Why do I like BOSE that much?

[ChaseD13]

of course its the cost. at $150 you can get senn 595s 580s etc which smash triports.

at 50$ they would be competing with sr60s, senn 280s etc. they would be more competetive then

 

[slwiser]

While I got my Wave Radio around 1990, I now have essentially stopped using it around where I live. From my perspective there are no radio stations playing music any longer. It is all more or less just a high level screeching to me.

They always yelling at me like I am to do something:

Like

telling me to rape my mother or sister.

Or they are telling me to kill someone in authority like a police officer.

Or all of the above.

What passes for music is not sung anymore they yell it out at the top of their lungs. Seeming always attempting to see who can screem the loudest. Music is not soft anymore, it does not convey ranges of emotion like it used too. It is so angry today. That is the only emotion I hear on my stations around Richmond, Va. and they wonder around here why there are so many murders during the year.

So my Wave Radio sits idle for now.

 

[MatsudaMan]

You might not have very discerning ears. It's a possibility.

 

[IPodPJ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by trose49 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I sell Copier equipment and Xerox is definatly behind in technology compared to other manufactures but the right marketing and name recognition and people will still pay more for the Xerox name. Thats just the way of the world. So BOSE has incredible Marketing and Publicity and product "good enough" to carry it through! What a Bad Job they are doing huh! lOL!

Being in the printing industry, and working with those digital machines all the time, I would disagree with you. My shop uses Canon (because the boss is cheap, and doesn't ever have service contracts). I have used Xerox, Canon, Ricoh, etc... None of the digital color machines can touch the Xerox in terms of quality. Are they the most expensive? Yes. But they still have the best quality, imo.

Ok back to headphone discussion

 

[trose49]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPodPJ /img/forum/go_quote.gif Being in the printing industry, and working with those digital machines all the time, I would disagree with you. My shop uses Canon (because the boss is cheap, and doesn't ever have service contracts). I have used Xerox, Canon, Ricoh, etc... None of the digital color machines can touch the Xerox in terms of quality. Are they the most expensive? Yes. But they still have the best quality, imo. Ok back to headphone discussion

I would agree certain Xerox (techtronics technology bought by Xerox) color products are very good. But I sell multi brands since 1992 and Xerox in the B&W world is through in the 20-80ppm speed range.

 

[achristilaw]

Whatever flips your pancake!!! It took alot of courage to mention his likes here. But their HIS likes(thank god). Bose sound has always been Butt heavy.
Recessed Midrange and treble. At least he's listening. He's fortunate. Music might be more important. Than what he hears it on.

 

[IPodPJ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by trose49 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I would agree certain Xerox (techtronics technology bought by Xerox) color products are very good. But I sell multi brands since 1992 and Xerox in the B&W world is through in the 20-80ppm speed range.

I agree with you on Black & White, even though the image isn't as good. The Canon iR105, which we have 2 of, is 105 p.p.m.

 

[vkvedam]

Have your say. Straight out of the source, how would you rate them.
I am just planning to take my Ultrasones to any Apple shop to make
a direct comparison.

 

[MD1032]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vagarach /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is OT, but to the OP, don't put too much faith in what cnet says. Back in the day they usually had quite thorough *overviews* which meant I could read everything about the product and make my own decision, and I found even some reviews were well done. Nowadays, however, it is best to look elsewhere. Especially in the hi/head-fi world, cnet is not the last word. What people hate (maybe even that strong a word is warranted?) about bose here is that people pay a premium for a sometimes sub-standard (for price) level of quality, and then insist that bose has no peers in quality sound. Bose has marketed itself as the high in high end and since people don't know otherwise they accept it, especially once they've heard a bose product, which in most cases will outclass anything they've heard before. So there is perfect correlation in the customer's mind: bose reckons they're the best, and a little testing on your part shows that to be true. Bose is asking for a lot of money, but they're the best, so therefore their stuff *must* be worth the asking price. Still, the normal triports (not those oe/ie ones) look and feel nice, I will concede that.

Yeah, I too, place little weight on Cnet's advice. Out of curiosity, once I got my D50, I went onto Cnet and read their thing about it. Their rating was "good" in the 7.0 range I believe, while Canon cameras (eg 350D) were in the 8.0 range, which is "excellent" or something. Bottom line, ask any professional photographer (and I have) which brand they'd go with for a starting DSLR and they'll tell you Nikon. I am not suggesting Canon cameras in particular put out images that are any less good or that the camera is less effective as a whole, I'm just saying that Nikon feels to me to have the best quality, and certainly the best grip out of the two. And despite the lack of 8.0 megapixels, the CCD is still very good quality, a tribute to their engineering.

Cnet, however, in my opinion, does fall victim to some brand recognition. This manifests itself in other products, too. Look at the SR-60's. Anyone here would rate them higher than that based on their superb output for the price.

Bose Triports are rated a slightly higher 7.8, despite sounding WORSE then the SR-60's, and for a much higher price. Case closed.

 

[QwertyAccess]

Sorry for the bump but I must add, if theres anything i have to bash, is the lack of formatting on the first post of this topic, I could not read it at all.

 

[zipdisk]

Unless you have a dedicated headphone amp, I don't think you can hear differences/improvements in headphones after a certain point. An amp can really make a difference. However having said that, its fine for you to enjoy whatever you do. People hear differently, especially as they grow older and the Bose 'phones may be compensating for imperfections in your hearing. So I wouldn't worry about "the rightness" of what you prefer. If the Bose phones gives you an emotional lift and connects you to the music then that's GREAT!!!

 

[phaseshift]

Now I'm Getting worried. Should I take delivery of a pair of AKG K701's and a Val E10 Amp tommrow. Hope I didn't make a huge mistake?

 

[rodbac]

Quote:

at 50$ they would be competing with sr60s, senn 280s etc. they would be more competetive then

I don't think so- maybe at $20, and even then they'd get EASILY bested by the Senn 201s (iirc) and the KSCs.

At $50 or so, with the Grados, V6s, 280s, etc, they get walloped- they have sloppy bass and no midrange whatsoever.

 

[Rylinkus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodbac /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't think so- maybe at $20, and even then they'd get EASILY bested by the Senn 201s (iirc) and the KSCs. At $50 or so, with the Grados, V6s, 280s, etc, they get walloped- they have sloppy bass and no midrange whatsoever.

That being said, they're incredibly comfortable IMO. I think given the comfort, and even looks, they'd be a fine purchase @ 50 bucks.

 

[Eagle_Driver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MD1032 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yeah, I too, place little weight on Cnet's advice. Out of curiosity, once I got my D50, I went onto Cnet and read their thing about it. Their rating was "good" in the 7.0 range I believe, while Canon cameras (eg 350D) were in the 8.0 range, which is "excellent" or something. Bottom line, ask any professional photographer (and I have) which brand they'd go with for a starting DSLR and they'll tell you Nikon. I am not suggesting Canon cameras in particular put out images that are any less good or that the camera is less effective as a whole, I'm just saying that Nikon feels to me to have the best quality, and certainly the best grip out of the two. And despite the lack of 8.0 megapixels, the CCD is still very good quality, a tribute to their engineering. Cnet, however, in my opinion, does fall victim to some brand recognition. This manifests itself in other products, too. Look at the SR-60's. Anyone here would rate them higher than that based on their superb output for the price. Bose Triports are rated a slightly higher 7.8, despite sounding WORSE then the SR-60's, and for a much higher price. Case closed.

Consumer Reports made a different mistake with their recent headphone ratings (in its December 2006 issue): That mag has compressed the scores by including some truly craptacular models in their Ratings. What's more, CR used the very same standards in all aspects - bass capability, tonal balance, while virtually ignoring the quality of the tone - to rate headphones (pehaps this is why CR has rated most IEMs lower than almost all full-sized headphones?). For example, the Bose Triport's score of 77 out of 100 is a bit optimistic (given its similar score to Sennheiser headphones costing less than half the price). At least CR managed to rate the Grado SR-60 in the 90's (out of 100).