paid for by Bose?
 

"Peter Sammon" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in
:

[snip]

I have been an AUDIO enthusiast for over 34 years and have had a ton of
fun owning
"More fun than a barrel of monkeys", I'm sure.

and listening to various well-made systems at all price
levels. I've owned or had the pleasure of seriously auditioning in my
home many respectable manufacturers' models including the said 901's and
Vandersteen's 1C w/the 901 as top reference and 1C as a second!

You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. However, you have highly
idiosyncratic tastes. Audiophiles today do not hold Bose in good esteem, and
for good reason. Their engineering is inferior, their marketing
exploitative, and their representations dishonest.

The
Allisons would be a close third reference with Boston, PSB and AR not too
far behind. Now, that gives you an idea of what I am about.

I'm sorry, but name dropping does not impress here.


Bose is base
as in "evil motive."

in cutting edge science.
Cutting one's fingers on the cheap cabinetry.

Science, sound engineering and
physics not magic!

The "science" of which you speak is not relevant in the modern world.
The idea of deliberately bouncing sound off the was popular for a very brief
time, until the obvious and gross distortion made Bose speakers an
unattractive choice compared with other makes that reflect true technology.

My equipment review of the Bose 901
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Peter Sammon" wrote in message


"Robert Morein" wrote in
:


The multi
chambered ACOUSTIC MATRIX enclosure vents the speaker in a most
unusual way with air
speeds exceeding 60 mph! Three ports or jets protrude through the
rear of the 901 enclosure.

Knowledgeable speaker designers know that high air velocity in ports is
anathema. High air velocities lead to higher turbulence, and turbulent
flow
tends to be noisy flow. One sign of a quality ported speaker is a large,
low-velocity port.

True. Ports are an unavoidable source of nonlinearity, but it can be
minimized by choice of the largest possible port diameter.

My equipment review of the Bose 901
 

"barry" wrote in message
...


Peter.......you are trying to wind us all up :) and you are doing well
but its a lost cause mate....... as my old grandma used to say "you
cant
polish a turd!"


That's why Krueger is rather dull.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

My equipment review of the Bose 901
 

"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message
...
barry wrote:
Peter.......you are trying to wind us all up :) and you are doing well
but its a lost cause mate....... as my old grandma used to say
"you cant polish a turd!"


Look, Barry. Before you post your erroneous generalisations here I
suggest
you research your summary dismissal of the concept in question .

GoogleGroups will show you copious threads in many newsgroups where it has
been firmly establish that you indeed CAN polish a turd. The trick is
that
you have to freeze it first.


geoff

geoff

You have half a point perhaps ....certainly the group is being wound up by a
troll.
Anyone who really felt that BOSE products represented high fidelity would
have to have the aural sensitivity of a rocking horse.
Therefore to continue the argument IS a lost cause...........and I suspect
Peter is just a troll.

As for polishing a turd ...I think that your response is unfair.......in my
grandmothers day ( god rest her soul )
the technology for freezing a turd was not commonplace and even packing a
specimen with ice for some time would not work. Whilst I admit that today
with the development of fast freezing and advanced polishes "french
polished" presentation turds are quite common .Having said that my
grandmothers words taken in the correct historic context were totally
correct !

And talking of finely polished presentation turds.....perhaps we ( non Bose
owners ) should club together and send one to our mate Paul ?

Just a thought

Barry

My equipment review of the Bose 901
 

barry wrote:
!

And talking of finely polished presentation turds.....perhaps we (
non Bose owners ) should club together and send one to our mate Paul ?


Not one , but nine. One facing forward, and the other 8 shooting out
backwards before hitting the wall(s) and spraying (sorry, shattering) off in
all directions to provide an unrealsistic if not spectacular 'soundstage'.

geofff

My equipment review of the Bose 901
 

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Julian Fowler wrote:

Applied to Bose "hi fii" products? APPLIED TO BOSE "HI FI"
PRODUCTS???

RAOTFL ... unless, of course, the result of "real science, research
and engineering concepts" is *supposed* to be crap sound ...


In actuality, Bose does an awful lot of very careful engineering and
research. But their products sound crappy because they are deliberately
designed to sound crappy.

They aren't designed to sound good because that's not the design goal
they have set. They are designed to sound different, to really stand
out from other speakers when you listen to them. They are designed to
sound exciting, to have a lot of boom and a lot of screech, so that
they really appeal to the inexperienced listener for a short listen in
the store.

It's trickier than that. Ever wonder why there is a huge midrange
hump? Simple - where they are selling them is often a mall or
large store. TONS of background noise. They are specifically made
to sound good in such an environment. In other words, they adjust
the sound to play somewhat flat in a typical store full of shoppers.


I did not understand the little "cube" satellite systems they sold in the
early '90s until I heard a football game through 'em, in glorious surround.
For *that* sort of program material, there was actually
pretty good localization and image.

Actually sounded pretty good, with all the upper mid presence peak. Just
don't try music through those things.

Given use patterns of cable TV, designing a speaker system to make
crowd noise from football games sound good isn't that bizarre a concept.

Now, since we don't live in a store, you unfortunately are stuck with
this "effect" when you are at home and don't need it. But it DOES sell
a lot of speakers. The people don't return them because they still
have the idea of the acceptable sound in the store when they first
listened to them in their minds.

Marketing genius. Poor sound quality, though.

P.S. They use the same "trick" with car speakers. Here, it works,
because of the constant wind and engine and tire drone at about
60-80db.

Dunno - the Bose car systems I remember with early '90s Nissan
Maximas was a stone cold great sounding car system - or so I
thought at the time. Had very accurate subs. Love to revisit
one of those, these days - see if it still seems as appealing
as it did.

Car systems are weird, anyway. My daughter listens to techno, and the
stuff sounds okay on a rather generic car system, but put it on a
set of dome tweeter monitors and all the nonlinear stuff shows
up big time. I note that she generally only buys head units with a BBE
button. And she only listens to music in the car - it's all DVD at home.

--
Les Cargill

My equipment review of the Bose 901
 

Les Cargill wrote in
:

Dunno - the Bose car systems I remember with early '90s Nissan
Maximas was a stone cold great sounding car system - or so I
thought at the time. Had very accurate subs. Love to revisit
one of those, these days - see if it still seems as appealing
as it did.

I have a Bose system in my car with a big scoop right in the 2K-4K range.
Crappy sound considering the potential.

My equipment review of the Bose 901
 

Well said. The 901's look to cost $400/pair for their 18 cheapie full
range drivers, plastic enclosures & low-fi 'compensater'. I'm
probably being too generous.
$500 for their Wave plastic table radio? Jeez, I bought a boom box
that sounds better to my ears for $79.00 and it even has a handle :-)

Pretty steep prices from a "not-for-profit corporation" (according to
the salesman, anyway--I'm doubtful about that)


On 7 Feb 2004 14:25:13 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Julian Fowler wrote:

Applied to Bose "hi fii" products? APPLIED TO BOSE "HI FI"
PRODUCTS???

RAOTFL ... unless, of course, the result of "real science, research
and engineering concepts" is *supposed* to be crap sound ...

In actuality, Bose does an awful lot of very careful engineering and
research. But their products sound crappy because they are deliberately
designed to sound crappy.

They aren't designed to sound good because that's not the design goal
they have set. They are designed to sound different, to really stand
out from other speakers when you listen to them. They are designed to
sound exciting, to have a lot of boom and a lot of screech, so that
they really appeal to the inexperienced listener for a short listen in
the store.

Bose has done very careful research into how typical buyers listen to
stereo gear, and they have designed gear to get those buyers' attention.
A huge amount of very careful engineering goes into their products to
make them as cheap as possible and get the best possible margins.

It's worth it to take apart one of their Acoustmass enclosures. It really
is a brilliant piece of engineering... I swear it can't cost more than ten
bucks total to make one of those things. The amount of manufacturing
engineering that has gone into bringing the manufacting price down is
amazing.

I have to have a lot of respect for Bose, even if I can't stand listening
to any of their products. They know their market and they know how to
build products for that market to maximize profit. I'd certainly consider
Bose stock a good investment even if I'd consider buying their speakers
to be flushing money down the toilet.
--scott

My equipment review of the Bose 901
 

The 901's look to cost $400/pair for their 18 cheapie
full-range drivers, plastic enclosures & low-fi 'compensater'.
I'm probably being too generous.

The series 1 cost $476/pair, including the equalizer. (Note the clever choice of
a price ending in a non-standard digit.) That was fairly pricey for 1968. The
AR-3a cost $450 a pair. There weren't many more-expensive speakers, the QUAD and
KLH electrostatics, and some Bozak and JBLs (such as the Paragon), among those
few.

The current series 6 is about $1600 a pair. Assuming the drivers were of
extremely high quality (???!!!), that would be a "reasonable" retail price.

I want to say something that might surprise readers, especially as I'm big fan
of planar speakers (other than Magnepans, which aren't really planar). With the
right program material, the 901s _can_ be extremely euphonic. And because people
listen to music for enjoyment... QED.


$500 for their Wave plastic table radio? Jeez, I bought a boom box
that sounds better to my ears for $79 and it even has a handle :-)

Ah, but how well does it play Handel? grin

My equipment review of the Bose 901
 

Yeah, I bought my first pair of 901's back around 1982, but I think you should
be carefull about posting stuff about them. They are not highly respected in
most arenas, because they are considered inefficient and over priced. I think
they have a nice sound for certain types of music though. The marketing
strategy is what made them so popular.

I can remember being back in the Disco bars years ago and they used those same
speakers. They really shook the foundations.

I think I bought my first pair back in 1982 (Series 5?). Series 6 were the
same except for that excess padded grilling in the back and used the same
equilizer.

Bose wasn't the first to try to introduce that omnidirectional sound. Remember
the old Magnavox console stereos with the 15" side-firing woofers and the 4x10
midrange /tweeterhorns in the front? I own at least six of them right now and
am still looking for more. It's old technology, but I just love the sound of
those old beasts.

BobbyB
Tucson , Arizona