Mike Walker
Doesn't pull punches
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2001
- Posts
- 541
- Likes
- 14
Thanks for the kind words about the show!
Pictorial Review: Bose On-Ear
- Thread starter moonboy403
- Start date
Berlioz
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Posts
- 249
- Likes
- 14
Quote:
That tells you absolutely nothing about the internal electronics of the headphones. It tells you nothing about the quality of the soldering, the components used, or the drivers. If you actually take the whole thing apart, you'll find that the components are of an extraordinary low quality. I can find the same ones in my RCA clock radio. It's a good little clock radio, but I bought it for $9.95.
The soldering is a mess, the components are put in haphazardly (sometimes even backwards), and the wiring is not even bound or fastened in any way. The jack is also extremely flimsy, which is ridiculous for any headphone over $100. On budget 'phones the jack is usually the first thing to go, and the Bose ones are no exception.
Quote:
I completely agree. I feel that many audiophiles just come off as rather snobbish by rejecting a "normal" persons audio system. Many people I know listen to Bose. Do I go up to them and tell them their system sucks? Of course not. They love their music, and so do I, so I have someone to share that hobby with.
However, the issue that I have with Bose is really with their marketing practices. If frequency response graphs aren't important, as you say, then Bose should have nothing to fear by releasing them. Look at the frequency response for Audio Technicas - it's extremely coloured. But that's their house sound, and it's not a bad sound either. With Bose though, many of their same products have completely different graphs from one another, because they pay no attention to internal acoustics at all.
Secondly, any retailer of Bose equipment is forbidden from doing side to side comparisons of Bose products with competitors. I know many people in the business, and I'm told only Bose (surprisingly) makes this demand.
Look, you may like Bose sound, and I think that's great. I'm still yet to find my ideal headphones. However, these things are true:
Bose uses poor construction methods.
Bose headphones are not detailed in their depiction of sound.
Bose headphones are also quite euphonic, and they do indeed have deep bass extension. They look great, and they are quite comfortable too.
However, I still find their business strategy deplorable (unless you're into making money).
For more information on Bose:
intellexual net · m k i v
| Originally Posted by Mike Walker /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've removed the earpieces from my Bose OE. The construction is no better, or worse than my Sennheiser HD600s, or any of the other more expensive 'phones I own. |
That tells you absolutely nothing about the internal electronics of the headphones. It tells you nothing about the quality of the soldering, the components used, or the drivers. If you actually take the whole thing apart, you'll find that the components are of an extraordinary low quality. I can find the same ones in my RCA clock radio. It's a good little clock radio, but I bought it for $9.95.
The soldering is a mess, the components are put in haphazardly (sometimes even backwards), and the wiring is not even bound or fastened in any way. The jack is also extremely flimsy, which is ridiculous for any headphone over $100. On budget 'phones the jack is usually the first thing to go, and the Bose ones are no exception.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Mike Walker /img/forum/go_quote.gif Funkadelic is right. It's about THE MUSIC. |
I completely agree. I feel that many audiophiles just come off as rather snobbish by rejecting a "normal" persons audio system. Many people I know listen to Bose. Do I go up to them and tell them their system sucks? Of course not. They love their music, and so do I, so I have someone to share that hobby with.
However, the issue that I have with Bose is really with their marketing practices. If frequency response graphs aren't important, as you say, then Bose should have nothing to fear by releasing them. Look at the frequency response for Audio Technicas - it's extremely coloured. But that's their house sound, and it's not a bad sound either. With Bose though, many of their same products have completely different graphs from one another, because they pay no attention to internal acoustics at all.
Secondly, any retailer of Bose equipment is forbidden from doing side to side comparisons of Bose products with competitors. I know many people in the business, and I'm told only Bose (surprisingly) makes this demand.
Look, you may like Bose sound, and I think that's great. I'm still yet to find my ideal headphones. However, these things are true:
Bose uses poor construction methods.
Bose headphones are not detailed in their depiction of sound.
Bose headphones are also quite euphonic, and they do indeed have deep bass extension. They look great, and they are quite comfortable too.
However, I still find their business strategy deplorable (unless you're into making money).
For more information on Bose:
intellexual net · m k i v
Mike Walker
Doesn't pull punches
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2001
- Posts
- 541
- Likes
- 14
I doubt there are any components in Bose headphones that are in an RCA table radio. Do you mean the drivers? These are obviously purpose-built for headphones, as they're much to small to be speakers in a radio! What other "components" are in headphones? There are no crossover components, as there is a single driver with each ear, as with the vast majority of headphones. I don't know what you imagine the inside of other manufacturer's headphones to look like. Do you take THEM apart? "Internal acoustics" as you put it actually have virtually nothing to do with what components look like! And to my knowledge, as with most headphones, there are no "electronics" (resistors, capacitors, crossover networks, transistors, tubes(?), transformers, etc.) in Bose headphones! Strictly speaking, transducers are not "electronics". "Electronics" are components like amplifiers, tuners, cd players, tape decks, etc.
As for frequency response graphs, you are aware that there is no agreed-upon standard for how to measure it, let alone what constitutes proper response in a headphone. Speakers are quite different, as constructive comparisons CAN be made, as room "acoustics" remain constant from model to model under comparison. But with headphones, each set of ears interfaces with the damn things differently. Outer ears and canals vary widely in shape and size, thus in how they change the response of a headphone.
Around-ear headphones are affected by the shape/size of the outer-ears and head. On-Ear headphones are less affected, because they sit on the ear, and fire sound down the ear canal. In-ear monitors less so still, as they sit IN the ear canal, thus bypassing completely the outer-ears and ear canals.
Then there's the matter of microphones and artificial "heads" for measuring frequency response in headphones. There is no direct way to measure frequency response in a headphone (or speaker), as a microphone must be employed. None of THEM are perfect (although measurement microphones can be quite flat in response). Since it's not practical to shove a microphone down the ear canal of a live person, and it would change the sound if you were able to, microphones must be placed in some kind of "dummy head". And THESE both vary, and change the sound as well. Thus, any frequency response graph with headphones would be useful ONLY if other graphs used for comparison were made ON THE SAME DUMMY HEAD, with the same microphones. Add to this the complication that varying sizes and shapes of headphone earcups insure that even if you used the same dummy head and microphone for each comparison, you STILL wouldn't be getting uniform measurements, as driver distance and orientation varies widely from model to model.
When considering the above, it's not at all unreasonable to leave out the measurements, and suggest LISTENING TO MUSIC to decide about sound quality.
So what does it look like behind the drivers of my headphones? I DON'T FREAKING CARE! And as for the plug (not jack) on the left earpiece, far from being likely to fail, insures that the most unreliable thing in headphone, THE FREAKING CORD, can be replaced with a standard type available at any Radio Shack or Wal-Mart. I've been through too many headphones to remember during 35+ years of radio and recording. I've NEVER blown a driver in one(!) NEVER had internal wiring to fail(!) Not once. But virtually every one that has failed did so because the connection in the cord...between the earcups and plug...failed. So eliminating THAT variable virtually guarantees the Bose OE 'phones WILL LAST LONGER THAN OTHER MODELS!
Far from the shoddy workmanship you describe, the fit and finish of my Bose headphones is first class. The adjustment steps for the headband snap smartly into place in a way that they haven't on numerous far more expensive 'phones I've owned. All pieces fit tightly and securely, so there are no rattles, as on some expensive headphones I've owned. Two different cord lengths were included, as was a neat little beautifully made storage/carrying case. As for what the backs of the drivers look like, and whether the solder-joints LOOK GOOD, I don't freaking care! Quality of solder-joints is something audiophiles, with amps manufactured in lots of dozens (or fewer), sometimes in people's garages (or factories on about that scale) certainly don't want to visit! Most products of American (or British) electronics manufacturers wouldn't pass the same fit and finish and soldering standards as Japanese or German manufacturers. And as long as the electrical connections are solid, IT DOESN'T MATTER!
Perhaps it's because I'm legally blind, but I TRULY DON'T CARE HOW THINGS LOOK! I care HOW THEY SOUND!
Dude, name a single component (including part number, source, etc.) found in Bose headphones that's also in your RCA table radio. Come on, I dare you. Don't tell me it "looks like" parts from your radio. NAME THE SPECIFIC PART THAT'S THE SAME. I won't hold my breath!
As for Bose 'phones beign "euphonic", that simply means they sound pleasant, or that their colorations are pleasing. Since all heaphones deviate from neutrality, the best any of us can do is choose 'phones with imperfections we can at worst tolerate, or at best find pleasing. The stronger argument is that ALL headphones that you or I like are to us "euphonic" (wouldn't "Euphonic" be a great brand name? Perhaps not!)
The most amusing thing you've written? "I find their business paractices deplorable (unless you're into making money)." Uh...I'm guessing you've never owned a business. Who isn't "into making money"? It's fundamental to any business, if they want to remain IN BUSINESS! The primary goal of a business MUST BE to make money, otherwise it won't be able to do anything else worthwhile, because it will cease to exist!
I've never owned Bose speakers. I find the idea of direct/reflecting speakers quite offensive...introducing random reflections from room acoustics into reproduced sound, which already contain the acoustics of the recording venue. Then there's the matter of image specificity...the holy grail for some audiophones. Direct/reflecting speakers simply destroy the stereo image the engineer and producer wanted us to hear. However, on casual listening I've found Bose speakers which AREN'T "direct/reflecting" to sound rather pleasant. I've never done serious comparisons, as I've never considered buying them. I've owned speakers through the years from Advent (remember them), Avid (the old company from the 70s), Genesis, DCM (the original "Time Window"), Boston Acoustics, Phase Tech, Allison Acoustics, Polk, Mordaunt-Short, and most recently Energy (I love my C-3s, which sound great, with real bass extension in my small room). I don't expect I'll ever buy Bose speakers. But I don't think I'll ever buy Sony or Onkyo speakers either. Most electronics manufacturers don't make the best speakers. There are a few exceptions, but very few. But when Bose does something right, as they did when they found fhe flaws in the FMX noise reduction system for FM radio in the late 80s, when they pioneered active noise-cancelling technology for headphones (not that I'd buy noise-cancelling headphones!), or when they make 'phones which actually sound very nice (as is the case, to my ears, with the Bose OE), the deserve praise...or at least respect.
As for frequency response graphs, you are aware that there is no agreed-upon standard for how to measure it, let alone what constitutes proper response in a headphone. Speakers are quite different, as constructive comparisons CAN be made, as room "acoustics" remain constant from model to model under comparison. But with headphones, each set of ears interfaces with the damn things differently. Outer ears and canals vary widely in shape and size, thus in how they change the response of a headphone.
Around-ear headphones are affected by the shape/size of the outer-ears and head. On-Ear headphones are less affected, because they sit on the ear, and fire sound down the ear canal. In-ear monitors less so still, as they sit IN the ear canal, thus bypassing completely the outer-ears and ear canals.
Then there's the matter of microphones and artificial "heads" for measuring frequency response in headphones. There is no direct way to measure frequency response in a headphone (or speaker), as a microphone must be employed. None of THEM are perfect (although measurement microphones can be quite flat in response). Since it's not practical to shove a microphone down the ear canal of a live person, and it would change the sound if you were able to, microphones must be placed in some kind of "dummy head". And THESE both vary, and change the sound as well. Thus, any frequency response graph with headphones would be useful ONLY if other graphs used for comparison were made ON THE SAME DUMMY HEAD, with the same microphones. Add to this the complication that varying sizes and shapes of headphone earcups insure that even if you used the same dummy head and microphone for each comparison, you STILL wouldn't be getting uniform measurements, as driver distance and orientation varies widely from model to model.
When considering the above, it's not at all unreasonable to leave out the measurements, and suggest LISTENING TO MUSIC to decide about sound quality.
So what does it look like behind the drivers of my headphones? I DON'T FREAKING CARE! And as for the plug (not jack) on the left earpiece, far from being likely to fail, insures that the most unreliable thing in headphone, THE FREAKING CORD, can be replaced with a standard type available at any Radio Shack or Wal-Mart. I've been through too many headphones to remember during 35+ years of radio and recording. I've NEVER blown a driver in one(!) NEVER had internal wiring to fail(!) Not once. But virtually every one that has failed did so because the connection in the cord...between the earcups and plug...failed. So eliminating THAT variable virtually guarantees the Bose OE 'phones WILL LAST LONGER THAN OTHER MODELS!
Far from the shoddy workmanship you describe, the fit and finish of my Bose headphones is first class. The adjustment steps for the headband snap smartly into place in a way that they haven't on numerous far more expensive 'phones I've owned. All pieces fit tightly and securely, so there are no rattles, as on some expensive headphones I've owned. Two different cord lengths were included, as was a neat little beautifully made storage/carrying case. As for what the backs of the drivers look like, and whether the solder-joints LOOK GOOD, I don't freaking care! Quality of solder-joints is something audiophiles, with amps manufactured in lots of dozens (or fewer), sometimes in people's garages (or factories on about that scale) certainly don't want to visit! Most products of American (or British) electronics manufacturers wouldn't pass the same fit and finish and soldering standards as Japanese or German manufacturers. And as long as the electrical connections are solid, IT DOESN'T MATTER!
Perhaps it's because I'm legally blind, but I TRULY DON'T CARE HOW THINGS LOOK! I care HOW THEY SOUND!
Dude, name a single component (including part number, source, etc.) found in Bose headphones that's also in your RCA table radio. Come on, I dare you. Don't tell me it "looks like" parts from your radio. NAME THE SPECIFIC PART THAT'S THE SAME. I won't hold my breath!
As for Bose 'phones beign "euphonic", that simply means they sound pleasant, or that their colorations are pleasing. Since all heaphones deviate from neutrality, the best any of us can do is choose 'phones with imperfections we can at worst tolerate, or at best find pleasing. The stronger argument is that ALL headphones that you or I like are to us "euphonic" (wouldn't "Euphonic" be a great brand name? Perhaps not!)
The most amusing thing you've written? "I find their business paractices deplorable (unless you're into making money)." Uh...I'm guessing you've never owned a business. Who isn't "into making money"? It's fundamental to any business, if they want to remain IN BUSINESS! The primary goal of a business MUST BE to make money, otherwise it won't be able to do anything else worthwhile, because it will cease to exist!
I've never owned Bose speakers. I find the idea of direct/reflecting speakers quite offensive...introducing random reflections from room acoustics into reproduced sound, which already contain the acoustics of the recording venue. Then there's the matter of image specificity...the holy grail for some audiophones. Direct/reflecting speakers simply destroy the stereo image the engineer and producer wanted us to hear. However, on casual listening I've found Bose speakers which AREN'T "direct/reflecting" to sound rather pleasant. I've never done serious comparisons, as I've never considered buying them. I've owned speakers through the years from Advent (remember them), Avid (the old company from the 70s), Genesis, DCM (the original "Time Window"), Boston Acoustics, Phase Tech, Allison Acoustics, Polk, Mordaunt-Short, and most recently Energy (I love my C-3s, which sound great, with real bass extension in my small room). I don't expect I'll ever buy Bose speakers. But I don't think I'll ever buy Sony or Onkyo speakers either. Most electronics manufacturers don't make the best speakers. There are a few exceptions, but very few. But when Bose does something right, as they did when they found fhe flaws in the FMX noise reduction system for FM radio in the late 80s, when they pioneered active noise-cancelling technology for headphones (not that I'd buy noise-cancelling headphones!), or when they make 'phones which actually sound very nice (as is the case, to my ears, with the Bose OE), the deserve praise...or at least respect.
Berlioz
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Posts
- 249
- Likes
- 14
Firstly, electronic components are not CD players, tape decks etc. Those are electronic devices. Secondly, while transducers are not necessarily electronic, in the case of a headphone they certainly are (or to be more precise, electroacoustic). As for the electronic components and soldering, I was referring to those used in the battery holder on the QC3's. To be honest, I've never had access to a pair of the OE's. All things being considered, I have no knowledge of their insides.
On the QC3's, the soldering was poor enough that the wires would detach from their connections with relatively little wear. If you search around on Google, you will find many people experience this problem. However, to be fair, many wireless headphones have these problems as well.
Obviously, the RCA radio uses different drivers. I'm sure I'd let someone know if I found a piezoelectric driver in my headphones!
I'm unsure as to why you go on about the frequency response so much. Since you had already stated in a prior post that the frequency response is meaningless, my argument was simply that Bose had nothing to lose by providing such information. No one would qualify an audio product based solely on its frequency response graph.
Your reasoning is that because the measurements are so utterly meaningless, Bose does not need to provide this information, despite the fact that every other audio company does. I'm afraid that is not good enough for me. Audible qualities are indeed more important than measured ones, but I don't see why releasing the measurements anyways would be such a big deal.
Next, I never described a "shoddy fit and finish". If you read my prior post, you will see that I described the Bose headphones as both great looking and very comfortable. My comment about them being euphonic was a complement. While I dislike colouration of that degree, there is no denying that many headphones are euphonic, as you stated.
My comment about Bose's business practices was in regard to their marketing strategies and production techniques. Of course businesses need to make money. It's just when money becomes more important than producing a quality product, that problems arise.
You obviously enjoy your Bose headphones, and have far more experience in the audio industry than I do (I have none, and it will very likely stay that way). However, I can only hold to my own opinion, and I respectfully disagree with yours. I'm sorry if I offended you in any way, but it's just my opinion.
On the QC3's, the soldering was poor enough that the wires would detach from their connections with relatively little wear. If you search around on Google, you will find many people experience this problem. However, to be fair, many wireless headphones have these problems as well.
Obviously, the RCA radio uses different drivers. I'm sure I'd let someone know if I found a piezoelectric driver in my headphones!
I'm unsure as to why you go on about the frequency response so much. Since you had already stated in a prior post that the frequency response is meaningless, my argument was simply that Bose had nothing to lose by providing such information. No one would qualify an audio product based solely on its frequency response graph.
Your reasoning is that because the measurements are so utterly meaningless, Bose does not need to provide this information, despite the fact that every other audio company does. I'm afraid that is not good enough for me. Audible qualities are indeed more important than measured ones, but I don't see why releasing the measurements anyways would be such a big deal.
Next, I never described a "shoddy fit and finish". If you read my prior post, you will see that I described the Bose headphones as both great looking and very comfortable. My comment about them being euphonic was a complement. While I dislike colouration of that degree, there is no denying that many headphones are euphonic, as you stated.
My comment about Bose's business practices was in regard to their marketing strategies and production techniques. Of course businesses need to make money. It's just when money becomes more important than producing a quality product, that problems arise.
You obviously enjoy your Bose headphones, and have far more experience in the audio industry than I do (I have none, and it will very likely stay that way). However, I can only hold to my own opinion, and I respectfully disagree with yours. I'm sorry if I offended you in any way, but it's just my opinion.
Xan7hos
1000+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2007
- Posts
- 1,156
- Likes
- 14
I've tried em at the Apple Store, and i think they're very comfortable, the pad cushions are like pillows to my ears. Knock off 30-70 bucks and it might be a great product.
I wonder if an impedance adapter would tame the bass
I wonder if an impedance adapter would tame the bass
Mike Walker
Doesn't pull punches
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2001
- Posts
- 541
- Likes
- 14
Electronic "components" are in fact resistors, capacitors, transistors, etc. AUDIO components are things like tape decks, cd players, tuners, and yes...headphones and speakers. But while headphones and speakers ARE audio components, they are NOT "electronics" unless there are audio components IN THEM.
Speakers and headphones are, in fact, electrical, not electronic. They're actually electric motors, which go back and forth, rather than around and around. Enough about that.
As for Bose having lousy business practices because they don't provide frequency response specs which, in the case of headphones, we both concede are meaningless, the better argument is that OTHER manufacturers should either not provide meaningless response specs, or get together and try to give them meaning...such as standardize the way they're measured, eliminating as many of the variables I mentioned as possible. "10hz-30khz" means absolutely nothing without, at least, db tolerances...and then it doesn't tell you anything about what the device will SOUND LIKE.
Electronic devices like amplifiers and cd players CAN be measured, and despite what the subjectivists believe, those measurements do relate to what we hear. A 3db rise at 7khz WILL cause an amplifier, for instance, to sound a little brighter than one without this rise. That's true of headphones or speakers too, of course, but there's just no uniform way of measuring that rise.
Frequency response, as it can be measured, IS important...as the tonal balance of a product is the most obvious difference between it and other products, and is, I believe, the reason for differences that people disagree here and other places on all the time. I sincerely wish there was an agreed-upon standard for measuring 'phones...one that relates directly to what we hear. Then I'd join you in "dissing" Bose for not providing the information.
Finally, I've not been offended. I've simply been engaging in a spirited debate, in defense of what I KNEW would be a controversial view in this forum...that Bose OE 'phones are actually quite good, despite the Bose-bashing...much of it deserved!
You make points with which I agree. In fact I suspect we agree on more than we disagree. I'm not going to run out and buy a Bose stereo system, or speakers for my existing system! I hope nothing I've said has been offensive to you. If so, then I apologize, as it was not my intention. I enjoy a good argument, and am unwilling to yield an inch if I believe my position to be right. I sincerely regret if my pig-headedness caused any offense! I came here to post an opinion I KNEW would get a rise out of people, and have some fun defending that position!
Thanks all for the debate, and for your love of music AND headphones!
Speakers and headphones are, in fact, electrical, not electronic. They're actually electric motors, which go back and forth, rather than around and around. Enough about that.
As for Bose having lousy business practices because they don't provide frequency response specs which, in the case of headphones, we both concede are meaningless, the better argument is that OTHER manufacturers should either not provide meaningless response specs, or get together and try to give them meaning...such as standardize the way they're measured, eliminating as many of the variables I mentioned as possible. "10hz-30khz" means absolutely nothing without, at least, db tolerances...and then it doesn't tell you anything about what the device will SOUND LIKE.
Electronic devices like amplifiers and cd players CAN be measured, and despite what the subjectivists believe, those measurements do relate to what we hear. A 3db rise at 7khz WILL cause an amplifier, for instance, to sound a little brighter than one without this rise. That's true of headphones or speakers too, of course, but there's just no uniform way of measuring that rise.
Frequency response, as it can be measured, IS important...as the tonal balance of a product is the most obvious difference between it and other products, and is, I believe, the reason for differences that people disagree here and other places on all the time. I sincerely wish there was an agreed-upon standard for measuring 'phones...one that relates directly to what we hear. Then I'd join you in "dissing" Bose for not providing the information.
Finally, I've not been offended. I've simply been engaging in a spirited debate, in defense of what I KNEW would be a controversial view in this forum...that Bose OE 'phones are actually quite good, despite the Bose-bashing...much of it deserved!
You make points with which I agree. In fact I suspect we agree on more than we disagree. I'm not going to run out and buy a Bose stereo system, or speakers for my existing system! I hope nothing I've said has been offensive to you. If so, then I apologize, as it was not my intention. I enjoy a good argument, and am unwilling to yield an inch if I believe my position to be right. I sincerely regret if my pig-headedness caused any offense! I came here to post an opinion I KNEW would get a rise out of people, and have some fun defending that position!
Thanks all for the debate, and for your love of music AND headphones!
salannelson
1000+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- May 29, 2009
- Posts
- 1,044
- Likes
- 15
One time I borrowed a pair of Bose AE headphones from a friend who thought they were oh so great. I compared them to... you're not going to believe it... Sony MDR-XD100s.
Because I was just running them out of my computer, the Sonys sounded a little under powered (they have a pretty high impedance and low sensitivity) but they were actually of about the same SQ. The only difference was the Bose signature, you know the artificial sound...muffled, enhanced, fake. So, if Bose headphones went for around $20 I'd buy them because they are really comfortable and sound ok (for $20)
Because I was just running them out of my computer, the Sonys sounded a little under powered (they have a pretty high impedance and low sensitivity) but they were actually of about the same SQ. The only difference was the Bose signature, you know the artificial sound...muffled, enhanced, fake. So, if Bose headphones went for around $20 I'd buy them because they are really comfortable and sound ok (for $20)
Mike Walker
Doesn't pull punches
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2001
- Posts
- 541
- Likes
- 14
When I compared the Bose AE to the Bose OE, two differences jumped out at me. First, the bass extension is quite a bit better on the OE...far more authority in the bottom octave. Second, there is quite a bit of "cupped-hands" coloration with the AE 'phones (the same kind of coloration you get when you cup your hands around your outer-ears). This is common with inexpensive closed-back 'phones, but shouldn't be on a headphone this expensive. For these two reasons, I wouldn't buy the Bose AE.
But I near no such coloration with the OE (there is coloration, of course...just not this specific one). And the first time you listen to something with substantial energy in the bottom octave (pipe organ, synthesizer with lots of stuff "down there", or something like the famous Telarc 1812 recording), you'll see what I'm talking about. Rap music (which, being a 51 year old white guy, ain't exactly my thing) often has lots of energy "down there". There was a rap tune playing when I first compared the Bose 'phones, and it was immediately obvious that much of the power of extreme lows just wasn't there with the AE.
Honestly, a 30 dollar Koss Porta-Pro or KSC-35 has more bass extension than the Bose AE, as do most inexpensive in-ear "canal-phones". Of course most inexpensive canal phones have tons of coloration to my ears, but that's another topic.
But I near no such coloration with the OE (there is coloration, of course...just not this specific one). And the first time you listen to something with substantial energy in the bottom octave (pipe organ, synthesizer with lots of stuff "down there", or something like the famous Telarc 1812 recording), you'll see what I'm talking about. Rap music (which, being a 51 year old white guy, ain't exactly my thing) often has lots of energy "down there". There was a rap tune playing when I first compared the Bose 'phones, and it was immediately obvious that much of the power of extreme lows just wasn't there with the AE.
Honestly, a 30 dollar Koss Porta-Pro or KSC-35 has more bass extension than the Bose AE, as do most inexpensive in-ear "canal-phones". Of course most inexpensive canal phones have tons of coloration to my ears, but that's another topic.
pladoh
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2009
- Posts
- 17
- Likes
- 0
Quote:
I can personally vouch for that, my first headphone purchase (except a few $15 ear buds) was the bose OE headphones. I noticed a substantial quality difference and bragged that I had "the best headphones in the world"
and sadly even convinced five people to buy these headphones, If not for this beautiful site i would not be rocking my grados and s4's, bose is good at advertising and most people that buy bose think they have the best.
| Originally Posted by TheMarchingMule /img/forum/go_quote.gif Who says that those Amazon and CNET reviews aren't biased either? If anything, they are a tad on the ignorant side, because names like AKG and Grado are not well-known. Thus, they assume that BOSE is the end-all can, and think of it that way when they listen to their music through them. |
I can personally vouch for that, my first headphone purchase (except a few $15 ear buds) was the bose OE headphones. I noticed a substantial quality difference and bragged that I had "the best headphones in the world"
TheMarchingMule
Headphoneus Supremus
Quote:
Holy crud, I don't even remember posting in this thread. Boy did I sound angry when I posted that.
| Originally Posted by pladoh /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can personally vouch for that, my first headphone purchase (except a few $15 ear buds) was the bose OE headphones. I noticed a substantial quality difference and bragged that I had "the best headphones in the world"
|
Holy crud, I don't even remember posting in this thread. Boy did I sound angry when I posted that.
d1ce
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2009
- Posts
- 45
- Likes
- 0
Anyone have experience with both the On-Ear and Around-Ear models? I'm interested to see which has superior bass (extension in paticular, sub-bass levels).
Edit: uhhhh, I must be blind. I somehow missed the post detailing my exact question.
Edit: uhhhh, I must be blind. I somehow missed the post detailing my exact question.
LUCIDD
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2009
- Posts
- 122
- Likes
- 14
Wow... Bose thread! Another one! Seriously, these threads are great!!! I'm really fell into the sound/music trap a few years ago, and now wanting to get some good sq headphones
thanks to this forums like Head-fi & and threads like this one, I've got the important info and brands that I'd be looking at and comparing!
Sorry Bose, I know your dirty trix in the speaker world, and in this headphone world, now I know that your dirty trix are aparent. I don't like the horid eq'ing in the lifestyle/computer speaker systems and sounds like it exist in all products... I may audition and buy the ae or oe just for comparison - but I'll surely return them within 30days. Thx again guys for all the info! _____L
Sorry Bose, I know your dirty trix in the speaker world, and in this headphone world, now I know that your dirty trix are aparent. I don't like the horid eq'ing in the lifestyle/computer speaker systems and sounds like it exist in all products... I may audition and buy the ae or oe just for comparison - but I'll surely return them within 30days. Thx again guys for all the info! _____L
driscoz71
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2009
- Posts
- 22
- Likes
- 0
Quote:
Sad but true.
I told a friend of mine who has the over ear bose headphones that I was going to buy some headphones and he responded "bose is the way to go." I burst out laughing and told him I don't think so.
| Originally Posted by pladoh /img/forum/go_quote.gif bose is good at advertising and most people that buy bose think they have the best. |
Sad but true.
I told a friend of mine who has the over ear bose headphones that I was going to buy some headphones and he responded "bose is the way to go." I burst out laughing and told him I don't think so.
Bilavideo
Caution: Incomplete trades.
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2008
- Posts
- 3,101
- Likes
- 128
It's not that Bose makes the worst headphones, nor is it that their cans are particularly expensive. The most expensive cans Bose sells are the QC3s ($350) a compact version of their QC15 ($300), but both are selling noise-cancellation. I don't think $140 for the AEs and $180 for the OEs is that expensive, especially when there are headfiers who'd pay more than that for a cable.
The problem is that Bose convinces the uninformed that they are buying the best headphones in the world, and at least audiophile cans that should run with the big boys. In fact, Bose is all about marketing. They're selling Big Macs and convincing people they've bought steak - and it just isn't close to being true.
If you want boom boom, there are lots of cans out there that will give you boom boom, and for less than what you'll pay for Bose. Ironically, it's a status symbol (among people who know nothing about headphones) to sport one of these on a plane, but the AEs sound terrible (poor bass, cluttered HF) and the OEs, while sounding better, make an unnecessary tradeoff between bass and a clear upper register. To get a bouncy, punchy bass, the OEs utilize bean bag cushions with very small screens (about the size of a fingernail). This limits the HF to a sonic keyhole while the leather/pleather style bean bags leaves you with sonic mud. Forget about clarity and detail. You're paying for boom boom.
Of course, Bose has a lot of people convinced otherwise. Even those who can't afford $180 for the OEs can at least demo them at a Bose store or a Best Buy. What they don't know is that they're listening to a CD with carefully selected tracks, tracks designed to showcase the headphone's limited strengths. I'm glad that, by the time I was hustled into a Bose demonstration of their $3,000 home theater system, I'd learned enough loudspeaker dynamics to see through the charade. By that point, I'd known enough to laugh at the music video with dancers clogging, knowing by this point that it was a demonstration of midrange (Because of the percussive effect, people often mistake this for a demonstration of bass). I hadn't been so informed the first time I heard the OE demonstration in a Best Buy, but when I later found the demo CD's manual online, I downloaded every track I could from iTunes. Wouldn't you know it? Within minutes, every cheap headphone in the house was popping and thumping like a Bose. Most of that experience is the music selected.
So when headfiers sneer at the mention of Bose, it's not that you can't have a good time with Bose. You can and you should. It's the arrogance and mind tricks of the Bose marketing machine that arouse the most ire. There are better ways to harness bass than to choke off the HF. Bose's methodology is designed to sucker the uninformed, to give them a Big Mac and tell them it's a steak. It's like buying an overpriced Nike and discovering, to your chagrin, that you haven't even bought a decent running shoe (Nike does sell some decent running shoes, but you can't go by price - or brand identity - alone).
The problem is that Bose convinces the uninformed that they are buying the best headphones in the world, and at least audiophile cans that should run with the big boys. In fact, Bose is all about marketing. They're selling Big Macs and convincing people they've bought steak - and it just isn't close to being true.
If you want boom boom, there are lots of cans out there that will give you boom boom, and for less than what you'll pay for Bose. Ironically, it's a status symbol (among people who know nothing about headphones) to sport one of these on a plane, but the AEs sound terrible (poor bass, cluttered HF) and the OEs, while sounding better, make an unnecessary tradeoff between bass and a clear upper register. To get a bouncy, punchy bass, the OEs utilize bean bag cushions with very small screens (about the size of a fingernail). This limits the HF to a sonic keyhole while the leather/pleather style bean bags leaves you with sonic mud. Forget about clarity and detail. You're paying for boom boom.
Of course, Bose has a lot of people convinced otherwise. Even those who can't afford $180 for the OEs can at least demo them at a Bose store or a Best Buy. What they don't know is that they're listening to a CD with carefully selected tracks, tracks designed to showcase the headphone's limited strengths. I'm glad that, by the time I was hustled into a Bose demonstration of their $3,000 home theater system, I'd learned enough loudspeaker dynamics to see through the charade. By that point, I'd known enough to laugh at the music video with dancers clogging, knowing by this point that it was a demonstration of midrange (Because of the percussive effect, people often mistake this for a demonstration of bass). I hadn't been so informed the first time I heard the OE demonstration in a Best Buy, but when I later found the demo CD's manual online, I downloaded every track I could from iTunes. Wouldn't you know it? Within minutes, every cheap headphone in the house was popping and thumping like a Bose. Most of that experience is the music selected.
So when headfiers sneer at the mention of Bose, it's not that you can't have a good time with Bose. You can and you should. It's the arrogance and mind tricks of the Bose marketing machine that arouse the most ire. There are better ways to harness bass than to choke off the HF. Bose's methodology is designed to sucker the uninformed, to give them a Big Mac and tell them it's a steak. It's like buying an overpriced Nike and discovering, to your chagrin, that you haven't even bought a decent running shoe (Nike does sell some decent running shoes, but you can't go by price - or brand identity - alone).
Halftrack
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2009
- Posts
- 281
- Likes
- 10
Quote:
Very well-said.
| Originally Posted by Bilavideo /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's not that Bose makes the worst headphones, <trim trim trim> (Nike does sell some decent running shoes, but you can't go by price - or brand identity - alone). |
Very well-said.
Users who are viewing this thread
