[jump3r]

Quote:

 
I will have to respectfully disagree. As a former speaker user, Bose makes some of the worst speakers out there in terms of sound quality. They come up with all of these BS technical names for their proprietary "technology" but when you actually listen to their speakers they are awful, especially their home theater speakers. The only saving grace is that their all-in-one systems are convenient. 

every one is hear to learn. thanks i will never buy bose speakers again.

 

[obobskivich]

Something that's always baffled me (and yes I read through the entire thread) is on one hand we have people saying the AE2 have "no bass" and other people saying that Bose products by and large have "too much bass" - makes me wonder how many people have actually taken a pair home and tried them, not a store demo, not a friend's setup on their mp3 player with 96k files on the bus, etc - but at home. This isn't meant to be confrontational - I'm just sincerely curious here. Mostly because, over the years, I've seen a lot of really ridiculous and illogical claims made about Bose and at some point I just have to ask "really?" - if you want to rip on a brand because they're popular or it lets you feel edgy, that seems fairly petty. Now of course everyone will have different frames of reference, and hear things differently, but at some point I gotta ask about consistency - most other headphones we chat about here have a fairly consistent general consensus surrounding them after enough people have heard them.

Personally I find the AE2 to be around "neutral" or "middle of the road" in terms of bass impact, but it isn't as boom-boom as the M50 or similar cans (I'd honestly put their bass response on-par with the ATH-ESW9). They're fairly smooth and pleasant sounding cans - the "+10 at 10k audiophile" hump isn't there, and they aren't analytical, dry, or sterile by any means (so people who want such cans, or want to compare them to such cans, are not in for a good time) - but they're pleasant and easy to listen to, and sound pretty good when you consider their comfort, isolation, and soundstaging as well. There's few other headphones that I would regard as being so perfect for all-day usage, and even fewer that offer legitimate isolation.

When it comes to sound quality for money - it's a tough discussion with a manufacturer like Bose (or Grado, or Sennheiser, or anyone who strictly enforces MSRP); because they're always gonna be undercut by someone who doesn't. For example, the Koss TBSE are "as good" (they're very different, but they're equally competent overall imho), and both headphones are $149 list; but the TBSE were (maybe still are) $50 at Tuesday Morning, and something like $70-$90 for most of their time on the market. So does this mean the Bose are a bad value, or the TBSE are a good value?

On the other hand, the M50 are $200 list, and I liked them less, so does this make them a bad value? Or the Bose a good value? It's a murky question. I'm guessing if Bose didn't enforce their MSRP, that $70-$100 band is where they'd sit (like the TBSE).

 

[TJ Max]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CirrusPilot /img/forum/go_quote.gif

 
Are you talking about the AE2s or speakers?
 
EQing is fine until you get up into higher end equipment. At that point the EQ settings from an iPhone or whatever can really screw up the way the music is supposed to sound. 

 
 
I think a quality Equalizer and a good knowlege of how to use one can  yeld postitive results on high end equiptment, especially if they are neutral. Engineers use EQs on equiptment worth tens of thousands of dollars, so they can't be automatically destructive.
But of coarse the equalizer on the iphone is not quality.
 
ps I think the AE2 produces very good low end when its actually in the recording. It just doesnt take liberties with it.

 

[obobskivich]

I think a quality Equalizer and a good knowlege of how to use one can  yeld postitive results on high end equiptment, especially if they are neutral. Engineers use EQs on equiptment worth tens of thousands of dollars, so they can't be automatically destructive.
But of coarse the equalizer on the iphone is not quality.

ps I think the AE2 produces very good low end when its actually in the recording. It just doesnt take liberties with it.

I agree across the board. The stigma associated with EQ is something I've never gotten - quality equalization exists, and doesn't have to be majorly expensive (of course if you're in a mixing studio you should use equipment suited to that); a big part of it, however, is understanding what EQ can and cannot do (more importantly what your EQ can and cannot do), and how to get the results that you're looking for. It isn't a universal band-aid, but it isn't a guaranteed problem either.

 

[ITALIANNYC]

Quote:

Something that's always baffled me (and yes I read through the entire thread) is on one hand we have people saying the AE2 have "no bass" and other people saying that Bose products by and large have "too much bass" - makes me wonder how many people have actually taken a pair home and tried them, not a store demo, not a friend's setup on their mp3 player with 96k files on the bus, etc - but at home. This isn't meant to be confrontational - I'm just sincerely curious here. Mostly because, over the years, I've seen a lot of really ridiculous and illogical claims made about Bose and at some point I just have to ask "really?" - if you want to rip on a brand because they're popular or it lets you feel edgy, that seems fairly petty. Now of course everyone will have different frames of reference, and hear things differently, but at some point I gotta ask about consistency - most other headphones we chat about here have a fairly consistent general consensus surrounding them after enough people have heard them.
Personally I find the AE2 to be around "neutral" or "middle of the road" in terms of bass impact, but it isn't as boom-boom as the M50 or similar cans (I'd honestly put their bass response on-par with the ATH-ESW9). They're fairly smooth and pleasant sounding cans - the "+10 at 10k audiophile" hump isn't there, and they aren't analytical, dry, or sterile by any means (so people who want such cans, or want to compare them to such cans, are not in for a good time) - but they're pleasant and easy to listen to, and sound pretty good when you consider their comfort, isolation, and soundstaging as well. There's few other headphones that I would regard as being so perfect for all-day usage, and even fewer that offer legitimate isolation.
When it comes to sound quality for money - it's a tough discussion with a manufacturer like Bose (or Grado, or Sennheiser, or anyone who strictly enforces MSRP); because they're always gonna be undercut by someone who doesn't. For example, the Koss TBSE are "as good" (they're very different, but they're equally competent overall imho), and both headphones are $149 list; but the TBSE were (maybe still are) $50 at Tuesday Morning, and something like $70-$90 for most of their time on the market. So does this mean the Bose are a bad value, or the TBSE are a good value?
On the other hand, the M50 are $200 list, and I liked them less, so does this make them a bad value? Or the Bose a good value? It's a murky question. I'm guessing if Bose didn't enforce their MSRP, that $70-$100 band is where they'd sit (like the TBSE).

I sometimes ask myself the same question. The original triports were extremely bass heavy and would thump my ears. The AE2 do not at all to me. There are of course a certain few songs where you do feel a slight rumble, but that is only on songs where it is needed. The extreme lows do hit however. That is more when I watch a movie or something with them though. For me, they have just the right amount of bass. 
 
Mine do sound alot better now then when I first got them a few weeks ago. They are the only pair I have really kept on my head all day and never had any discomfort from. 
 
I find that with headphones that have more bass, they end up hurting my ears or giving me a headache. They also put bass in songs where their should not be any.
 
I paid 60 for mine from the bose warrenty replacement program. I believe they should be priced around 115- 125 instead of 150. But for the comfort and the replacement program, id gladly pay the 150.
 
Think of it this way. If you pay full price once, you never will have to pay full price again for bose headphones. They will always exchange them, even if the newer version comes out. 

 

[RamblinE]

Quote:

 
 
ps I think the AE2 produces very good low end when its actually in the recording. It just doesnt take liberties with it.

My AKG K701s do this however when I first got them I thought they were extremely light on the bass. It took some time getting used to them before I came to realize that they weren't bass light, just merely accurate to the recording. 
 
I've come back to the AE2 for the winter as they're currently the only pair of around-ears I'll take out of the house. Do do indeed attribute this flat and accurate bass. 

 

[Mani ATH 87]

The AE2 has to be better then the AE. I got a chance to listen to the AE today and I'm confident I've heard better sound in a free ear bud.

 

[kramer5150]

I own the latest AE2...its NO WHERE near as great as the OP proclaims.  Sorry... no dice.
 
Its kind of like a KSC-75 in terms of overall sonics but slightly less detail resolving and with a tad more closed-in soundstage image. I am not a detail obsessive-fanatic, but this is the AE2s biggest flaw.  If I can hear its congestion then I am sure some of you who place detail resolution higher up on the scale will be pretty disappointed.  Congested smoothly recessed mids (vocals), muddy bass and treble that can just barely differentiate rhythmic high hat sizzle from a big crash cymbal over head.  Its saving grace is a comfortable (nicely done) treble boost, which helps give an illusion of detail, and keeps things from getting completely murky.
 
They do have a "squawky / naisal" midrange "honk", like a wah pedal stuck at about 30%.  This is probably a source o at least some of its mid-range murkiness.  Its not readily apparent though until you A/B them with better cans... then its as obvious as getting beaten with a bag of oranges.
 
They are slightly on the bass-heavy side.  Not beats fart-cannon bass, but definitely heavier in the bass by a little bit.  The bass is nicely spread smooth though.  Round/wooly bass as opposed to pointy bass, if that makes any sense.  Its not a one-note kind of bass.  It does extend pretty deep.  Spectral balance is very pleasant and nicely done.
 
The best analogy I can give is to take a KSC75 or portapro and recess the mids by 2.5 dbs from ~1-6khz, and extend the sub-bass deeper.
They are great DVD movie cans though, and they are better than what I remember of the original AE1.
 
these are my opinions of course, and FWIW, cans of reference are RS1, HF1, SR60, K240S, K701, HD580, A250 and of course KSC / porta

 

[RamblinE]

I think the biggest handicap these headphones have is the price and the name.
 
Sell them for $75 under ANY. OTHER. BRAND and I'm betting you they'd have a much better reputation.

 

[zumacyn]

Hey the AE2 is just great for listening to Spotify premium at 320 OGG. Sounds very clean and balanced coming out of an iPad or iTouch. I have no complaint. I've tried a lot of HP at Apple store and they all sounded awful.

 

[ihearnoises1981]

I own the latest AE2...its NO WHERE near as great as the OP proclaims.  Sorry... no dice.

Its kind of like a KSC-75 in terms of overall sonics but slightly less detail resolving and with a tad more closed-in soundstage image. I am not a detail obsessive-fanatic, but this is the AE2s biggest flaw.  If I can hear its congestion then I am sure some of you who place detail resolution higher up on the scale will be pretty disappointed.  Congested smoothly recessed mids (vocals), muddy bass and treble that can just barely differentiate rhythmic high hat sizzle from a big crash cymbal over head.  Its saving grace is a comfortable (nicely done) treble boost, which helps give an illusion of detail, and keeps things from getting completely murky.

They do have a "squawky / naisal" midrange "honk", like a wah pedal stuck at about 30%.  This is probably a source o at least some of its mid-range murkiness.  Its not readily apparent though until you A/B them with better cans... then its as obvious as getting beaten with a bag of oranges.

They are slightly on the bass-heavy side.  Not beats fart-cannon bass, but definitely heavier in the bass by a little bit.  The bass is nicely spread smooth though.  Round/wooly bass as opposed to pointy bass, if that makes any sense.  Its not a one-note kind of bass.  It does extend pretty deep.  Spectral balance is very pleasant and nicely done.

The best analogy I can give is to take a KSC75 or portapro and recess the mids by 2.5 dbs from ~1-6khz, and extend the sub-bass deeper.
They are great DVD movie cans though, and they are better than what I remember of the original AE1.

these are my opinions of course, and FWIW, cans of reference are RS1, HF1, SR60, K240S, K701, HD580, A250 and of course KSC / porta

Personally I disagree "A" you most likely did not burn them in for u didn't inform or make point that they do not sound good out of the box. When burnt in with s course of 50-100 hours you'll notice that the upper mid range will totally pop and the same the lower mid range also the mid range is a lot more present compared to a headset like Ath m50 and slot more natural but responsive and natural highs against overemphatic highs from the Ath m50 and more mature sounding version of the athm50 and I scratch my head when people say that ae2 have no mids yet they praise the m50 which barley any mids at all. I find thattge mids captired a very nice soundstage and stimulation one of the best for me preference wise, not overfilled like many sony headsets in comparison but it was very natural yet it still holds back to avoid fatigue and allows you to enjoy a lot of highs and trebles for electronic and DEFINITELY goes past the mark of being of only being "bass heavy" or "extreme trebles" instead a very neutral feel. Bass seemed fairly flat more filled and natural lows to capture things like drums yet not leaking and shadowing mids compared to the m50 which only has "punchy" bass, no life or fullness it just packed a punch but the ae2 were a lot more filled but not too boomy and didn't really leak into the mids just enough bass to fill in drums perfectly and after a burn in the lows were particularly responsive reproduced quite well not as you describe as murky and muddy. We also have to take consideration the wonderful design. Such as the durability for it"s The MOST DURABLE headset out there without being super hunky like some dj headsets but incredibly slim for a headphone with this amazing durability also is the MOST comfortable headphone out there ill argue this point with ANYBODY . Knowing that this is very slim potable compact very durable with out sacrificing comfort AT ALL. Overall I LOVE these cans and I still get confused on why people criticize them when the headphones they praise are even worse

 

[Oregonian]

Quote:

Personally I disagree "A" you most likely did not burn them in for u didn't inform or make point that they do not sound good out of the box. When burnt in with s course of 50-100 hours you'll notice that the upper mid range will totally pop and the same the lower mid range also the mid range is a lot more present compared to a headset like Ath m50 and slot more natural but responsive and natural highs against overemphatic highs from the Ath m50 and more mature sounding version of the athm50 and I scratch my head when people say that ae2 have no mids yet they praise the m50 which barley any mids at all. I find thattge mids captired a very nice soundstage and stimulation one of the best for me preference wise, not overfilled like many sony headsets in comparison but it was very natural yet it still holds back to avoid fatigue and allows you to enjoy a lot of highs and trebles for electronic and DEFINITELY goes past the mark of being of only being "bass heavy" or "extreme trebles" instead a very neutral feel. Bass seemed fairly flat more filled and natural lows to capture things like drums yet not leaking and shadowing mids compared to the m50 which only has "punchy" bass, no life or fullness it just packed a punch but the ae2 were a lot more filled but not too boomy and didn't really leak into the mids just enough bass to fill in drums perfectly and after a burn in the lows were particularly responsive reproduced quite well not as you describe as murky and muddy. We also have to take consideration the wonderful design. Such as the durability for it"s The MOST DURABLE headset out there without being super hunky like some dj headsets but incredibly slim for a headphone with this amazing durability also is the MOST comfortable headphone out there ill argue this point with ANYBODY . Knowing that this is very slim potable compact very durable with out sacrificing comfort AT ALL. Overall I LOVE these cans and I still get confused on why people criticize them when the headphones they praise are even worse

 
I too happen to love them.  Incredible comfort, lightweight and they sound great.  Through my double amp setup (Magni and ZO) they even have BASS folks....................now, they are not my favorite to listen to now that I have my D2000's and Q40's but I bought the Bose AE2 as my first GOOD headphone...............before I knew better from reading all the disciples here. 
 
Anyway, they are good phones.  No one else has to agree or like them. 

 

[RamblinE]

I've replaced mine with AKG K550s. Not really too much of a comparison there. 
 
I'm probably going to pass mine on to a friend who I think will appreciate them. He drives his Triports off of a pair of restored mono-tube amps (Magnavox I think) of all things. 

 

[Redo]

Whether they sound good or not is not my concern. I would never give this company my money. There are real manufacturers out there who have done things the proper way.