[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by e.iskakov /img/forum/go_quote.gif Simple answer: it's overpriced

Exactly!
You can get more for less elsewhere...

 

[sebhuber]

no, you cannot get the same sound for less thats why bose is successful as it is.

 

[longie11]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebhuber /img/forum/go_quote.gif no, you cannot get the same sound for less thats why bose is successful as it is.

LOL!! That's a good joke.......Unless you weren't being sarcastic????

 

[Uncle Erik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebhuber /img/forum/go_quote.gif no, you cannot get the same sound for less thats why bose is successful as it is.

I'm not aware of any audiophile product with the same sound as Bose

The vast majority of audiophile gear sounds much, much better than Bose.

And some of it costs less than Bose.

 

[fraseyboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebhuber /img/forum/go_quote.gif Better sound through research? Does that mean you have to develop a system that has already been developed or you try and find a better way of delivering the WoW in music?

World Of Warcraft in music? WUT.

 

[Stevesebastianb]

1. Completely under performing;
2. Completely over priced;
3. And ugly gear to match;
4. "Better sound through research", then I guess they have many many more years of research ahead before they can do anything.

I never did once come across a piece of Bose gear that I liked!

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebhuber /img/forum/go_quote.gif no, you cannot get the same sound for less thats why bose is successful as it is.

True enough! But we are not talking about the same sound (aka identical), but higher quality one. For less money...

 

[Suntory_Times]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif True enough! But we are not talking about the same sound (aka identical), but higher quality one. For less money...

Why would someone want the sound of bose anyway, its fake sounding drivel advertised as bieng high end audio gear.

 

[sebhuber]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times /img/forum/go_quote.gif Why would someone want the sound of bose anyway, its fake sounding drivel advertised as bieng high end audio gear.

true but I think that for some people this sound is appealing and just look past the distortion it brings with it

 

[Drag0n]

Quote:

Originally Posted by synaesthetic /img/forum/go_quote.gif I wish the mods would just ban any discussion about Bose. It never goes anywhere, never reveals any new information, always degenerating into a furious, masturbatory flurry of insults and diatribes on how much Bose sucks. I realize that this would preclude us from discussing any Bose products, but that doesn't really happen here anyway. I can't even describe the Bose threads as discussion. Maybe one or two insightful comments. I am not defending Bose or putting Bose down. I could care less about the company or their products. I'm just sick of clicking on a thread and seeing posts bashing Bose that are just so juvenile. -.-

Its therapy. We need to get out our frustrations.

 

[sebhuber]

haha true! everytime I read such a thread i learn something new, seriously!

 

[immtbiker]

So, no Politics, Religion, and Bose chatter?

Maybe we need a Bose filter. Er, I mean B*se filter.

 

[Al4x]

bose is worse than some, not as good as others

 

[Busta9iron]

I listened to the Bose cans that sell in Target last night. Extended bass and muddy. Midrange, muddy. I purchased the Audio Technica AD700's for $80 less, and IMO, a much better can for almost half the price. If you like Bose, fine no sweat off my back, but if you think there is none better than Bose, you need to go shopping. There is better out there, and cheaper.

 

[Zaubertuba]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif ...They do a great deal of research into what people find appetizing and then develop foods specifically targeted to our tastes. But that food isn't found in nature and that food that is highly engineered and refined. You can fight over the merits of chemically engineering your diet, but I've stopped eating it.

LOL--this is really a neat metaphor. My brother had the Bose 901's back in the day. We listened to them a lot. Bose's "high-technology" approach seemed novel at the time--but it wasn't long before my brother realized there was something better out there and he moved on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by warpdriver Their marketing slogan is "better sound through research".

And their design philosophy could be coined as "better sound through engineering." I would venture to say some of their designs may be "over-rationalized," to the point they have to use complicated engineering solutions to overcome artificially-induced problems. The 901's required a special equalizer to force some semblance of flat frequency response from the array of 8 small drivers in the back. All of this because of a design spec. that sought to recreate a wide soundstage. The 901 ended up being extremely dependent on the acoustics, set-up, and even the construction methods of the room they're placed in. And even if you got that right, the artificially-induced driver response could never have been the most natural thing in the world.

Quote:

I spent my youth playing several instruments in a variety of bands and orchestras. I attend live events whenever possible. When I get the time, I'll go straight back to a community orchestra. I cannot listen to Bose, or other highly processed systems, because they're offensive to my ear. If you spend years playing, tuning, listening, participating, talking about, and involved in music, Bose just sounds like a wrong note. That sound is grating, awful and unlistenable.

x2--You're totally preaching to the choir here. I'm fortunate enough that I get to hear local performing groups (many are quite good) play in my venue, and I have an acute aversion to over-processing things.

Of course, having just hammered on an EQ-processing based solution, I have to admit I've contemplated contemplating using a very similar solution on my own headphones, so I suppose the jury may be out for me on the solution itself. It's just the implementation seemed to end up sounding very contrived in the case of the 901's.