Was Bose always Bad
- Thread starter Paratus
- Start date
Some of them are OK, I don't remember the models off the top of my head. It's when they went to making tiny speakers they started sucking.
901's were the flagship product. Early models always had surround rot but were easily repaired. Equalizers for the early models net good price! Without the EQ the sound is muddy and dull. The EQ fixes this but oh boy does it use some headroom! Get a decent 1000wpc amp and they do jump but don't have quite the snap of a horn system.
When they came out with acoustimass in the late 80's all went down hill as they started making these tiny cubes with the woofer box hidden. It was a big hit with the folks that wanted the "big stereo sound" but not a big visible presence in their living rooms. Problem is you cannot do this without having a huge hole in the midbass OR having the woofer box play these sounds which can be located spoiling the overall purpose of 2.1. It's much better to have a decent speaker minus the bass than a system with boomy bass and inaccurate mid bass. It messes the vocals up and piano music never sounds natural on those systems, etc.
Dr. Amar G. Bose started his project decades ago for a good reason! He was a musician that was not satisfied with the current speaker systems and came up with a viable solution. Now (like Klipsch) the name is what sells the product and everyone in this market just slaps the name on boxes made in China...
When they came out with acoustimass in the late 80's all went down hill as they started making these tiny cubes with the woofer box hidden. It was a big hit with the folks that wanted the "big stereo sound" but not a big visible presence in their living rooms. Problem is you cannot do this without having a huge hole in the midbass OR having the woofer box play these sounds which can be located spoiling the overall purpose of 2.1. It's much better to have a decent speaker minus the bass than a system with boomy bass and inaccurate mid bass. It messes the vocals up and piano music never sounds natural on those systems, etc.
Dr. Amar G. Bose started his project decades ago for a good reason! He was a musician that was not satisfied with the current speaker systems and came up with a viable solution. Now (like Klipsch) the name is what sells the product and everyone in this market just slaps the name on boxes made in China...
Kaido
Elite Member & Kitchen Overlord
- Feb 14, 2004
- 49,985
- 6,299
- 136
Bose isn't "bad", they're just overpriced. Kind of like Monster Cables...the cables themselves are fine, they're just overpriced. I just got a 6' gold-plated HDMI 1.3-spec cable from Monoprice for $3 - Monster Cable charges $59 for that. Same for Bose...sounds is just fine...it's just overpriced. It's like paying $40k for a Saturn...yeah the car is just fine, but it's a rip-off at that price...
sivart
Golden Member
- Oct 20, 2000
- 1,786
- 0
- 0
They aren't bad, but any company that makes finding the specs on their products nearly impossible has to be examined carefully before giving them any of your money. The most 'specs' you'll get on their website is the dimensions and weight...surely more goes into a speaker other than that.
Polk doesn't advertise their specs openly, but you can find them. They aren't bad even, they just think specs don't mean shit, which they mostly don't.
Bose is a mixed bag. Part of what makes some people so angry is that at one point they were actually trying to make good speakers and improve audio, but then they did a little experiment and found it made them boatloads of money and so switched to that (Nintendo are you listening?). For some they're ok, others say they're crap regardless. Its so easy to beat their performance for even less money that I wouldn't even consider them. Their headphones are the same way, some think they're decent just overpriced, and others think they're complete crap, and again, since its so easy to get better sound for the same or even less, why bother?
I was never impressed with their early flagship models (901 and 501) and quit listening to them until @ 5yrs ago when I heard a buddy's Acoustimass setup.
My opinion hasn't changed.
My opinion hasn't changed.
They didn't used to, and had a disclaimer saying why. Its cool that they do now, as it was kinda silly/stupid not to (especially when they certainly weren't bad).
Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
They didn't used to, and had a disclaimer saying why. Its cool that they do now, as it was kinda silly/stupid not to (especially when they certainly weren't bad).
What was their given reason? I can't imagine what it could be.
They sold themselves to mass market, instead of keeping true to their founding of better sound. Unfortunately they got sucked up into "hey we can make a shit ton more money if we make cheap products that sound good enough for most people, charge more for worse products, but because we can market it as 'better sound through research' people won't know the difference."
Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl
Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
They didn't used to, and had a disclaimer saying why. Its cool that they do now, as it was kinda silly/stupid not to (especially when they certainly weren't bad).
What was their given reason? I can't imagine what it could be.
They didn't want people to focus on the specs, that specs were less important than how they actually sound. I agree with that, but I didn't see any reason to not show the specs.
I never liked the old Bose stuff. Then again, they weren't really designed to rock.
And of course, today's Bose is utter crap. And overprice utter crap at that.
And of course, today's Bose is utter crap. And overprice utter crap at that.
Of course it didn't rock then. That's what Cerwin Vega was for!
Amp power was seriously expensive back in the 70's if you wanted over 100 wpc. Today with switching mode power supplies you can buy 1000's of watts for a decent price. (cheap sampson or behringer amp)
Bose was never "bad", but they were never anything better than "good". Certainly, nothing that has come out of Bose I would consider "great". I am not considering cost either, just sheer relative sound quality. They are certainly better than most stock TV speakers. Sound quality aside, they are a recognized brand for no-issue, out-of-the-box integration. The cost of their HTIBs mostly go into their "easy to use, no-questions asked" "receivers".
Amp power wasn't the problem. We had McIntosh. :thumbsup:Originally posted by: Loreena
Of course it didn't rock then. That's what Cerwin Vega was for!
Amp power was seriously expensive back in the 70's if you wanted over 100 wpc. Today with switching mode power supplies you can buy 1000's of watts for a decent price. (cheap sampson or behringer amp)
They simply didn't rock like the McIntosh speakers, and others, did.
Klipsch makes some fine speakers, but only at the top of the range. A cheap compression driver will always be worse than a comparable dome tweeter.
The McIntosh speakers I've heard- at least, the $26,000 model tri-amped by three huge McIntosh tube amps at a local hi-fi shop - were TERRIBLE. I'm not fond of the "transformerized" sound of the amps, either - while using an output transformer on a transistor amp made some sense in 1968, it's a bit pointless in 2008.
That's a damping factor killer there.
Those cheap comp drivers are nothing more than a small aluminum diaphragm surrounded by injection molded plastic. No engineering at all. Then again that's what their cheap computer speakers use. Paul Klipsch is rolling in his grave right now!
Those cheap comp drivers are nothing more than a small aluminum diaphragm surrounded by injection molded plastic. No engineering at all. Then again that's what their cheap computer speakers use. Paul Klipsch is rolling in his grave right now!
Interesting....some audio mag guy listened to Mac's top of the line setup a couple years ago and said it was the best sound he'd ever heard. I've never heard anyone claim what you do about their amps......which are legendary. But that's why there's lots of different companies out there. Something for everybody.
Googer
Lifer
- Nov 11, 2004
- 12,576
- 7
- 81
Yeah. Going back all the way to the 1970's Stereophile has never given them a nice review. For what Bose Asks for it's speakers, you can get an entire Axiom 7.1 or 7.2 EPIC 80 system that is true Audiophile grade.
If small speakers are your thing and size matter more than sound, then there are a ton of better alternatives to bose for much less money. Klipsch, Athena, Tannoy, Paradigm, and Axiom Midi system along with lots of others.
At one time Best Buy used to have Bose's top of the line system next to Klipsch's cheapest $500 sub and 400 satts (could be had for 50% on sale). The sales guy (not your average BB ignoramus) told me most people come in with their hearts and minds firmly planted on BOSE and after a quick side by side comparision and audition come out saving thousands of dollars and buying the Klipsch Synergy10/Quintet combination.
A few months later, I went to visit him again and the BOSE rep made them move the display far away from any competing products.
CKent
Diamond Member
- Aug 17, 2005
- 9,020
- 0
- 0
Bose really isn't the anti-christ. Their speakers do sound decent. The reason everyone justifiably hates them is they cost ~4-5 times what they're worth, and you can get something that sounds much better for much less money. If they slashed their prices by 80% and marketed their speakers as being for the budget minded rather than claiming they're for audiophiles, nobody would have a problem with them.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter