Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Constructive "Anti-Beats" headphone discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Constructive "Anti-Beats" headphone discussion - Page 16

post #226 of 548
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackmarket View Post

Quote:

The Beats are the Macs for sure.(why did I buy it? Uh, I dunno.. They're good right?)

Audio-Technica = Windows (just go with the flow, can't go wrong)

Shure = Linux (l33t)

 

 

not exactly what i meant by my earlier post...

 

what i mean is that there are a lot of people that use macbooks and defend their macbooks saying their purchase was well worth it, and then go on to bash beats saying they're complete garbage and overpriced. i'm a windows user and i try my best not to hate too much on macbooks (i'm going to go with just macbooks right now as i'm fine with some of apple's products) but to be strictly honest, i really do believe that macbooks are ridiculously overpriced and a waste of money. many macbook users may become offended by this, but isn't this exactly how a beats owner would feel when you call their headphones garbage and a waste of money? if one feels completely confident with one's purchase of a macbook and doesn't agree with all the arguments that one can have the same performance for less than half the price, then wouldn't a beats owner feel similarly about their purchase? most macbook users don't enjoy it when macbooks get hated on, so i'm sure most beats owner wouldn't enjoy it when people call the headphones that they own, garbage. the fact is that different people enjoy different sound signatures. if i had, say, a different hobby than you, would you immediately call my hobby stupid just because it's not a hobby you partake in?

 

of course, how beats decide to advertise their products is another matter

 

Interesting thread. I'm not sure anyone can be constructive about a destructive topic. wink.gif

 

I don't think Apple products are a valid comparison. I've known people in Apple and friends of mine have friends who work there. The people in Apple are very very dedicated to making high-quality products and not just shoving generic components in boxes as cheap as possible, which has become the norm in the PC industry (and as for the price discussion, you are buying the OS and other Apple software with the product, not just the hardware). The only thing I've seen Bose dedicated to doing with their speakers is shoving cheap parts inside boxes, then spending their money on advertising and fancy demo rooms that are set up to sound impressive for potential customers. Sure their noise-cancelling headphones are the best out there, but that is because they have it patented, so no-one can make noise-cancelling headphones that are as good!

 

The thing is, I'm sure Bose and Monster are capable of designing and making great gear, but, in many cases, they've decided instead to make fancy-looking and mediocre gear that is heavily marketed instead. Skullcandy have gone in the right direction hiring somebody to design great-sounding headphones and the results so far have been good.

post #227 of 548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post

Interesting thread. I don't think Apple products are a valid comparison. I've known people in Apple and friends of mine have friends who work there. The people in Apple are very very dedicated to making high-quality products and not just shoving generic components in boxes as cheap as possible, which has become the norm in the PC industry (and as for the price discussion, you are buying the OS and other Apple software with the product, not just the hardware).

I'd agree. The Mac Pro, for example, is probably one of the last true workstations in production since Sun went away. Apple just manages to get good hardware *and* good marketing all at once, which I don't think occurs anywhere else in the PC world (look at Sun, SGI, and Cray as examples of good (and probably better than Apple) hardware (but HORRIBLE marketing and constant financial troubles etc)).
Quote:
The only thing I've seen Bose dedicated to doing with their speakers is shoving cheap parts inside boxes, then spending their money on advertising and fancy demo rooms that are set up to sound impressive for potential customers. Sure their noise-cancelling headphones are the best out there, but that is because they have it patented, so no-one can make noise-cancelling headphones that are as good!

I'd disagree with this one. For a few reasons:

- Just because Bose patented their headphones doesn't mean they didn't put the work in to make them good. There actually are some ANC sets that are up to their level of performance imho (Audio-Technica and the Parrot Zik (who makes these?) are prime examples), but by and large ANC is a very cheaply done feature for most manufacturers (like Monster). My understanding of ANC tech in general is that you really have to be a field-expert in acoustics and wave propagation to innovate, and it's probably fair to say that Bose is one of the few consumer audio companies with the money to entice those people. Also remember that their original ANC equipment wasn't designed for consumers, it was designed for aviation and military use (probably with a healthy DARPA grant thrown in).

- Wouldn't it follow that if a well-designed and laid-out room sounds good in a demonstration system, you could re-create that at home? I just don't get the "they lie and cheat and scam" argument - if they're EQ'ing and modifying the equipment to accomplish good sound, isn't that still good sound? And don't they sell their own EQ solution with their modern stuff? (I don't mean the "Active Equalizer" for the 901, I think they actually have a "room correction" or "auto-configuration" package). Just thinking logically here.

- Their speakers are by and large inexpensive/cheap in general. I mean their most expensive speaker product is like what? $1100/pair? Most audiophiles won't even get out of bed for $1100/pair (where's Dave when you need him? you know, to scare us all into a coma with "mid priced" $75,000/pair speakers). And those aren't really their mass-market offerings - I see a lot of their speakers used for custom-install systems in conference rooms, retail settings, etc, and most of those are like $100-$200-$300/pair systems. Name one manufacturer who makes speakers at that level who doesn't cut corners somewhere (I've cracked enough boxes open in my time to know that at this level, there's *always* a cut corner somewhere - it doesn't matter who made it). Again, just thinking logically - I've heard the "Bose uses cheap/inexpensive parts - those drivers are only $5-$6/ea!" argument before, but nobody balks when it's pointed out that $2000/pr Polk or Klipsch speakers have less than $200 of drivers and lumber in them...why?
Quote:
The thing is, I'm sure Bose and Monster are capable of designing and making great gear, but, in many cases, they've decided instead to make fancy-looking and mediocre gear that is heavily marketed instead. Skullcandy have gone in the right direction hiring somebody to design great-sounding headphones and the results so far have been good.

Ugh. SkullCandy. Even the new ones are relatively unimpressive imho (the TOTL stuff is fine, but by and large they still just make fashion accessories and necklaces). And you have to remember - that guy SkullCandy hired, he used to work at Bose. wink.gif

Regarding Monster - my understanding is that their non-Beats products are actually fairly well regarded as-is (like their power centers, IEMs, that kind of stuff - I don't want to start a cable debate, but I will say that Monster cables are generally fairly durable and robust in my experience (which does include pro rigging); kind of expensive, but their PA stuff runs a lot lower on the price ladder than their "Sigma Elite" stuff that they sell for home theater). It's just the Beats line-up that isn't liked (and that's a separate entity now (technically I think it's part of HTC), and seems to show no interest in developing any new hardware).

Also - since you're here: why does Huddler sometimes blank or drop multi-quotes even when the "Multi" button is very clearly illuminated? tongue.gif
post #228 of 548
Quote:
Originally Posted by obobskivich View Post

It isn't really anything about Bose specifically - if you've read my other posts, I'm not really a cheerleader for them (or any other brand, except perhaps Koss because nobody else seems to know they exist).

 

Oh, totally not saying you're a fan boy or anything.  But if you told me that you had a batphone that goes off whenever Bose was mentioned, I would not be surprised.  wink.gif  Koss too.  Maybe Grados as well.

post #229 of 548
Quote:
Originally Posted by warrenpchi View Post

Oh, totally not saying you're a fan boy or anything.  But if you told me that you had a batphone that goes off whenever Bose was mentioned, I would not be surprised.  wink.gif   Koss too.  Maybe Grados as well.

post #230 of 548
Quote:
Originally Posted by obobskivich View Post

 

LOl, never understood the glass cover.  Security on that seems weak to me.  Still, probably sturdier than a pair of Beats... wink.gif

post #231 of 548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post

 

Interesting thread. I'm not sure anyone can be constructive about a destructive topic. wink.gif

 

I don't think Apple products are a valid comparison. I've known people in Apple and friends of mine have friends who work there. The people in Apple are very very dedicated to making high-quality products and not just shoving generic components in boxes as cheap as possible, which has become the norm in the PC industry (and as for the price discussion, you are buying the OS and other Apple software with the product, not just the hardware). The only thing I've seen Bose dedicated to doing with their speakers is shoving cheap parts inside boxes, then spending their money on advertising and fancy demo rooms that are set up to sound impressive for potential customers. Sure their noise-cancelling headphones are the best out there, but that is because they have it patented, so no-one can make noise-cancelling headphones that are as good!

 

The thing is, I'm sure Bose and Monster are capable of designing and making great gear, but, in many cases, they've decided instead to make fancy-looking and mediocre gear that is heavily marketed instead. Skullcandy have gone in the right direction hiring somebody to design great-sounding headphones and the results so far have been good.

 

By the way, i wasn't directly comparing apple products to monster beats products. I was saying the SITUATION that they're in is the same, as both products get bashed and called overpriced. This is a fact.


This is pretty much exactly what i meant with my earlier post. You're defending apple products for your own reasons. Some beats owners would also defend their headphones for their own reasons. The fact that you defended your (or maybe you don't own one, but that's beside the point) product means that you don't like how someone has talked about it. I'm merely stating that in my opinion apple products are much too overpriced for my needs and i would be wasting my money by getting one, but i am not going out and calling them complete garbage and beating them into the ground, as some people are doing to the beats line.

post #232 of 548
Quote:
Originally Posted by obobskivich View Post

I've heard the "Bose uses cheap/inexpensive parts - those drivers are only $5-$6/ea!" argument before, but nobody balks when it's pointed out that $2000/pr Polk or Klipsch speakers have less than $200 of drivers and lumber in them...why?

 

Yeah. It's pretty easy to say that "Bose does X, well someone else does that too." It's the sum of the argument against Bose HT speakers and their business practices related to them that is compelling, not any one individual point by itself.  For example, they spend so much on advertising that they have influence over what gets published about them. But granted, other audio manufacturers spend money on advertising and exert influence (although probably not quite so much).  And then consider Bose's aggressive litigation against negative reviews. I'm sure there are other companies that try to do that, too, although Bose has the serious financial clout to be scary and prevent voices from speaking. This is why there are no pro reviews with measurements of their HT speakers. 

 

So when one tallies up all the negatives, Bose represents so many things that are bad about the audio industry--and consumer marketing--not just one thing. More so than any other mainstream audio company. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by obobskivich View Post

There's no point in continuing this with you - literally every single hashed-out "Bose bash" trope is represented here and this entire block feels like not only has it been rehearsed, but that you've played this rodeo before; I see absolutely zero potential for rational or constructive discussion with you on this matter. Oh well. Have a nice day!

 

Well, I think there is a difference between being well-informed and "well-rehearsed." Even though you have labeled me as such, I'm not a Bose "basher." This would also imply an unreasoned, wanton attitude towards any of their products. I don't negatively criticize their headphones, which appear to be good products. And I recognize that when the Soundwave came out, it was a very good product for what it is (I think there are probably cost effective alternatives now). 

 

But in the same way that I'm not going to shop at Walmart because of their bad business practices, when they also do some things right, I boycott all of Bose's products and will speak out against the company as a whole. Boycotting is one of the only methods by which consumers can exert any pressure against large companies. 

post #233 of 548
Quote:
Originally Posted by cel4145 View Post

Yeah. It's pretty easy to say that "Bose does X, well someone else does that too." It's the sum of the argument against Bose HT speakers and their business practices related to them that is compelling, not any one individual point by itself.  For example, they spend so much on advertising that they have influence over what gets published about them.

Bose is not the only company that directly controls media through leveraging it's weight - the print industry thrives on advertising numbers and nothing else, most "tech journalism" is PR copy (and has been for a decade). You're also basically dismissing your entire argument here - "no single point is the problem" (not that any single point holds water). Their business practices are no worse (and in many cases much more responsible and sustainable; notice they're not floundering right now, don't need a "bailout" and are otherwise a successful company - from an economics perspective, they're doing it right) than anyone else, but they get picked out because they're "uncool" to enthusiasts for various reasons (I think it's mostly just to be "edgy" and show that you can talk smack, but that's just my theory).
Quote:
But granted, other audio manufacturers spend money on advertising and exert influence (although probably not quite so much).

You're making them into a big bad devil - they aren't. They're the same as everyone else.
Quote:
 And then consider Bose's aggressive litigation against negative reviews.

What "aggressive litigation?" They've sued for libel *one* time (in the 1980s, and it was founded (founded enough that they won the civil suit at least) but ultimately the decision was over-turned and reversed by the Supreme Court (and this was/is actually an interesting case in the history of free press and precedent in the US, sort of entirely unrelated)), there have been numerous negative or luke-warm reviews of Bose products published since then in everything from PC World to InnerFidelity. And they don't sue. They do not have an army of patent troll attorneys and copyrighters who hunt down and prosecute anyone who bites their thumb at them - and this is all public record, so if they did, it'd be relatively easy to dig up and expose. If you want to talk about mega-corps that are trying to control the entire world and everything in it, I think Sony or Google would be probably a far more interesting place to start.

Quote:
I'm sure there are other companies that try to do that, too, although Bose has the serious financial clout to be scary and prevent voices from speaking. This is why there are no pro reviews with measurements of their HT speakers. 

Bose does not prevent any "voices from speaking" - evidenced by how much nonsense is spewed about them online. You think we have protected freedom of speech here? We don't (Curra - I'm not trying to imply that MOTs run the board, but there is certainly a huge disjoint between what can be posted here and what I can say in a public gathering place). If they were the big bad monster you're making them out to be, what says they wouldn't just sabre-rattle with Huddler (or whatever other content provider) until all the negatives go away? And they don't. Never have, and likely never will.

Regarding "no pro reviews with measurements" - I'd like to hit this:

- First you start in about how published specs make or break a model, and they're a big deal. But in other threads I've seen you deride "acceptable" manufacturers (a few of the brands you rattled off earlier) for publishing made-up or unit-less specs (which are meaningless). Bose flat out stated about 15 years ago that they don't publish "specs" because they aren't going to play the number-invention game with everyone else. I'm not aware of any modern speaker manufacturer that publishes anything resembling "specs" either, sure, they can throw a bunch of numbers on the side of the box, but they're usually incoherent/incorrect and do not represent what the manufacturer wants to represent, do not reflect reality, or similar. angry_face.gif (leave it to Rane to come to the rescue though: http://www.rane.com/note145.html smily_headphones1.gif)

- Regarding "pro reviews" - there have been a few measurements of Bose speakers published by reviewers over the years. None of them are what I would consider definitive (most reviewer measurement set-ups are quite frankly garbage - very few people have equipment like Tyll or Harman or similar, the "close mic response" stuff that you see in HomeTheater is not standardized or reliable), but they mostly seem to support Bose's claims that they don't have massively jacked up FRs (no insane boost or cut, no v-curve, etc) and they show speakers that are *relatively* flat through the mid-pass, with sub-bass roll-off (sub-bass really isn't all that), and some acceptable treble loss (so they're over a cliff at 18k - I don't think 7 year olds are that discriminating, and most of the rest of us don't have a dog in that fight). They aren't perfect, but they don't actually measure that terribly. Coupled with their generally linear phase and coherent wave propagation, they tick a lot of boxes on the "how to do it right" chart. The only real knocks against them are the treble roll-off (and I'm sure if we could talk to an engineer, they'd argue this was a trade-off because putting tweeters in would make the linear phase/point-source design much harder to pull off), and the bass extension (which is in-line with a lot of modern speakers, not great, but that's Hoffman's Law in action - if memory is serving me, their 8th order bandpass boxes (which are some of the Acoustimass passive modules) have an F3 target of around 40hz, and the 901 have a published F3 of around 35hz (this is right on their current spec sheet unless it's seen revision in the last year); I forget what AWCS and Panaray F3 targets are, but they're in-line with similarly spec'd gear from Mackie or JBL). Additionally you have to remember the golden rule of print media: advertising. Bose is not popular with the kind of people who read Home Theater or Stereophile or whatever else, so there's no point in reviewing it or talking about it - it will piss off customers. Same reason they don't review computer speakers or headphones for the most part in those publications. Their goal is to sell newspapers, not find truth, and you sell newspapers by printing things that your target dem wants to read, and then you take those numbers and get advertising bucks. There is absolutely no objectivity in there (if there was, you'd see more negative and luke-warm reviews, and you simply do not - the only things that grace those glorious gloss pages are new gadgets to buy and explanations of how much better they will make the world). frown.gif

- Additionally there are published measurements of some of the raw drivers (some of which are being unofficially sold), and Bose does nothing about that. Not the "big evil litigation monster" you're describing, methinks. Finally, how did you say it? "I don't think it takes an audio engineer to..." figure out that a 2-4" driver run full-range is going to have some limits. The big one is the characteristic ~120hz dip in their overall system FR (this is room dependent and also the exact center-point on this dip depends on which itration of Acoustimass you're dealing with (Acoustimass itself is actually an over-arching brand-name that covers some very different box alignments (8th order double bandpass, parallel folded t-line, and folded slot vent)). Again, it isn't perfect, but given that +10 dB at 100hz is pretty popular these days, I'm somewhat inclined to say it's relieving to the ears compared to all the bass bazooka boom-boom shake the room "full size floor standing" speakers out there. basshead.gif

- Most of the MR issues mentioned above can be addressed via equalization to some level, and while this is considered a completely viable approach if we're talking Harman ARCOS, Trinnov, or even Yamaha YPAO-RSC, it seems that people get really bent out of shape when equalization is used to even-out the response of Bose speakers. I don't follow that logic at all. And remember that they're still more phase coherent and better damped than most of your current big-box offerings. Again, they are not perfect; they're the result of a lot of compromises with a specific target goal in mind: reproduce sound with the best fidelity possible in the smallest possible package with the best possible off-axis response at a given price point. Even if you don't like how their speakers sound (and this one gets me, if someone dislikes how a Bose or Beats product sounds, it's because "it's just a crappy product" but when we're talking about (apparently sanctified) brands that are "okay to own" it's just "personal preference - there is no right answer"), I think you can at least respect the engineering that goes into that feat. Thus far nobody else has managed to accomplish it - most of your "micro satellite" speakers from other manufacturers are either tinny/harsh or have equal or worse dips around that 100-200hz band. Sure, a legitimate full-range high performance monitor from Genelec or Mackie or whatever else is a superior speaker, but you're probably talking per-unit more than whatever the most expensive Bose speakers cost. And you're still going to be equalizing them. wink.gif
Quote:
So when one tallies up all the negatives, Bose represents so many things that are bad about the audio industry--and consumer marketing--not just one thing. More so than any other mainstream audio company. 

What negatives? They're a profit-oriented corporation that seems to basically leave the rest of the world alone, doesn't try to bury customers with "trendazoid" marketing (have you looked at the face-plate of a modern receiver or Blu-ray player? or even a TV? egads!), provides end-user support to their customers, and basically just does their own thing beyond that. They aren't trying to leverage government policy to re-shape how media is delivered and make it easier to start nuisance lawsuits against consumers for attempting to use the products they've bought (e.g. Sony (and before anyone assumes that I'm ripping on Sony - I'm actually enjoying my Sony headphones right now, and own a number of movies, albums, and software products that Sony has produced; no they aren't a "good guy" all the time, but they make products that fill a need imho)), and they aren't trying to force everyone else onto the same page as them either.

I really don't see any negatives here beyond "I personally dislike them" - that isn't a founded, objective argument. It's just an opinion. And you're absolutely entitled to it (and if you'll notice, I haven't actually posited an absolute value judgment either about the company, this is not a "you vs me" discussion in my book), in fact I think it's probably best that you share your opinion - a variety of beliefs is what makes interaction interesting!
Quote:
Well, I think there is a difference between being well-informed and "well-rehearsed." Even though you have labeled me as such, I'm not a Bose "basher." This would also imply an unreasoned, wanton attitude towards any of their products.

However you're simply repeating a very tired and worn-out old yarn about Bose being this "evil megacorp" that litigates their opposition, the press, the government, and everyone else into submission; brainwashes and lies to consumers by manipulating the entire market; and knowingly engages in fraudulent and other mischievous activities (and let's throw some direct criminal negligence and other stuff in for kicks, why not?). If you don't want to be labeled as a Bose basher, I can respect that (and yes, this means I won't call you a Bose basher again); but I'm still going to tell you that your entire "case" against Bose is neither original nor unique from my perspective, and that it also holds very little water when you actually look at a bigger picture (take emotion out of the game, that kind of thing) and consider actual evidence and historical precedent. It's not that I have any personal axe to grind with you (although I really do not appreciate being labeled a "shill" just for disagreeing with you), I just do not accept the evidence you're providing in support of your claims, as a result of having observed and digested stronger evidence to the contrary. And as I've said about a half-dozen times, I'm not even cheerleading for the brand - my thoughts on the performance of their products isn't a state secret - I'm just trying to look at the bigger picture in a logical manner. You're making a fairly impassioned case for them being "bad" or "the problem with the world today" and I'm really just not seeing that in the evidence. All I'm really seeing is "they're a lifestyle/luxury audio manufacturer, like B&O or Audio-Technica, and they make products that do not represent a high price/performance ratio, because aesthetics and cachet are a substantial component of their brand identity, and for performance oriented enthusiasts they likely are not the first choice."
Quote:
I don't negatively criticize their headphones, which appear to be good products.

I'm curious, and this isn't meant to be an intrusion (I really hate that "I'm curious" has become a hedge for "hey buddy get bent" in recent years - that's absolutely not what I mean!), have you spent any real time with their headphones (outside of an in-store demo, which is a horrible way to try any headphone imho)? You've mentioned them as good products a few times - I'm just curious what your more direct thoughts on them are (what? don't look at me like that...we're all headphone geeks here, right? redface.gif).
Quote:
And I recognize that when the Soundwave came out, it was a very good product for what it is (I think there are probably cost effective alternatives now). 

I don't even know what that is.
Quote:
But in the same way that I'm not going to shop at Walmart because of their bad business practices, when they also do some things right, I boycott all of Bose's products and will speak out against the company as a whole. Boycotting is one of the only methods by which consumers can exert any pressure against large companies. 

I'll absolutely sit that one out if you don't mind - I have no political agenda or machinations of my own, and have no conception of why a technical discussion must become political (and you don't have to respond to this point - I'm not passing a judgment on you, just explaining my position (or, should I say, lack of position); if the political side makes sense for you, then as always, do what makes sense).
post #234 of 548
Quote:
Originally Posted by obobskivich View Post


Bose is not the only company that directly controls media through leveraging it's weight - the print industry thrives on advertising numbers and nothing else, most "tech journalism" is PR copy (and has been for a decade). You're also basically dismissing your entire argument here - "no single point is the problem" (not that any single point holds water). Their business practices are no worse (and in many cases much more responsible and sustainable; notice they're not floundering right now, don't need a "bailout" and are otherwise a successful company - from an economics perspective, they're doing it right) than anyone else, but they get picked out because they're "uncool" to enthusiasts for various reasons (I think it's mostly just to be "edgy" and show that you can talk smack, but that's just my theory).

 

Of course. Anyone who understand history knows that companies exert their leverage to influence the media. That's been going for hundreds of years, so I'm not certain of your point other than to imply that I'm generally ignorantrolleyes.gif

 

But just because Bose other companies do it, and because Bose is a successful company, that doesn't mean they are not open to criticism, and it does not justify their business practices. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by obobskivich View Post

You're making them into a big bad devil - they aren't. They're the same as everyone else.

 

Actually, the personification you've repeatedly alluded to in your response is your assumption. I tend to see this from a capitalist market perspective, not as if a company has "evil" intent. But admittedly, I am concerned about the amount of influence a company has and how they leverage it. Within the audio industry--since it seems better stay focused on that in this forum--I am also concerned what will happen with Audiovox now that they control so many speaker lines. They are now a big heavy weight. 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by obobskivich View Post

What "aggressive litigation?" They've sued for libel *one* time (in the 1980s, and it was founded (founded enough that they won the civil suit at least) but ultimately the decision was over-turned and reversed by the Supreme Court (and this was/is actually an interesting case in the history of free press and precedent in the US, sort of entirely unrelated)) . . .

 

That's all it takes. Any litigator can tell you that it's threat of litigation that is more powerful than the act of litigation itself.  One is much more hesitant to play poker with someone who has a much bigger bank and is willing to go all in at any time. One can't compete in that situation. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by obobskivich View Post

You think we have protected freedom of speech here? We don't (Curra - I'm not trying to imply that MOTs run the board, but there is certainly a huge disjoint between what can be posted here and what I can say in a public gathering place). 

 

Why would an educated person in the 21st century think that about public Internet forums? LOL

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by obobskivich View Post
 First you start in about how published specs make or break a model, and they're a big deal. But in other threads I've seen you deride "acceptable" manufacturers (a few of the brands you rattled off earlier) for publishing made-up or unit-less specs (which are meaningless). Bose flat out stated about 15 years ago that they don't publish "specs" because they aren't going to play the number-invention game with everyone else. I'm not aware of any modern speaker manufacturer that publishes anything resembling "specs" either, sure, they can throw a bunch of numbers on the side of the box, but they're usually incoherent/incorrect and do not represent what the manufacturer wants to represent, do not reflect reality, or similar. angry_face.gif (leave it to Rane to come to the rescue though: http://www.rane.com/note145.html smily_headphones1.gif)

 

As for other manufacturers and their specs, some are of course better than others. I don't think anyone calls Definitive Technology's specs "acceptable. LOL  And things are changing toward standardized specs that consumers can depend on. For instance, car audio amplifier specs are more often moving toward CEA-2006 compliance. My opinion is that Bose has a very good reason for not playing the game of listing specs. Interesting about Bose's reasons for not publishing specs. Bose made that claim around the same time that Acoustimass came out. I would tend to think that the real reason is that they can't claim say 40Hz-15kHz with some reasonable degree of variation. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by obobskivich View Post
Regarding "pro reviews" - there have been a few measurements of Bose speakers published by reviewers over the years. None of them are what I would consider definitive (most reviewer measurement set-ups are quite frankly garbage - very few people have equipment like Tyll or Harman or similar, the "close mic response" stuff that you see in HomeTheater is not standardized or reliable), but they mostly seem to support Bose's claims that they don't have massively jacked up FRs (no insane boost or cut, no v-curve, etc) and they show speakers that are *relatively* flat through the mid-pass, with sub-bass roll-off (sub-bass really isn't all that), and some acceptable treble loss (so they're over a cliff at 18k - I don't think 7 year olds are that discriminating, and most of the rest of us don't have a dog in that fight). 

Great. Can you provide a link?

 

And I don't think whether or not hometheater.com's tests are reliable enough or standardized enough (not going to debate that either way) is relevant here to the question of whether or not Bose is effective at suppressing pro reviews with measurements.

 

****

 

I think that's enough of my time for now. Although I will say that I've only heard Bose headphones briefly, and without more experience with them, I see no reason not to expect that they are a decent product based upon what others have said about them. On the other hand, I did own Bose 201s, 301s, and 601s at various times during the 80s and early 90s for at least several years each. So some of my perspective on the quality of the product comes from the first hand experience being a previous owner. 

 

But I am curious. In the interest of full disclosure and understanding someone's personal experience. Have you owned Bose speakers? Do you sell them or install them? 

post #235 of 548

So... how 'bout them <INSERT_SPORTS_TEAM_OF_CHOICE>?

post #236 of 548
Quote:
Originally Posted by cel4145 View Post

 

Ehhh...it's the "901s" and they are not meant to be bookshelf speakers. But yes, they were considered to be a fairly good speaker in the 70s and 80s, an exception to Bose's other speaker products.  But that old technology has been stagnant while the rest of the market has advanced, and they are no longer considered a good value. 

 Yah 901's my bad. I have to respectfully disagree wit you on the not being a good value still.

post #237 of 548

The fact is that Bose-bashing requires 8,000 essays on corporate ethics and Beats bashing simply requires pointing out that they sound like ass and fall apart

post #238 of 548
Quote:
Originally Posted by warrenpchi View Post

As poorly articulated as that is, I can still make out what they are trying to get across... though the ad hominem obviously robs the argument of any merit.  As for myself, hilarity ensues when non-audiophiles attempt to sound like audiophiles.  I guess a little knowledge really can be a dangerous thing:

"Studios are great headphones because they got lots of hertz and really great base.  Plus they got great design and great style and sound really great when you wear them.  And the rubber headband feels great because I just let my Beats hang on my neck a lot of the time.  Oh yeah I especially like the way the red ones sound."

I just LOL'ed
post #239 of 548

One guy I know has 7 or 8 degrees in computing related disciplines and he summarised apple in a way that I could never have:

 

'Their genius is making the useless seem useful'

 

I've spoken to at least 40 people (students, mainly oriental) with ipads and I've asked them what they find their ipads useful for. Not even a single thing- they couldn't find something that they find their ipads to be properly useful for. I give up. 

post #240 of 548
Quote:
Originally Posted by CantScareMe View Post

One guy I know has 7 or 8 degrees in computing related disciplines and he summarised apple in a way that I could never have:

'Their genius is making the useless seem useful'

I've spoken to at least 40 people (students, mainly oriental) with ipads and I've asked them what they find their ipads useful for. Not even a single thing- they couldn't find something that they find their ipads to be properly useful for. I give up. 

I'm not sure I would consider a guy that felt the need to get 7 or 8 degrees instead of a job a good source of advice.

What is a television useful for? Better yet, what is music useful for? Or fiction literature? Or a silk necktie? A Ferrari is no more "useful" than a Toyota - unless your use case is to display conspicuous consumption or get over a twisty mountain road in the least time. Companies try to make products that are desirable. Usefulness is simply one aspect of desirableness, and it is often not the primary driver of a consumer product.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Constructive "Anti-Beats" headphone discussion