Head-fi and BOSE

Feb 7, 2007 at 4:44 AM Post #46 of 109
Bose don't sell cigarettes. Their products don't hurt anyone. The people that buy their products love them. I posit that you're typical upper middle class owner of the Wave radio grins at it everytime he/she hears sound that they are sure is much better than anything else that they could have bought. Bose enjoy such established consumer goodwill that they can sell surround systems with proprietary but not-official-spec decoding systems and thereby not pay Dolby a licensing fee. Consumers don't mind because Bose rerepresents the highest level of luxury surround sound. Their products seem to be reliable enough and consumers enjoy their perceived high end audiophile equipment for extended periods of time. Bose is privately owned and has no public shareholders to placate or securities commissions to answer to. By all accounts Bose is highly profitable with excellent margins between the cost of materials and manufacture, and their established price point in the upper end of the consumer audiophile market.

As a businessman, I see lots to admire in Bose.

(As a music lover I'm saving for Darth Beyers but that's me.)
 
Feb 7, 2007 at 4:50 AM Post #47 of 109
Quote:

Originally Posted by cooperpwc /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Bose don't sell cigarettes.


If they do, their price would be $45 a pack minimum... competing with cuban Cohiba...
icon10.gif
icon10.gif
icon10.gif
icon10.gif
icon10.gif
icon10.gif
 
Feb 7, 2007 at 4:50 AM Post #48 of 109
we all know Bose has a killer marketing department. and it's pretty obvious that head-fi is on the headphone map. i mean, we have everyone short of Sony and AKG sponsoring here (and AKG came to the National Meet!) don't you think they are CHOMPING at the bit to get involved here? sponsor, toss some of that big moola our way? honestly, at a national meet i bet their quietcomfort and iem stuff would be a hit due to the monstrous ambients that await us. so why haven't they come knocking yet?

because they are put off by the bashing.

seriously gang, let's reel em in before we knock em upside the head and serve em as sushi. if a Bose rep lived here, we would know exactly who to talk to and share these concerns, they'd get more constructive feedback (head-fiers seem to be nicer if the opposing party is someone they know) and who knows some things at Bose might change for the better. better products are easier to market, after all!
 
Feb 7, 2007 at 5:07 AM Post #49 of 109
Quote:

Originally Posted by 003 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
NO! Really??? An HE90 better than a triport?? Never!


With Nordost Valhalla recable, Triport beats everything.
 
Feb 7, 2007 at 5:14 AM Post #50 of 109
A little bit off topic, but... how in the world do QC3 and Triport look decent? I actually can't think of phones that are uglier. Oh, and I'm not saying anything about the quality, as I've not heard either, yet.
 
Feb 7, 2007 at 5:27 AM Post #51 of 109
I agree with the original poster that people on head-fi get ripped off the same way that BOSE customers get ripped off. OK, BOSE does sound terrible and headphones like AKG and Senn and Sony sound a lot better for sure, and especially AKG. But my cheap DIY electrostatics only costed $10 to make and sounds better than commercial headphones. only my AKG K701s come close, but they cost $400 MSRP. I made another $15 headphone using cheap computer speaker drivers and they also sound a lot better (and sound way better than when they served as computer speakers). the powerful bass, clear detailed mids, and clean highs is beyond this world. and these things costed me almost nothing to make, so i bet that it doesn't cost these companies much to make these headphones either. i'm wondering how much these companies must be making if they're selling it for several hundred dollars. it's kind of like how $100,000 luxury cars use cheap $3 speaker drivers playing fullrange. and i'm not even exaggerating, or naming a special case. it's the case for almost all these cars.
 
Feb 7, 2007 at 5:41 AM Post #52 of 109
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jahn /img/forum/go_quote.gif
in all fairness to the OP, he put (sic) after the first "revalation" to poke fun at the bad spelling of the OP of the Bose bashing thread, so he's actually poking fun at the people poking fun at him poking fun at the Bose basher OP of the other thread.

see? that wasn't so hard. RLY! =)



Is that the correct usage of '(sic)' in an unquoted sentence?

Thanks for the clarification and sorry for the hijack.
 
Feb 7, 2007 at 5:47 AM Post #53 of 109
Quote:

Originally Posted by Schalldämpfer /img/forum/go_quote.gif
A little bit off topic, but... how in the world do QC3 and Triport look decent? I actually can't think of phones that are uglier. Oh, and I'm not saying anything about the quality, as I've not heard either, yet.


Maybe you, like me, have not been exposed to years of BOSE marketting. Here in New Zealand they seem to be a bit of a nonentity. I had heard of BOSE before head-fi but couldn't have named a single product they made and had no idea that they made headphones. I've never seen a pair in the flesh either. They look kind of modern-plastic-ugly in the photos.
 
Feb 7, 2007 at 5:48 AM Post #54 of 109
Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDarkTrumpet /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Bose headphones, when others who don't know headphones look at them, they automatically think "oh wow, that guy is rich" or "oh wow, this guy really is into music". It's a status thing that Bose brings to the table. Simply, the bose products do look good. Both the Triports and the QC3s are excellent looking products, hands down in my opinion.



Totally Agree. They have created a kind of status symbol. One of my friends got the new Bose IEs and he is still regretting it after hearing my SR60s.
 
Feb 7, 2007 at 6:06 AM Post #55 of 109
We really dont need this forum at all. All you have to do is follow your ears and let them guide you to your purchases.

The meet threads are great because they give members a chance to listen to some really obscure gear. But other than that, its just up to the members to listen and let thteir ears guide them.

I dont expect everything to sound great at the April meet... there will be some gems and some turds.
 
Feb 7, 2007 at 6:22 AM Post #56 of 109
Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDarkTrumpet /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Well, ok there are a few things I'd like to add.

I've commented on a number of posts about bose overall, and having owned the triports (which is probably more than I can say for most others who bash bose) and have used the Quiet Comfort 3s, that I have experience with what bose is actually good at (and yes, they do have some decent qualities.

Bose headphones, when others who don't know headphones look at them, they automatically think "oh wow, that guy is rich" or "oh wow, this guy really is into music". It's a status thing that Bose brings to the table. Simply, the bose products do look good. Both the Triports and the QC3s are excellent looking products, hands down in my opinion.

Now, to those people who've only listened to bose outside say the normal earbuds that came with the ipod, the bose sounds darned good. I know when I first got my triports, I was amazed with the sound, and seriously thought it was the best thing on earth. Only after listening to other headphones have I really noticed that maybe the bose aren't quite so good after all.

So, the sound quality. After listening to Beyerdynamics for only a month and a half or so, after using the triports for over a year, I can no longer stand the triports for sound quality. Both my Beyerdynamic 880s and my A900s beat out the triports without any problems.

As I mentioned earlier, though, Bose does have some nice qualities:
1. They look good, very good.
2. To the semi-untrained ear, they sound fantastic, you can't get better (from the perspective of the normal consumer).
3. They are small. My largest beef with the headphones I normally listen to, they are huge and heavy. I don't mind them when I'm by the computer, but they can't travel worth anything. I know other headphones exist, but at this point I want my sound quality everywhere, getting cheaper portable headphones that actually are portable won't sound as good on my music now, haha.

I don't think bose is worth the money to spend on their headphones. The triports do beat out the QC3s in sound quality in my opinion, and the triports lose to near everything else. Placebo effect or not, my visit to the forums, and my plunge for new headphones have given me a lot better music. Through various pieces that are well mastered, I can hear the individual chime bells so clearly, where I couldn't hear them as clear or clear at all with the bose (I know because tonight I just messed around with both headphones, using the same source and was astounded by the feeling).

I don't want to bash bose, nor will. Basically if a pair of headphones sounds good to you, then use them. The name brand doesn't really mean a whole lot when it comes to sound quality in this case. Try out multiple types, and if you still like bose after all that, then that's good
smily_headphones1.gif



I hate when people quote everything to make a simple point, but in this case I think it's appropriate...

So basically what you're saying is that now that you have more experience with different competing products, you don't think that Bose headpones are "bad" necessarily, but yet they're not worth the money in relative terms. Does that sum it up? If so, that's pretty much the way everyone feels.

The people who are still using them (at least 99% of the time) don't have this perspective, but are still under the impression that "Bose is best" which is what they've learned from Bose's marketing program. That's why Bose products sell so well. They have a huge advertising budget that other, smaller, audio companies cannot compete with.

Most people don't have the time nor the inclination to audition zillions of headphones (or speakers) so they read a bit and talk with some friends, and get led down the Bose path by other people who don't know any better either. Without any real reference points to compare them to, they sound great! They look nice too, so everyone is happy and actually "proud" to have purchased the "best", etc.

To a lesser extent, the same is true of Monster Cable. Neither company's products (with some exceptions, most notably Monster's line conditioners) deliver great value for those who are well informed regarding competitive products. But this is often the way that big business works, so it should come as no surprise that we see some prime examples of it in our little hobby. Advertising works!

Heck, I just bought a Hoover steam cleaner for $160 and it doesn't do a very good job. I didn't expect miracles at that price, but didn't have the time nor the inclination to do a lot of research. I'm sure there is a steam cleaner forum somewhere (if you look hard enough you can find almost anything on the net), and some nerd with 7,000 posts is laughing at me right now!
 
Feb 7, 2007 at 6:39 AM Post #57 of 109
Quote:

Originally Posted by John_M /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Most of the products sold on head-fi work in exactly the same way. Tell the gullible consumer that the audio component he's about to buy will greatly enhance his listening experience. Super-freeze-dried cables. Specially modified mp3 players. "Musical" amps. The consumer splashes his cash, and once again the placebo effect does the rest.



Interesting statement regarding "most of the products sold on Head-Fi." I don't doubt that even relatively sophisticated consumers on this forum may be duped from time to time or may purchase components or items based on marketing, but I would intereseted in hearing about the data of other evidence you've collected that supports the statement that "most of the products sold on Head-Fi work exactly the same way." Since you have made several other posts in the past to the effect that "all amps sound the same," etc., and, with all due respect, have made commments to this effect without any personal experience or evidence to support them, I would like to know what is the basis for this most recent categorical statement regardking what "most" people on this forum do -- other than it being just a comment designed to atagonize people the members of this forum.
 
Feb 7, 2007 at 7:35 AM Post #58 of 109
Quote:

Originally Posted by jinp6301 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
nice post Wmcmanus.

I believe that at least some of what the OP says is true. If you tell someone that something is gonna sound good long enough and they believe it, its gonna sound good when you hear it.




I think it really works the other way around. At least for me it does. I love movies. I am a really cinemaphile (is that a word? if not, pardon my english.). I am also into heavy literature, classic and comtemporary. My point is that the books and films I have enjoyed the most are the ones I have little or no reference at all. Those ones that are highly awarded and mentioned by critics I find myself "underrating" them after I see/read them. That is because most times I have too high expectations that even when in front of a masterpiece (Pulp fiction, Sense and sensibility, Karamazov Brothers) they fall short.

I think the same should happen with sound.I know that at some point when I upgrade I will feel it s not worth it anymore. For me, going from ibuds and some sonys that i bought for $25 to my HD555 has been everything I expected and probably a bit more. It will probably be like that whn I make the jumpto the $200-250 headphones in a few days. I doubt that whn I go higher things will be as impressive as the HD555 has been to me.

I agree with OP in some points partially. I think there will be lots of dellusion in anything that is so subjective as sound appreciation. Saying that most of the things people buy here are in the same category that Bose's equipment and all the quality buzz is another delusion is a lttle extreme.
 
Feb 7, 2007 at 7:53 AM Post #59 of 109
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wmcmanus /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Heck, I just bought a Hoover steam cleaner for $160 and it doesn't do a very good job. I didn't expect miracles at that price, but didn't have the time nor the inclination to do a lot of research. I'm sure there is a steam cleaner forum somewhere (if you look hard enough you can find almost anything on the net), and some nerd with 7,000 posts is laughing at me right now!


http://www.cleaningtalk.com/

LOL n00b!!11!one!1

tongue.gif


Well, I didn't know about it, either, until just now, but the Internet has completely changed how I buy things. If I spend more than a few hundred on anything I'm not "up" on, I always search first. It's amazing the level of sophistication you can pick up- just look at all the detailed, and good, recommendations people get here. And I never would have bought the RX-7 unless I knew there was a fanatical level of support from other rotorheads. I've been able to find everything I need to keep it running and on the road. I probably would have bought something else if the forums and websites weren't there.

So, I don't feel particularly bad for people who buy Bose. It's not hard to find the alternatives and plenty of consumer opinion. And sorry about the cleaner, too.
 
Feb 7, 2007 at 7:53 AM Post #60 of 109
Quote:

Originally Posted by 003 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
NO! Really??? An HE90 better than a triport?? Never!


I know
tongue.gif
, but the point that Bose "kills" all other headphones for comfort was equally as absurd.

Note I also mentioned broken-in Sennheisers (HD6**, I also recall the HD5*5 as being comfy), and I was just mentioning standout ones I had tried. I think Beyer would make an excellent run at the title for most comfortable headphone, but I don't have experience. I think Sennheisers are more comfortable than AKGs (K*01s), but that's close too.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top