[Singapura]

I'm using Wikipedia as a source in my work and have always relied on the fact that they try to present facts as neutral as possible. If there are controversies they are mentioned, including sources and sites where you can find more information. In the case of BOSE however the article reads like advertisement with only a few critical facts mentioned. (Audio enthusiasts frequently criticize Bose in online forums, accusing it of overpricing its products and criticizing the sound produced by Bose products.) followed immediately by quoting that BOSE won a libel lawsuit against Consumer Review. I don't consider myself part of the BOSE-bashing club here at head-fi but I wonder how valid Wikipedia articles like this are. Shouldn't there at least be a link to the "truth about BOSE" article? The number of links to glowing reviews of BOSE products is long but there is no mention of bad reviews at all. Am I missing something or is BOSE actually a pretty good brand?

 

[axion]

You realise you're allowed to edit wikipedia, right? Just cause no one has made it unbiased doesn't mean no one can,

 

[stewtheking]

Citing wikipedia as a source is a very stupid thing to do. Any mug on the street can change it. If you are using it as a list of sources to get proper information from, then so be it, but for anything else, it's just not safe enough.

 

[Singapura]

Yes I'm aware that you can edit Wikipedia. That's why I was so surprised. No using wikipedia as a source is not stupid as long as you realise anyone can edit it. Most articles are quite accurate as you can read here. Because Wikipedia is written and edited by more persons it tends to be more accurate than most fora or blogs (or even books and newspaper articles).

 

[Bootleg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stewtheking /img/forum/go_quote.gif Citing wikipedia as a source is a very stupid thing to do. Any mug on the street can change it. If you are using it as a list of sources to get proper information from, then so be it, but for anything else, it's just not safe enough.

x2

 

[stewtheking]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Singapura /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes I'm aware that you can edit Wikipedia. That's why I was so surprised. No using wikipedia as a source is not stupid as long as you realise anyone can edit it. Most articles are quite accurate as you can read here. Because Wikipedia is written and edited by more persons it tends to be more accurate than most fora or blogs (or even books and newspaper articles).

I suppose it may depend on the discipline your work is in, but if it's in any way scientific, then using wikipedia is a cardinal sin.

 

[taylor]

Yeah, and since it is written by the users, who but a Bose fan would take the time to write that much?

Bose is certainly better than a lot of cheap mass-market stuff. We like to make fun of the Bose home theater stuff, but their 2 channel stuff isn't bad.

We tend to hate them because of the general perception that they are the end-all and be-all of audio, when in actuality, better equipment from smaller companies can be had for less money.

Hmmm... we should add in a paragraph about it. Any thoughts about what we can say? Obviously we don't want to be like "OMG BOZE SUCKZORZ TEH BIG OEN", we need to write an objective paragraph explaining how the general public thinks BOSE is the best around, and while they are probably one of the best systems you can walk into your local Best Buy and get, there's better value stuff out there.

 

[Spareribs]

I once heard a Bose PA system for a small concert and it was excellent. I also really like the tri ports too but have never admitted it on the headphone forum section. One of these days I'll come out of the closet and admit my admiration for the tri ports and put on a extra thick flame suit.

In fairness, Circuit City (popular electronics store in the U.S.) in the past let people compare Bose computer speakers with other brands for A/B testing to let the consumer decide. I've done this and I have found that their computer speakers were basically as good as other cheaper brands.

While their tri ports are good, their wave acousti mass CD player is pretty bad. I listened to it as my mom borrowed it from her friend. My $150 RCA boom box trounced it. Overall, they make good solid stuff but pay extra for it because the advertising and marketing is expensive.

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

BOSE Inc., most likely has a full time employee whos job is to do nothing but check the wikipedia page and remove anything bad anyone submits and repaste the ad copy.

You don't become a jillion-dollar company sitting on your butt you know.

 

[Deiz]

Along with all that's been said, keep in mind that articles represent the average viewpoint, generally.

Wikipedia is great for WYSIWYG issues -- Things with little background information and little or no contrasting views, but when that's not the case, the average editor's opinion is best represented is best represented and more controversial points are shuffled off into the corner.

 

[aaron-xp]

Wikipedia - Good Resource, Bad Source

 

[redshifter]

From the Bose Wikipedia entry:
'A New York Times reviewer commented that "the research effort paid off: the [Bose Around-Ear Headphones] has very full sound and works equally well with all types of music," but judged a competitor's headset, priced at less than half the price of the AE's, to be "just as comfortable and just as light, and the sound it produced was just as full and clear."'

So the entry is saying what Head-Fi has been saying: good headphones but overpriced for what you get. Did you even read the Bose entry?

 

[ex0du5]

Triports sound decent, but again overpriced. They are superbly comfortable though.

Their whole Acoustimass system, nomatter what the price is (and they charge $800 for the 2 channel system) is absolute crap. Who the heck pays $800 for a system that has 2 speakers that only reach 13KHz and only down to 280Hz (the so called Acoustimass "subwoofer" does 60-220Hz). And yes, that is a 60Hz gab which is not reproduced. And yes, vocal sounds do go down to lower than 220Hz, so you will hear voices out of the "subwoofer". And yes, the voices sound terrible.

 

[iceyo]

wikipedia is sth advanced.

 

[gloco]

I got to demo those triports a year or so ago at a small head-fi meet jahn held at his apartment complex. They were awful. Boomy, thick midrange, hollow sounding...its beyond me how anyone thinks they sound ok or even good. Treble? Nope. Bass? Nope. Midrange? HA! No way. It was just an awful screeching mess of a headphone. It felt like they took a pair of speakers from a conference phone and glued it down to the earcups. It reminded me of those cheap sony v150's and various coby headphones. Just plain awful.

If anyone thinks the triports sound decent, you really need to get yours ears checked. In comparison, the koss ksc75's flat out trump the triports every imaginable way.