volume for each speaker set was set to 82db at 1Khz.

TEST CD: stereophile Test CD2, tracks 16,17,18. 20hz-20Khz, 1/3 octave, warble tones.
DVD/CD PLAYER: Panasonic DMP-BD35
SPL METER: Craftsman Analog 82297, C weighting, slow.
AVR: Onkyo TX-SR706

SPEAKER SETS: 
(1) Bose AM5 (circa 1995)
(2) JBL Studio S312, 12" tower (circa 2003)
(3) DCM KX12 II, 12" tower (circa 1998)


----------



## dat56

gsmollin said:


> We agree, it would be stupid to compare the La Scalas to an Acoustimass system. The bass response below the -3dB point is an issue, however. The rolloff on the La Scalas is -12 dB/octave below 50 Hz. The rolloff on the Bose bass box is -24 dB/octave below 50 Hz. Other than that difference, the 105 dB/W sensitivity, 125 dB power handling, ruler-flat frequency response, controlled dispersion, gentle crossover-phase response, low distortion, and there is more that I won't go into. Frankly, I don't know how you can tolerate a Bose system after listening to a high quality full range horn system.


I didn't say anything about comparing LS2's to a Bose acoustimas system. I said it would be stupid to judge either system based on their -3 dB bass point...but I agree; It would be, if not stupid, then quite silly.

The klipsch la scala II's are great speakers. But not in the room I now have the 901's in. Actually, I didn't try the LS2's in there, but I did have a pair of k-horns in there for about four years. The 901's would blow them away! I love big ol' horns. Just not in my man-cave! Horns need room to sing. I think they sound best in big, reverberant rooms. The 901 sounds best in small to medium rooms, especially ones with a short decay time. Just my humble o.


----------



## lcaillo

I think the use of the word "stupid" even when carefully directed as it has been in the last few posts, gets dangerously close to the fringe of what we expect in posting style at Home Theater Shack. I suggest that we continue to be very careful about how we characterize the ideas of others. 

Bose and Klipsch have both been the target of much hyperbole over the years. The simple fact is that many people have loved and enjoyed their products. Regardless of the anomolies or limits in frequency response, people may choose that particular sound. The choice of a particular product is the result of a complex set of factors that do include much that has nothing to do with frequency response. I have sold LaScalas and worked with dozens of clients who owned 901s and Acoustimas systems. Their feelings about the products usually have little to do with response directly. Most of them never even see frequency response curves. They just listen to what they like. Many discover that they actually like something else better, but others never need anything else. To understand what people like about these products you have to look beyond the response. That may not be something that seems relevant to many more technically minded readers here, but to ignore the rest of the story misses the real reasons that people make these choices. Yes, it has much more to do with subjective impressions often guided by marketing or "buzz" from fans of a product. But if people are happy with the result...


----------



## TypeA

lcaillo said:


> That may not be something that seems relevant to many more technically minded readers here, but to ignore the rest of the story misses the real reasons that people make these choices. Yes, it has much more to do with subjective impressions often guided by marketing or "buzz" from fans of a product. But if people are happy with the result...


I made the Bose choice out of pure ignorance, it saddens me that I didnt take the time to find better solutions for less money. For ten years my theater was comprised of 901 VI, 301 IV and a vcs 10 in zone 1, plus a acoustimass system in zone 2, and my cheaper infinity 162 system puts my old Bose system to shame in every regard, but especially when it comes to music. Perhaps some of that can be attributed to dsx processing and audyssey xt plus a couple of good subs, which the Bose system never saw, but that doesnt explain the obvious gain in high freqs, superior dynamics, much more coherent dialog, and imaging that will just plain curl your toes. Its also very easy for me to dislike Bose on a personal level, a companies business practices does make a difference to me...


----------



## Jungle Jack

Hello,
Bose being the best known Company is from the amazing amount of Advertising they do. And if you notice, Bose Ad's are not in A/V Publications, rather, Parade Magazine, Womens Home Journal, and the like. That is saying nothing of their TV Advertisements.

The fact is the vast majority of people have never heard accurate speakers. I wish that was not the case, but between, iPods, Soundbars, HTIB's, etc, music/HT has gone from being a communal experience to more and more an individual one.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## lcaillo

I will not disagree that there are reasons to dislike many companies in this business. The fact that Bose is not helpful to independent servicers who try to service their customer's products is something that I abhor. They are not unique in that behavior, however.

We should maintain context when discussing preferences. When we discuss technical aspects of performance, we similarly must stick to the facts and put them in a fair context. When we talk about response and use descriptions like "produces 13,176 of the 19,980 Hertz in the audible sound...roughly 66% of the actual recording being played," we are using specifications in a very misleading manner. When you use phrases that attribute human intent to a loudspeaker like "ignores audible signals," you are confounding facts and emotion. The facts are that very little of what is heard by most people is in that missing range, not 34%, and the speakers simply reproduce a rapidly decreasing amount of the bass on the low end. We need to be careful to understand and discuss the technical comparisons to other products in the context of similar design and priced products, and the emotional reasons for preference and purchase in the proper frames of reference. When we make an argument based upon technical data, there is little room for the kind of spin that we often see in these kinds of threads that exaggerate the meaning of that data, IMO. 

That said, and for the record, I have never seen a case where a Bose product was what I considered to be a good value, and I have never liked what I heard from them. Others have different views, and I respect their right to have them. Others simply prefer to remain blissfully without the knowledge of what might be better, and we must respect their right to buy what they want.


----------



## gsmollin

lcaillo said:


> I think the use of the word "stupid" even when carefully directed as it has been in the last few posts, gets dangerously close to the fringe of what we expect in posting style at Home Theater Shack. I suggest that we continue to be very careful about how we characterize the ideas of others.


Relax, Icaillo. This isn't AVS, and we keep it friendly here. Without the use of of the word "stupid", I have seen awful things transpire in internet forums, and I understand your concern, but it is unfounded. , I even own a pair of Bose speakers, and I'll wager most people who have drifted in and out of this thread do too.

But I would like to tack away from comparing the technical or sonic merits of the various Bose designs, and ask the most basic question of why Bose continue to enjoy selling underachieving equipment at top dollar. I was in the Bose store, again, to audition their new, $5k TV set. It was carefully set up in a room of its own, which must have been to some advantage to the audition. I was as underwhelmed as I usually am with Bose sound. Picture was OK, but I could get better for about $1k, $2k tops. That aside, I began to focus on the Bose _salesman_, and how he was conducting himself, that is, his demeanor. Then I wandered around looking at the other displays, and maintaining a smile on my face. I was approached by friendly sales staff who were anxious to show me whatever I was looking at and answer my questions. I became aware of how the sales people were so quick to draw potential sales into the Bose total experience, and close the deal in a totally non-threatening manner.

I compared that to my most recent speaker-hunting experience at the audio salons and boutiqes one must 
brave to audition top grade equipment. Many of the sales force had an arrogant and threatening manner. They made it difficult to buy speakers, instead of executing their most basic job, and making friends with the customer and selling him their product. I think the advertising blitz only can go so far. The sale force at Bose is also highly trained at closing the deal in a friendly atmosphere. The sales forces at competitors could take a lesson.


----------



## Moonfly

I have to agree with Bose comments on sales staff. I recently had a listen to some headphones in a Bose store, and the staff were refreshingly easy going, and surprisingly quite honest in comparing between their own products. Even recommending I spend less and a particular set of cans.

A look around the very minimalist looking store also makes it quite easy to see the attraction of the product. The Bose systems do sound a lot better than comparable HiTB systems, obviously based purely on looks etc. Everything looks slick and its all pretty simple to used compared to a fully loaded AVR. If people want to pay the asking price for what Bose offer, who are we to argue, I can even see what the draw is.


----------



## lcaillo

gsmollin said:


> Relax, Icaillo. This isn't AVS, and we keep it friendly here. Without the use of of the word "stupid", I have seen awful things transpire in internet forums, and I understand your concern, but it is unfounded. , I even own a pair of Bose speakers, and I'll wager most people who have drifted in and out of this thread do too.
> 
> But I would like to tack away from comparing the technical or sonic merits of the various Bose designs, and ask the most basic question of why Bose continue to enjoy selling underachieving equipment at top dollar. I was in the Bose store, again, to audition their new, $5k TV set. It was carefully set up in a room of its own, which must have been to some advantage to the audition. I was as underwhelmed as I usually am with Bose sound. Picture was OK, but I could get better for about $1k, $2k tops. That aside, I began to focus on the Bose _salesman_, and how he was conducting himself, that is, his demeanor. Then I wandered around looking at the other displays, and maintaining a smile on my face. I was approached by friendly sales staff who were anxious to show me whatever I was looking at and answer my questions. I became aware of how the sales people were so quick to draw potential sales into the Bose total experience, and close the deal in a totally non-threatening manner.
> 
> I compared that to my most recent speaker-hunting experience at the audio salons and boutiqes one must
> brave to audition top grade equipment. Many of the sales force had an arrogant and threatening manner. They made it difficult to buy speakers, instead of executing their most basic job, and making friends with the customer and selling him their product. I think the advertising blitz only can go so far. The sale force at Bose is also highly trained at closing the deal in a friendly atmosphere. The sales forces at competitors could take a lesson.


Threads derail here just like they do anywhere else. This one, in fact, was once closed because of the vitriol that was being posted. It is the very fact that we do not relax with respect to assuring that posts are made within the letter and spirit of our rules that sets Home Theater Shack apart. Keep it civil, keep it cordial, and follow the rules carefully. We do not relax on the matter.


----------

