[goodyfresh]

Exactly what most other folks are saying:  Unlike, say, Beats, Bose DOES, in fact, tend to make headphones with some pretty damn good sound quality.  Their main issue is the price.  Because they have such an overhyped image in consumer culture and society, they have overinflated all their prices. . .you can generally get headphones from another company with the same level of sound but at a significantly cheaper price than any given pair of Bose.  That being said, if you are looking for active-noise-cancellation, they do in fact make the best available on the market today.  Of course, ANC totally screws with sound-quality, so I wouldn't ever use it myself. . .whatever.  It's just that the Bose ANC products do a much better job at getting good sound than such products from other companies, which is pretty neat and a real credit to their engineers.

One company with a similar reputation to Bose for audio products (especially headphones) in our culture and society, but which has NOT followed their example of making everything super-overpriced, is Sony. . .and I very much respect them for that!

Bottom line though is that, while overpriced, Bose are NOT comparable to Beats or Skullcandy, as the majority of their products, while colored and v-shaped in their signature, are actually very good sounding. . .generally with low distortion, good soundstage and imaging, nice dynamics, and good comfort and build.  So the reason you don't see them on the "best" lists anywhere is the prices, more than anything.  That and the fact that their sound, while very good, still does not measure up to the best mid-fi-priced sound available from companies like Sennheiser, Sony, AKG, etc.

 

[cel4145]

One company with a similar reputation to Bose for audio products (especially headphones) in our culture and society, but which has NOT followed their example of making everything super-overpriced, is Sony. . .and I very much respect them for that!

Yeah, but Sony will sell you a snake oil audiophile grade micro SD card:


http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/02/sony-will-sell-a-premium-sound-microsdxc-card-to-audiophiles-in-japan/

LOL

 

[ZapX629]

Lol. Yeah, Sony have been just as guilty of having overpriced, colored headphones. 

 

[identitymatrix]

The headphones/earphones are overpriced. But they are comfortable. I have one to use in gym.

 

[EagleWings]

Facts:
Bose does make good home entertainment equipment and speakers. I have a Bose Soundlink Mini which sounds phenomenal. But when it comes to wired headphones their sound is not the best for the price you pay. (I haven't tried or owned a wireless version, so can't comment on that). But you must know that they make one of the most comfortable headphones in that price range. Their current set of Over Ear Headphones are called the Sound True which are on sale now for $130 and I still wouldn't suggest anyone to buy it. They are about to release a new line of headphones to replace the current line. And if Bose is wise, they probably will address the issues with the current models..
 
Suggestion:
Otherwise, based on your needs, Bose's sound signature should work great for you (I have heard the current Sound Trues and they do have the Sound Signature that will suit your needs). But I'd suggest you wait for the new release and try them out at a local BestBuy or Fry's store. They are very light, extremely comfortable and portable. And while you wait for the new ones to arrive, I will say you look into these 2 Headphones. They will leave some money in your pocket that you can invest in other equipments.
 
1. V-Moda Crossfade M100 - Closed Back - May not be as comfortable as the Bose but sounds many times better. And based on your needs this is the top headphone I could think of. Very portable.
Meets your criteria?: - 5/5
Sound - 5/5
Comfort - 4/5
Portability - 5/5
Build: 7/5 (This is not a typo)
Bang for the Buck: 4/5
Overall - 4.5/5
 
2. AudioTechnica ATH-M50X - Closed Back. - May not sound good as M100s but offers better comfort. People who buy these sing praises about it.
Meets your criteria?: - 5/5
Sound - 4/5
Comfort - 4.5/5
Portability - 4/5
Build - 4/5
Bang for the Buck - 4.5/5
Overall - 4/5
 
To give you a perspective, here is how I would rate the current Bose Sound True:
Meets your criteria?: - 4.5/5
Sound - 3/5
Comfort - 5/5
Portability - 4.5/5
Build - 3.5/5
Bang for the Buck - 3/5
Overall - 3.5/5
 
Hope this helps!
 
Thanks. Let us know what you decide.

 

[Tail]

  Unlike, say, Beats, Bose DOES, in fact, tend to make headphones with some pretty damn good sound quality.  

One company with a similar reputation to Bose for audio products (especially headphones) in our culture and society, but which has NOT followed their example of making everything super-overpriced, is Sony. . .and I very much respect them for that!

Bottom line though is that, while overpriced, Bose are NOT comparable to Beats or Skullcandy, as the majority of their products, while colored and v-shaped in their signature, are actually very good sounding. . .generally with low distortion, good soundstage and imaging, nice dynamics, and good comfort and build.  So the reason you don't see them on the "best" lists anywhere is the prices, more than anything.  That and the fact that their sound, while very good, still does not measure up to the best mid-fi-priced sound available from companies like Sennheiser, Sony, AKG, etc.

 
I disagree on most of this... New Beats ( v2, or whatever you wanna call that series of headphones) isn't half as bad as they say, I actually found Tour for example better than same priced Bose's in ear model (IE2, SIE2, MIE2 etc, different variation of same earphone). Not insanely great by any means, I'd skip Beats any day, never have and probably never will buy them, but still better than those Bose in ear models.
 
Also when you said they tend to make headphones with "some pretty damn good sound quality"? Again, wasn't the case in my experience, nothing damn good sounding there. And they you said for the price, well that is the only important thing we talk about here, if the Bose is pretty damn good sounding for a pair of cheaper headphones, since they don't cost that much - they are not a good sounding pair of headphones (if you compare them with some bad cheaper ones, then yeah, they are good sounding).
 
Sony had in their past some overpriced stuff, they use gimmicks to advertise their products (such as hi res stuff, magical SD cards etc.) but yeah, comparing to Bose for the same money you can get better stuff, still nothing worth "respect" in my opinion comparing to countless other companies, many of which had even better value than Sony, many of which made some innovations while Sony kept using already existing technologies and stuff.
 
Again, when you said "Bose is NOT comparable to Beats", in my opinion it's true in favor of Beats (at least those new models). Bose doesn't even have offering for in ear/earbuds worth mentioning, 0 isolation, completely useless anywhere outside, in any kind of commute or travel, in gym, any sport etc. To be able to hear music at all you'd need to crank volume up to hurting levels, also build is very bad, cable died in less than a year on me and I take care of earphones... in contrary my Sennheiser IE80 I bought after just survived over 2 years and still in heavy use (~3h a day, including gym). Also at least on IE2 soundstage was non existent, which was really disappointing since it didn't even seal my ear canal so the sense of space ought to be bigger by default, yet it wasn't the case with Bose (with all their headphones, but IE2 in particular because those are that I had for a long time, others I've just tested couple of times (two friends got them) - still, it was enough to form my opinion on them).
 
"That and the fact that their sound, while very good, still does not measure up to the best mid-fi-priced"    How is it very good sound then? Very good comparing to what? There is no default good sound, sound and price are closely connected together. If they are good sounding comparing to cheaper headphones then they are actually not good sounding. 
 
I sounded maybe like I hate Bose, but I honestly don't know if I ever heard worse headphones for the money, tho I always researched what to buy and to have good value, so maybe I don't have much experience with bad stuff, nevertheless Bose gets big no from me for headphones (but their small Bluetooth speakers rocks, noise cancelling is the best etc.). 

 

[El Zilcho]

   
I disagree on most of this... New Beats ( v2, or whatever you wanna call that series of headphones) isn't half as bad as they say, I actually found Tour for example better than same priced Bose's in ear model (IE2, SIE2, MIE2 etc, different variation of same earphone). Not insanely great by any means, I'd skip Beats any day, never have and probably never will buy them, but still better than those Bose in ear models.
 
Also when you said they tend to make headphones with "some pretty damn good sound quality"? Again, wasn't the case in my experience, nothing damn good sounding there. And they you said for the price, well that is the only important thing we talk about here, if the Bose is pretty damn good sounding for a pair of cheaper headphones, since they don't cost that much - they are not a good sounding pair of headphones (if you compare them with some bad cheaper ones, then yeah, they are good sounding).
 
Sony had in their past some overpriced stuff, they use gimmicks to advertise their products (such as hi res stuff, magical SD cards etc.) but yeah, comparing to Bose for the same money you can get better stuff, still nothing worth "respect" in my opinion comparing to countless other companies, many of which had even better value than Sony, many of which made some innovations while Sony kept using already existing technologies and stuff.
 
Again, when you said "Bose is NOT comparable to Beats", in my opinion it's true in favor of Beats (at least those new models). Bose doesn't even have offering for in ear/earbuds worth mentioning, 0 isolation, completely useless anywhere outside, in any kind of commute or travel, in gym, any sport etc. To be able to hear music at all you'd need to crank volume up to hurting levels, also build is very bad, cable died in less than a year on me and I take care of earphones... in contrary my Sennheiser IE80 I bought after just survived over 2 years and still in heavy use (~3h a day, including gym). Also at least on IE2 soundstage was non existent, which was really disappointing since it didn't even seal my ear canal so the sense of space ought to be bigger by default, yet it wasn't the case with Bose (with all their headphones, but IE2 in particular because those are that I had for a long time, others I've just tested couple of times (two friends got them) - still, it was enough to form my opinion on them).
 
"That and the fact that their sound, while very good, still does not measure up to the best mid-fi-priced"    How is it very good sound then? Very good comparing to what? There is no default good sound, sound and price are closely connected together. If they are good sounding comparing to cheaper headphones then they are actually not good sounding. 
 
I sounded maybe like I hate Bose, but I honestly don't know if I ever heard worse headphones for the money, tho I always researched what to buy and to have good value, so maybe I don't have much experience with bad stuff, nevertheless Bose gets big no from me for headphones (but their small Bluetooth speakers rocks, noise cancelling is the best etc.). 

 
That hasn't been my overall experience with Bose headphones.  Several years ago I was in the market for headphones and ended up buying both Bose AE2 and Klipsch Image Ones.  I very shortly returned the Klipsch and kept the Bose.  Now, I'm not going to claim that Klipsch are one of the better brands that you are talking about, but the fact is they were actually more expensive than the Bose, and I preferred the sound of the Bose overall.  This wasn't based on any marketing, it was based on listening to both in my house. 
 
I admittedly haven't listened to any of the newer Beats headphones and I've heard they improved.  But at the time I bought the AE2s they sounded better than any of the Beats products I tested to in the store, including those costing over twice what the Bose AE2s cost at the time.  Again, this is just my experience with my ears and preferences, so it's just an opinion.  I generally don't like super bass heavy sound because it seems to interfere with other parts of the music for me.
 
Also, as far as Bose not appearing on any "Best" lists:
 
thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-on-ear-headphones-at-any-price/
 
Also, the QC25 are on many best lists, though that generally about the best in class noise cancelling.
 
At the time I bought my AE2 there may have been better sounding headphones out there (thought the Klipsch Image Ones weren't it for me), but they sounded ok, were super light and crazy comfortable.  Easy to wear for hours with no fatigue from the comfort or the sound.
 
Don't get me wrong.  I'm not trying to proclaim the amazingness of Bose, or get anyone to buy them.  Just saying that like any company, they have good and bad products (I don't like the sound signature of their on-ear models). 
 
As to their "in-ear" headphones, different strokes for different folks I guess.  I recently bought them because they isolate less than some others.  I didn't like the loss of situational awareness I got from high isolation in ear buds when walking outside.  I also think the comfort is well above true "in ear" buds for my ears.  Yes, outside sounds can interfere with the music, but it's not a big deal.  I'm just using the music to keep me company while I walk.  I listen at home (or in other quiet places) for the best listening experience. 

 

[Tail]

   
 
Also, as far as Bose not appearing on any "Best" lists:
 
thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-on-ear-headphones-at-any-price/
 
Just saying.
 

I think this article is a joke, especially the title "Best on ear headphones at any price". And yes, I agree with the first version of Beats, but these v2, even tho they are not particularly good as well, are noticeable improvement than first versions, also to me better than Bose I've tested.
 
Also AE2 are rated 3.2 which tells enough what majority of people here think about them (that usually have more experience with headphones than average people that rate gear on other websites). 3.2 is bad by the way, like not good at all. But we have all different experiences with our gear and opinions based on them.

 

[El Zilcho]

  I think this article is a joke, especially the title "Best on ear headphones at any price". And yes, I agree with the first version of Beats, but these v2, even tho they are not particularly good as well, are noticeable improvement than first versions, also to me better than Bose I've tested.
 
Also AE2 are rated 3.2 which tells enough what majority of people here think about them (that usually have more experience with headphones than average people that rate gear on other websites). 3.2 is bad by the way, like not good at all. But we have all different experiences with our gear and opinions based on them.
​

 
I agree it's a bit of an odd article, because they have a "Best for $150" list and a "Best for $400" list.  And almost all the "Best at any Price" phones don't appear on either other list, so it's a strange article.  Just pointing out that there was someone who thinks they are decent. 
 
I never said the AE2 were amazing, or the best headphones or anything.  Just that, at the time, they sounded good and were the most comfortable to me when compared to everything else available locally that I could actually test in the store (I'm pretty limited around here as to what I can actually try out in-store). 

 

[Tail]

 
Just that, at the time, they sounded good and were the most comfortable to me when compared to everything else available locally that I could actually test in the store (I'm pretty limited around here as to what I can actually try out in-store). 

Exactly the reason why they sell and why they are popular, you can get them anywhere and test them anywhere, people don't want to experiment blindly, especially if they don't care much about it and don't know much about it. Bose is one of those highly advertised widely available brand that people know, so why bother and order something online without warranty and having clue when you can walk into store and just test them and buy them, get 2 year warranty paper and come home rate 4-5 stars.
 
Ratings on head-fi are in my experience very good and strict (a lot of biased crap here too, but certainly more accurate than on most other websites that serve only as advertisement where only people that work for magazine rate them, and they are paid to do so). And 3.2 isn't good, again.
 
Of course Bose is not the worst company in the world, at all, but unless you need active noise cancelling (that is great)... it won't be hard to find better option. 

 

[obobskivich]

See previous post:

Missed that. Thanks.

Is to my ears. And it's pyschoacoustics. If the sub is handling the midbass that high, it will be very localizable. But if you are listening to them in those store displays that Bose installs, they have the midbass module right up close to the cubes. And of course their demo disks are well known for being EQ'd to make the speakers sound their best.

Oh yeah - placement matters absolutely. I should've clarified: in a small/compact setup like how Bose demos stuff and/or using them as desktop speakers. I've been in restaurants that have Bose systems with the in-ceiling Acoustmass module and four satellites and it can sound like five separate band-limited speakers.

As for the midbass module frequency response, couldn't find any description of that with their Bose Acoustimass specs. Probably because they don't ever include specs with their products. Which should tell people something.

The only provide power handling specs for consumer products - all of their proline stuff (and some of the Acoustimass modules are sold under this for custom install) has specified freq response and if you're going "big" (e.g. expensive custom install) they'll even provide you with CSD and FIR models of all of their equipment to help you build a response filter for your project (and I've heard some of those systems - they tend to sound pretty good; none of them use Acoustimass though). They even build a "sound modeling" system for that purpose. Bose is an odd company - they have the engineering and manufacturing expertise to make absolutely phenomenal gear, but they largely use it to make inexpensive/cheap products that prioritize size over function. I've read theories over the years that this was done largely because it was a profitable niche they fell into in the 1980s and they could never really emerge and fit into the "audiophile scene" afterwords. No idea if that's true or not, but if you go back through and look at their history of products (a lot of it is on their website) there was a very definite break from primarily making esoteric/quirky 2ch systems to the "clock radio" era we see today.

I think it's because they don't have tweeters (with crossovers), which would increase the costs and destroy the aesthetics. :etysmile:

Could be, but I've heard 2" tweeters and full-range drivers that can hit higher than 13-14kHz as well.

But it helps to illustrate how successful their marketing is at selling mediocre products, which helps to answer the first post.

True. I still don't think their headphones are "mediocre products" though; they are what they are, and if you accept that they can be perfectly satisfactory.

You're in luck. This price range is what many say is around the point of diminishing returns, meaning that more expensive headphones generally don't sound X times better for X times the price. I think it's good to progress to this level of headphones (instead of beating around the bush with $100 models or whatever), because there are so many great ones available. The difference between $100 and $300 headphones is very noticeable, at least in the context of the better ones in their respective categories.

I'd agree entirely with this, and you put this better than what was coming to mind for me when I last posted.

Yeah, but Sony will sell you a snake oil audiophile grade micro SD card:


http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/02/sony-will-sell-a-premium-sound-microsdxc-card-to-audiophiles-in-japan/

LOL

And the "upgrade cables" for the Z7 that cost nearly as much as the headphone itself. Or the 100 kHz+ claimed frequency response on the SA series. Or the speakers that don't use screws to prevent "extra resonance." Or the systems so revealing you can hear the difference between the color of the wire jackets. Or the magical space-age materials that are often just obtuse rephrasings of conventional stuff ("dihydrogen monoxide" kind of thing). There's lots of crazy Sony "stuff" that has happened over the years. Honestly of all the "big" audio companies, I think Sony is probably the worst when it comes to crazy claims. On the other hand, they've invented a lot of really serious stuff, and make a lot of really top-notch gear. It's probably fair to say they defy easy classification.

That hasn't been my overall experience with Bose headphones.  Several years ago I was in the market for headphones and ended up buying both Bose AE2 and Klipsch Image Ones.  I very shortly returned the Klipsch and kept the Bose.  Now, I'm not going to claim that Klipsch are one of the better brands that you are talking about, but the fact is they were actually more expensive than the Bose, and I preferred the sound of the Bose overall.  This wasn't based on any marketing, it was based on listening to both in my house. 

Klipsch headphones are wretched IME. I'd take Bose over them too.

I admittedly haven't listened to any of the newer Beats headphones and I've heard they improved.  But at the time I bought the AE2s they sounded better than any of the Beats products I tested to in the store, including those costing over twice what the Bose AE2s cost at the time.  Again, this is just my experience with my ears and preferences, so it's just an opinion.  I generally don't like super bass heavy sound because it seems to interfere with other parts of the music for me.

I've heard some but not all of the Beats products, none of the post-Apple stuff. The Pro are the only thing that are "decent" (they're weird more than anything else imho - stupid amounts of bass, "loud all the time" and probably the smallest soundstage ever); the more plastic models are just awful. I know they have (had?) one that's like $200 and honestly sounds like a blown woofer being run full-range outside of a box. I'm not usually one to jump on the bandwagon to rip on a product, but with Beats I'd say it's all entirely deserved. They make awful headphones that cost a silly lot of money and try to hawk them as the best thing since sliced bread. If Apple has tried cleaning them up that's at least a positive sign, but honestly I don't think there is/was much else they could've done to be worse than they already were apart from including a free jagged metal krusty-o in every package, and any half-reasonable sounding changes to their lineup are probably a significant improvement.

 

[El Zilcho]

  Exactly the reason why they sell and why they are popular, you can get them anywhere and test them anywhere, people don't want to experiment blindly, especially if they don't care much about it and don't know much about it. Bose is one of those highly advertised widely available brand that people know, so why bother and order something online without warranty and having clue when you can walk into store and just test them and buy them, get 2 year warranty paper and come home rate 4-5 stars.
 
Ratings on head-fi are in my experience very good and strict (a lot of biased crap here too, but certainly more accurate than on most other websites that serve only as advertisement where only people that work for magazine rate them, and they are paid to do so). And 3.2 isn't good, again.
 
Of course Bose is not the worst company in the world, at all, but unless you need active noise cancelling (that is great)... it won't be hard to find better option. 

 
Well, I'll be ordering some new headphones soon.  I'll let you know if they blow my mind in comparison to Bose. 
 
P.S.  I did look through the reviews on here for the AE2.  Many echoed almost my exact sentiments (good, if not class leading, sound and fantastic comfort).  Sure, many didn't give them 5 stars, but I wouldn't either.  Even a rating of "average" would mean they are middle of the road as far as value for the money.  As I've said from the beginning, some say best, some say worst.  My feeling is more like somewhere in between.

 

[goodyfresh]

   
I disagree on most of this... New Beats ( v2, or whatever you wanna call that series of headphones) isn't half as bad as they say, I actually found Tour for example better than same priced Bose's in ear model (IE2, SIE2, MIE2 etc, different variation of same earphone). Not insanely great by any means, I'd skip Beats any day, never have and probably never will buy them, but still better than those Bose in ear models.
 
Also when you said they tend to make headphones with "some pretty damn good sound quality"? Again, wasn't the case in my experience, nothing damn good sounding there. And they you said for the price, well that is the only important thing we talk about here, if the Bose is pretty damn good sounding for a pair of cheaper headphones, since they don't cost that much - they are not a good sounding pair of headphones (if you compare them with some bad cheaper ones, then yeah, they are good sounding).
 
Sony had in their past some overpriced stuff, they use gimmicks to advertise their products (such as hi res stuff, magical SD cards etc.) but yeah, comparing to Bose for the same money you can get better stuff, still nothing worth "respect" in my opinion comparing to countless other companies, many of which had even better value than Sony, many of which made some innovations while Sony kept using already existing technologies and stuff.
 
Again, when you said "Bose is NOT comparable to Beats", in my opinion it's true in favor of Beats (at least those new models). Bose doesn't even have offering for in ear/earbuds worth mentioning, 0 isolation, completely useless anywhere outside, in any kind of commute or travel, in gym, any sport etc. To be able to hear music at all you'd need to crank volume up to hurting levels, also build is very bad, cable died in less than a year on me and I take care of earphones... in contrary my Sennheiser IE80 I bought after just survived over 2 years and still in heavy use (~3h a day, including gym). Also at least on IE2 soundstage was non existent, which was really disappointing since it didn't even seal my ear canal so the sense of space ought to be bigger by default, yet it wasn't the case with Bose (with all their headphones, but IE2 in particular because those are that I had for a long time, others I've just tested couple of times (two friends got them) - still, it was enough to form my opinion on them).
 
"That and the fact that their sound, while very good, still does not measure up to the best mid-fi-priced"    How is it very good sound then? Very good comparing to what? There is no default good sound, sound and price are closely connected together. If they are good sounding comparing to cheaper headphones then they are actually not good sounding. 
 
I sounded maybe like I hate Bose, but I honestly don't know if I ever heard worse headphones for the money, tho I always researched what to buy and to have good value, so maybe I don't have much experience with bad stuff, nevertheless Bose gets big no from me for headphones (but their small Bluetooth speakers rocks, noise cancelling is the best etc.). 

Um. . .no in-ear offerings worth mentioning?  Do some research first, man.  Bose makes plenty of different in-ears, some of which are supposed to be pretty darn good, if still overpriced of course!  Also, Beats' in-ear option, the UrBeats, sounds HORRIBLE, the bass is boosted 25 to 30dB higher than the midrange and is noticably distorted, so idk why you would even mention in-ears when comparing Bose to Beats.

Beats makes a COUPLE good headphones these days, yes (most notably the Solo 2, which is actually VERY good) but overall most of their headphones are still generic sounding mediocre (or, worst case, actually bad) crap. And their build-quality is very, very flimsy, even on the good headphones like the Solo 2, while their prices are even more over-inflated than those of Bose.

Honestly, as bad a company as Bose is, Beats is much, much, much worse.  One or two good headphones in the last year or so do not manage to negate a history of consisent awfulness since the company's founding.
 
And I said very good sounding because while they're only mid-fi ,mid-fi can still sound very good, duh.  But of course yes, if you want to bring PRICE into it, then no, they are not good-sounding.
 

Yeah, but Sony will sell you a snake oil audiophile grade micro SD card:


http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/02/sony-will-sell-a-premium-sound-microsdxc-card-to-audiophiles-in-japan/

LOL

LOL, true, very true   THey also advertise bullcrap like frequency-response all the way up to 100kHz.  On the other hand, many of their products really ARE top-notch, and some of the best in the mid-fi price-range.  I'm currently saving up to buy the Sony MDR-1A, actually. . .I've had a chance to listen to them before and I loved them.  In the end, Sony is a very hard company to either praise or rip on, since they seem to have both positive and negative aspects. . .they're confusing, to say the least.

 

[Tail]

  Um. . .no in-ear offerings worth mentioning?  Do some research first, man.  Bose makes plenty of different in-ears, some of which are supposed to be pretty darn good, if still overpriced of course!  Also, Beats' in-ear option, the UrBeats, sounds HORRIBLE, the bass is boosted 25 to 30dB higher than the midrange and is noticably distorted, so idk why you would even mention in-ears when comparing Bose to Beats.

 
Yes, no in-ear worth mentioning. And yes, I did research, and I bought and owned for almost a year at the time best model IE2 (there were IE2i with controls for iPhone and MIE2i with mic as well, but same earphone and same sound) and that is the very model whose untuned driver is used in all todays models as well, they just use some make up to add couple of dollars more, such as models SIE2 for example, that S stands for Sport, or for Stupid, not sure anymore. 
No isolation at all, like literally none, completely useless outside, completely useless in gym or any sport, completely useless in any loud environment, including commuting. Sound is medicore at best, but with no isolation it's actually very bad. Soundstage is non existent which is even worse because it doesn't seal ear canal, so it should be some sense of space, still with IE2 there was none. Bass was there but very bad extension, I felt like there was a HUGE roll off at ~60 Hz (or bit more maybe?), decently strong punch but very bad extension... 
 
Beats Tour V2 (that cost 10$ more here where I am from) were substantially better than Bose in ears. Still Beats are not so good as well and not my taste at all, but yeah, better than Bose ones for sure. I settled for now with Sennheiser IE80 and it's unfair to compare them since they cost 3 times as much. Anyways, Vsonic GR07 is also decent example, for the same price as Bose IE2 models you get... is it really even worth comparing?
 
 
Quote:

Beats makes a COUPLE good headphones these days, yes (most notably the Solo 2, which is actually VERY good) but overall most of their headphones are still generic sounding mediocre (or, worst case, actually bad) crap. And their build-quality is very, very flimsy, even on the good headphones like the Solo 2, while their prices are even more over-inflated than those of Bose.
 

 
"Solo 2, which is actually VERY good"?   You read innerfidelity too much. Solo 2 isn't actually VERY good (at least not in my opinion), but noticeably better than previous version and now it's something that might be considered by the people who like that kind of sound, anyways, again better than Bose's counterpart. 
 
About build quality, my IE2 cable started to pull from one earpiece after less than year and I try to take care of earphones, and haven't even use them in any extreme conditions (gym, any sport) because no noise isolation = completely useless in gym, I hear louder music in gym than on earphones, and I cranked up volume to hurting levels. Anyways, light use and still cable couldn't survive a year. Contrary to this IE80 lasting me for over 2 years now with heavy everyday use, gym 6 days a week and cycling almost every morning (still IE80 cost 3 times as much but there is quite a lot cheaper that are more durable and better built).
 
Again, my opinion is that Bose should be skipped instantly unless someone needs active noise canceling that is very decent, possibly the best around.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  I disagree on most of this... New Beats ( v2, or whatever you wanna call that series of headphones) isn't half as bad as they say, I actually found Tour for example better than same priced Bose's in ear model (IE2, SIE2, MIE2 etc, different variation of same earphone). Not insanely great by any means, I'd skip Beats any day, never have and probably never will buy them, but still better than those Bose in ear models.
 
Also when you said they tend to make headphones with "some pretty damn good sound quality"? Again, wasn't the case in my experience, nothing damn good sounding there. And they you said for the price, well that is the only important thing we talk about here, if the Bose is pretty damn good sounding for a pair of cheaper headphones, since they don't cost that much - they are not a good sounding pair of headphones (if you compare them with some bad cheaper ones, then yeah, they are good sounding).
 
Sony had in their past some overpriced stuff, they use gimmicks to advertise their products (such as hi res stuff, magical SD cards etc.) but yeah, comparing to Bose for the same money you can get better stuff, still nothing worth "respect" in my opinion comparing to countless other companies, many of which had even better value than Sony, many of which made some innovations while Sony kept using already existing technologies and stuff.
 
Again, when you said "Bose is NOT comparable to Beats", in my opinion it's true in favor of Beats (at least those new models). Bose doesn't even have offering for in ear/earbuds worth mentioning, 0 isolation, completely useless anywhere outside, in any kind of commute or travel, in gym, any sport etc. To be able to hear music at all you'd need to crank volume up to hurting levels, also build is very bad, cable died in less than a year on me and I take care of earphones... in contrary my Sennheiser IE80 I bought after just survived over 2 years and still in heavy use (~3h a day, including gym). Also at least on IE2 soundstage was non existent, which was really disappointing since it didn't even seal my ear canal so the sense of space ought to be bigger by default, yet it wasn't the case with Bose (with all their headphones, but IE2 in particular because those are that I had for a long time, others I've just tested couple of times (two friends got them) - still, it was enough to form my opinion on them).
 
"That and the fact that their sound, while very good, still does not measure up to the best mid-fi-priced"    How is it very good sound then? Very good comparing to what? There is no default good sound, sound and price are closely connected together. If they are good sounding comparing to cheaper headphones then they are actually not good sounding. 
 
I sounded maybe like I hate Bose, but I honestly don't know if I ever heard worse headphones for the money, tho I always researched what to buy and to have good value, so maybe I don't have much experience with bad stuff, nevertheless Bose gets big no from me for headphones (but their small Bluetooth speakers rocks, noise cancelling is the best etc.). 

 
You may be surprised how much the QC15 dramatically improves with a normal headphone cable instead of the stock cable, if you ever have the opportunity to try it out. I think that's one of the main reasons it has such a bad reputation on Head-Fi: most people never tried a real cable with it. Of course, it's still a very colored headphone, but my personal favorite, in that category. It obviously can't compete with quality headphones like STAX and so on, though.