Amar Bose
 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obit...Amar-Bose.html

Amar Bose
 

"Eiron"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obit...Amar-Bose.html


What a pile off utter nonsense.

Acoustics and speaker design are quite separate subjects.

The Bose 901 design was NOT based on any science - merely that Amar
liked his reproduced sound bouncing all over the place in a very live
room and found others did too. He was an audio philistine of the highest
order.

Amar first tried to make a spherical, omni-directional speaker that was
quite impractical - so a 5 sided box with 9 cheap, 4.5 inch drivers
was the outcome. 9 x 8ohm drivers in series parallel gives 8ohms again,
so one had to go on the front as a token gesture to stereo imaging.

It was cheap as chips to make too.

Amar's infamous BOSE Corporation were responsible for some of the
most egregiously wrong headed audio drivel ever published and absurd
loudspeakers ever to be misconstrued as clever and inventive.

" Sell the sizzle, rather than the sausage" could have been their motto,
right from day one.

Mark Antony said: " The evil that men do lives after them ... "

So thank god most examples of the Bose 901 and its many relatives are
already dead and buried.

BTW:

L. Ron Hubbard and Amar Bose are alike - both became famous and wealthy
after starting new religions in the USA.


.... Phil

Amar Bose
 

On 19/07/2013 2:41 AM, Eiron wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obit...Amar-Bose.html

**PA is correct. What a load of unmitigated drivel. The nonsensically
weak US patent system allowed Bose to patent work from KEF and Prof. Bailey.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

Amar Bose
 

"Trevor Wilson"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obit...Amar-Bose.html

**PA is correct. What a load of unmitigated drivel. The nonsensically weak
US patent system allowed Bose to patent work from KEF and Prof. Bailey.


** US patents are mostly worthless until challenged & tested in court - the
existence of "prior art" would finish off most of Bose's alleged patents
pronto. But no-one was bothered enough to go to that expense and Bose Corp
knew it.

They were only ever used to give mug buyers the false illusion that Bose
designs were based on science.

Like Sonab, Bose appealed only to the mass market rather than informed music
lovers.


..... Phil

Amar Bose
 

On 18/07/2013 23:02, Phil Allison wrote:
"Eiron"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obit...Amar-Bose.html


What a pile off utter nonsense.

Acoustics and speaker design are quite separate subjects.


Used together, the two subjects obviously made him a few quid. Stir in
ease of use, marketing, and aesthetics of course.

The Bose 901 design was NOT based on any science - merely that Amar
liked his reproduced sound bouncing all over the place in a very live
room and found others did too. He was an audio philistine of the highest
order.


That is science - social science - he (or his marketing team) understood
what people wanted. I doubt he made any proud audio-technical claims of
much of the tat his company produces.

Amar first tried to make a spherical, omni-directional speaker that was
quite impractical - so a 5 sided box with 9 cheap, 4.5 inch drivers
was the outcome. 9 x 8ohm drivers in series parallel gives 8ohms again,
so one had to go on the front as a token gesture to stereo imaging.

It was cheap as chips to make too.

Amar's infamous BOSE Corporation were responsible for some of the
most egregiously wrong headed audio drivel ever published and absurd
loudspeakers ever to be misconstrued as clever and inventive.


I'm not sure that any domestic Bose system could be considered 'hifi'.
But then that's not what everyone wants.

" Sell the sizzle, rather than the sausage" could have been their motto,
right from day one.

Mark Antony said: " The evil that men do lives after them ... "

So thank god most examples of the Bose 901 and its many relatives are
already dead and buried.

BTW:

L. Ron Hubbard and Amar Bose are alike - both became famous and wealthy
after starting new religions in the USA.


:-)

I'm not sure what the donation to education of non-voting shares really
means, but I'd guess it's a lot of money. That if nothing else sets him
apart.


--
Cheers, Rob

“Pessimism of the spirit; optimism of the will” Antonio Gramsci

Amar Bose
 

On 19/07/2013 4:53 PM, RJH wrote:
On 18/07/2013 23:02, Phil Allison wrote:
"Eiron"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obit...Amar-Bose.html


What a pile off utter nonsense.

Acoustics and speaker design are quite separate subjects.


Used together, the two subjects obviously made him a few quid. Stir in
ease of use, marketing, and aesthetics of course.

The Bose 901 design was NOT based on any science - merely that Amar
liked his reproduced sound bouncing all over the place in a very live
room and found others did too. He was an audio philistine of the highest
order.


That is science - social science - he (or his marketing team) understood
what people wanted. I doubt he made any proud audio-technical claims of
much of the tat his company produces.

Amar first tried to make a spherical, omni-directional speaker that was
quite impractical - so a 5 sided box with 9 cheap, 4.5 inch drivers
was the outcome. 9 x 8ohm drivers in series parallel gives 8ohms again,
so one had to go on the front as a token gesture to stereo imaging.

It was cheap as chips to make too.

Amar's infamous BOSE Corporation were responsible for some of the
most egregiously wrong headed audio drivel ever published and absurd
loudspeakers ever to be misconstrued as clever and inventive.


I'm not sure that any domestic Bose system could be considered 'hifi'.
But then that's not what everyone wants.

**Certainly true. However, Bose sells cheap crap, at high prices. VERY
high prices. This does two things:

* Makes purchasers believe they are buying high quality equipment.
* Causes owners to lower their expectations for future audio purchases.


" Sell the sizzle, rather than the sausage" could have been their motto,
right from day one.

Mark Antony said: " The evil that men do lives after them ... "

So thank god most examples of the Bose 901 and its many relatives are
already dead and buried.

BTW:

L. Ron Hubbard and Amar Bose are alike - both became famous and wealthy
after starting new religions in the USA.


:-)

I'm not sure what the donation to education of non-voting shares really
means, but I'd guess it's a lot of money. That if nothing else sets him
apart.



**That part is just a 'shell game'. McDonalds (the burger 'restaurant'
people) contribute a large amount of money (though a miniscule amount,
compared to their overall profits) to charity and engage in assisting
local worthwhile entities. At the same time, the company manufactures
'food' which is wastefully packaged, leads to obesity in children and
adults, causes monoculture farming practices and, arguably, damage to
local economies along with the most appalling architecture seen in
modern times. McDonalds have been known to push out local quality food
vendors, as their high fat, high salt and high sugar foods tend to be
addictive to children and stupid adults.

Do McDonalds' faults exceed their good deeds? Personally, I believe they do.

I reckon even the most evil companies on the planet prop up their public
image, by contributing to various charities. Exxon, Olin, Winchester and
the others, for instance.

Like Bose, they don't fool me.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

Amar Bose
 

"RJH"
Phil Allison
"Eiron"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obit...Amar-Bose.html


What a pile off utter nonsense.

Acoustics and speaker design are quite separate subjects.


Used together, the two subjects obviously made him a few quid.

** Amar was no speaker designer and though his 901 model depended on
particular room acoustics, the result was mostly atrocious. His approach to
sound reproduction was unashamedly un-scientific.

This wiki on Bose is rather enlightening:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose_Corporation

The $8M law suit over elliptical ports was madness.

http://www.stereophile.com/news/10842/


Ruthless, litigious and peddling pseudo-science for profit ?

The only thing left is to turn themselves into a Church to avoid taxes.


..... Phil

Amar Bose
 

On 20/07/2013 11:57 AM, Phil Allison wrote:
"RJH"
Phil Allison
"Eiron"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obit...Amar-Bose.html


What a pile off utter nonsense.

Acoustics and speaker design are quite separate subjects.


Used together, the two subjects obviously made him a few quid.

** Amar was no speaker designer and though his 901 model depended on
particular room acoustics, the result was mostly atrocious. His approach to
sound reproduction was unashamedly un-scientific.

This wiki on Bose is rather enlightening:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose_Corporation

The $8M law suit over elliptical ports was madness.

http://www.stereophile.com/news/10842/


Ruthless, litigious and peddling pseudo-science for profit ?

The only thing left is to turn themselves into a Church to avoid taxes.


**What the Hell: Let's turn the discussion to Scientology and see who
gets sued.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

Amar Bose
 

On 19/07/2013 21:39, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 19/07/2013 4:53 PM, RJH wrote:
On 18/07/2013 23:02, Phil Allison wrote:
"Eiron"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obit...Amar-Bose.html


What a pile off utter nonsense.

Acoustics and speaker design are quite separate subjects.


Used together, the two subjects obviously made him a few quid. Stir in
ease of use, marketing, and aesthetics of course.

The Bose 901 design was NOT based on any science - merely that Amar
liked his reproduced sound bouncing all over the place in a very live
room and found others did too. He was an audio philistine of the highest
order.


That is science - social science - he (or his marketing team) understood
what people wanted. I doubt he made any proud audio-technical claims of
much of the tat his company produces.

Amar first tried to make a spherical, omni-directional speaker that was
quite impractical - so a 5 sided box with 9 cheap, 4.5 inch drivers
was the outcome. 9 x 8ohm drivers in series parallel gives 8ohms again,
so one had to go on the front as a token gesture to stereo imaging.

It was cheap as chips to make too.

Amar's infamous BOSE Corporation were responsible for some of the
most egregiously wrong headed audio drivel ever published and absurd
loudspeakers ever to be misconstrued as clever and inventive.


I'm not sure that any domestic Bose system could be considered 'hifi'.
But then that's not what everyone wants.

**Certainly true. However, Bose sells cheap crap, at high prices. VERY
high prices. This does two things:

* Makes purchasers believe they are buying high quality equipment.
* Causes owners to lower their expectations for future audio purchases.


" Sell the sizzle, rather than the sausage" could have been their motto,
right from day one.

Mark Antony said: " The evil that men do lives after them ... "

So thank god most examples of the Bose 901 and its many relatives are
already dead and buried.

BTW:

L. Ron Hubbard and Amar Bose are alike - both became famous and wealthy
after starting new religions in the USA.


:-)

I'm not sure what the donation to education of non-voting shares really
means, but I'd guess it's a lot of money. That if nothing else sets him
apart.



**That part is just a 'shell game'. McDonalds (the burger 'restaurant'
people) contribute a large amount of money (though a miniscule amount,
compared to their overall profits) to charity and engage in assisting
local worthwhile entities. At the same time, the company manufactures
'food' which is wastefully packaged, leads to obesity in children and
adults, causes monoculture farming practices and, arguably, damage to
local economies along with the most appalling architecture seen in
modern times. McDonalds have been known to push out local quality food
vendors, as their high fat, high salt and high sugar foods tend to be
addictive to children and stupid adults.

Do McDonalds' faults exceed their good deeds? Personally, I believe they
do.

I reckon even the most evil companies on the planet prop up their public
image, by contributing to various charities. Exxon, Olin, Winchester and
the others, for instance.

Like Bose, they don't fool me.


I take your points and agree. Except that if we're going to rank these
'excesses of capitalism' I consider Bose to be far more benign than
MacDonalds. Bose is in the most part an aspirational product for people
able to afford it. Granted, they've employed some shifty business
methods (thanks to PA for the link). And for people who care about
decent music reproduction, Bose is more than a shame. But equating the
harm done with MacDonalds . . .

Quick anecdote - partner has just come in to my study (06.45, UK
heatwave, nobody sleeps): 'Bose - they're pretty good aren't they? . . .
Just read it somewhere'.

She can use my decent hifi any time - in fact, in a move to get decent
sound in the lounge I bought a decent mini system and added some ATC
SCM7 speakers - sounds good. But much as she loves music I don't think
she's ever put the mini system on (it's also connected to the TV). Left
to herself she buys cheap tat - I suspect the reason she's never bought
Bose is simple down the line parsimony.

--
Cheers, Rob

Amar Bose
 

On 20/07/2013 3:54 PM, RJH wrote:
On 19/07/2013 21:39, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 19/07/2013 4:53 PM, RJH wrote:
On 18/07/2013 23:02, Phil Allison wrote:
"Eiron"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obit...Amar-Bose.html


What a pile off utter nonsense.

Acoustics and speaker design are quite separate subjects.


Used together, the two subjects obviously made him a few quid. Stir in
ease of use, marketing, and aesthetics of course.

The Bose 901 design was NOT based on any science - merely that Amar
liked his reproduced sound bouncing all over the place in a very live
room and found others did too. He was an audio philistine of the
highest
order.


That is science - social science - he (or his marketing team) understood
what people wanted. I doubt he made any proud audio-technical claims of
much of the tat his company produces.

Amar first tried to make a spherical, omni-directional speaker that was
quite impractical - so a 5 sided box with 9 cheap, 4.5 inch drivers
was the outcome. 9 x 8ohm drivers in series parallel gives 8ohms again,
so one had to go on the front as a token gesture to stereo imaging.

It was cheap as chips to make too.

Amar's infamous BOSE Corporation were responsible for some of the
most egregiously wrong headed audio drivel ever published and absurd
loudspeakers ever to be misconstrued as clever and inventive.


I'm not sure that any domestic Bose system could be considered 'hifi'.
But then that's not what everyone wants.

**Certainly true. However, Bose sells cheap crap, at high prices. VERY
high prices. This does two things:

* Makes purchasers believe they are buying high quality equipment.
* Causes owners to lower their expectations for future audio purchases.


" Sell the sizzle, rather than the sausage" could have been their
motto,
right from day one.

Mark Antony said: " The evil that men do lives after them ... "

So thank god most examples of the Bose 901 and its many relatives are
already dead and buried.

BTW:

L. Ron Hubbard and Amar Bose are alike - both became famous and
wealthy
after starting new religions in the USA.


:-)

I'm not sure what the donation to education of non-voting shares really
means, but I'd guess it's a lot of money. That if nothing else sets him
apart.



**That part is just a 'shell game'. McDonalds (the burger 'restaurant'
people) contribute a large amount of money (though a miniscule amount,
compared to their overall profits) to charity and engage in assisting
local worthwhile entities. At the same time, the company manufactures
'food' which is wastefully packaged, leads to obesity in children and
adults, causes monoculture farming practices and, arguably, damage to
local economies along with the most appalling architecture seen in
modern times. McDonalds have been known to push out local quality food
vendors, as their high fat, high salt and high sugar foods tend to be
addictive to children and stupid adults.

Do McDonalds' faults exceed their good deeds? Personally, I believe they
do.

I reckon even the most evil companies on the planet prop up their public
image, by contributing to various charities. Exxon, Olin, Winchester and
the others, for instance.

Like Bose, they don't fool me.


I take your points and agree. Except that if we're going to rank these
'excesses of capitalism' I consider Bose to be far more benign than
MacDonalds. Bose is in the most part an aspirational product for people
able to afford it. Granted, they've employed some shifty business
methods (thanks to PA for the link). And for people who care about
decent music reproduction, Bose is more than a shame. But equating the
harm done with MacDonalds . . .

Quick anecdote - partner has just come in to my study (06.45, UK
heatwave, nobody sleeps): 'Bose - they're pretty good aren't they? . . .
Just read it somewhere'.

She can use my decent hifi any time - in fact, in a move to get decent
sound in the lounge I bought a decent mini system and added some ATC
SCM7 speakers - sounds good. But much as she loves music I don't think
she's ever put the mini system on (it's also connected to the TV). Left
to herself she buys cheap tat - I suspect the reason she's never bought
Bose is simple down the line parsimony.


**Certainly, it could be argued that Bose is less evil that MacDonalds.
I was referring to their charitable contributions. They can well afford
to do so.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au