The Insanity of Marketing Disguised as Science in Loudspeakers [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : The Insanity of Marketing Disguised as Science in Loudspeakers



RGA
05-11-2012, 07:22 AM
His main argument about relying on the mega corporations to be HONEST is of course true. I never quite get why someone who calls him or herself objective can't see a major MAJOR MAJOR conflict of interest. Our speakers are better than yours because WE did a blind test using people WE trained (ahem if they're not just employees) and WE ran the test (whaaat that's not double blind) and WE came to the conclusion that OUR speakers are better than OTHER companies. Whaaat. And the objective person says - oh of course I trust you because you're a billion dollar company (want more market share) and you have no reason (big profit) to be dishonest (big profit).

The article

The Insanity of Marketing Disguised as Science in Loudspeakers — Reviews and News from Audioholics (http://www.audioholics.com/news/editorials/science-loudspeakers)

Mr Peabody
05-11-2012, 02:11 PM
Not disagreeing but another thing to consider big companies have more money for R&D. Several trade offs both ways.

RGA
05-11-2012, 04:52 PM
Not disagreeing but another thing to consider big companies have more money for R&D. Several trade offs both ways.

That's true - let's see the accountant's books on how much they spend on R&D versus marketing verified by an independent auditor.

Bose has more money than anyone for R&D. Is that where it's being spent? Marketing me thinks.

Mash
05-11-2012, 05:44 PM
OK- Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutley.
The same is true for money.
Who do you trust?
My FIL said "Don't trust anybody." This worked for me.
But it is true that as the opportunities to clip a little more off of every person/item sold/etc. is combined with more people/items sold/etc. more clipping will occur. I think there is a word for this. Let me think......

markw
05-11-2012, 06:23 PM
That's true - let's see the accountant's books on how much they spend on R&D versus marketing verified by an independent auditor.

Bose has more money than anyone for R&D. Is that where it's being spent? Marketing me thinks.But, ultimately, Bose has a very satisfied client base. If not, word of mouth would have put them out of business years ago. As it is, most of their recommendations come from someone seeing it at a friends house.

If their view of marketing is to get input so R&D can continue desigining products that continue to please their target market, then I'd say it's money well spent.

RGA
05-11-2012, 10:19 PM
But, ultimately, Bose has a very satisfied client base.

True but it's an ignorant client base - or a client base that has not heard "good" products.

Arguably the same people who spend $3 for a bottle of water. It must be better - it costs more and the advertising tells us it's better and Jennifer Aniston drinks it.

emaidel
05-12-2012, 03:43 AM
There is no doubt in my mind, that the title, "Master of Marketing" goes to Bose. From the very start, with the original 901 "Direct-reflecting" loudspeaker, Bose has been consistent with its "story," and when there were once loads of audio retailers, Bose, more than any other manufacturer in the business - ever - supplied their dealers with more "Point of Purchase" (P.O.P., as it was referred to in the industry) material than any other loudspeaker manufacturer.

In order to be a Bose dealer, the retailer had to dedicate an entire wall of his store exclusively to Bose, but then in return, Bose provided that dealers with an incredible array of P.O.P. as well as all but unlimited factory support, including the "Bose Wagon," which was a Winebago-type vehicle, parked in the dealer's parking lot, manned by Bose personnel, loaded with "scientific" evidence and demonstrations of Bose's claimed superiority, and technical expertise.

Bose told the same story over and over, and supported any dealer who went along with it. That's "Marketing 101" as it never was, or has been since. Unfortunately, brilliant marketing doesn't make a good product. I think anyone would be hard pressed to find a Bose supporter anywhere on audioreview.com.

markw
05-12-2012, 04:43 AM
True but it's an ignorant client base - or a client base that has not heard "good" products.

Arguably the same people who spend $3 for a bottle of water. It must be better - it costs more and the advertising tells us it's better and Jennifer Aniston drinks it.Like most in this hobby, they think it's all about the sound. It isn't. Some people have other priorities.

Some people want a tiny, good lking, unobtrusive, easy to conceal, easy to connect, and easy to use, appliance that fills their living space with good (to their ears) music and don't mind pating a premium for it. Like it or not, Bose surely has hit the mark with those that want that.

Now, if they are that bad, the question many should be asking is why has no other company been able to take over their market?

mlsstl
05-12-2012, 05:51 AM
Markw has an excellent point: "Some people [buyers] have other priorities."

We can become rather arrogant that our perspective on a subject is the only valid or credible one. Bose appeals to those who want pleasant sound, an easy-to-operate appliance that looks nice and is unobtrusive.

While the WAF (wife acceptance factor) is often the basis for audio humor, it's a real effect. I'd lay a solid bet that the vast majority of people who want to hear music in their home do not want a large array of equipment on display. They get everything they need from Bose products and they get it without having to think very hard.

Markw also makes the other excellent point that if Bose is that bad, why haven't they been overtaken by another company in the past 50 years? The answer is that the audiophile definition of "bad" is not the one used by most buyers.

Face reality - the people who frequent discussion forums like this one are a minority, and a small one at that. ;-)

RGA
05-12-2012, 09:47 AM
Only a total fraking moron would call what I said snobbery - only bnrainless retards could possibly not be able to determine that some objects in existence in the world of retail sales do in fact represent a "higher" or "lower" level of quality. A Bentley is a better car than Ford Fiesta - and that is an objective fact and only a fraking idiot with a brain the size of a pea would argue against that point.

It is not snobbery to say that a Bently is a better a car than a Fiesta when it very clearly is.

I have met many Bose owners in my time and every single discussion with every single one of them I ask a question that goes something like this - have you heard speakers from - and I mention about 10 companies. They say "never heard of them."

And I'm not picking small makers like Audio Note - I am saying names like Magnepan, B&W, PMC, Harbeth, Tannoy, Wharfedale. Companies that have been around 30-60 years. That is ignorance of what is available.

Ignorance doesn't mean stupid - it simply means the person didn't look into the subject of what he/she was purchasing. Perhaps because they didn't care enough to bother - perhaps because of the non-sonic reasons to buy brand, looks, WAF whatever.

Not sure I really understand the argument against what I have said - Bose is purchased by non audiophiles for non sound quality reasons. That is the argument being made to me correct? Audiophiles - people who care about audio quality do not buy Bose because the sound quality is poor in relation to what audiophiles who do care about sound quality know it to be sonically deficient. That also isn't snobbery - it's simply a fact. Food critics don't gobble up big macs daily either. I suppose Michelin star chefs could try and compete with "McBarf and Bag-It" but they are passionate about food and not everything in their life revolves around collecting the largest sum of money. They have a passion about making the best food. It is not snobbery to say that eating a $30 hamburger using the finest meat and ingredients cooked by a world class chef is better than a McDonald's Big Mac and that if the guy eating the Big Mac daily and has NEVER had a burger that cost more than $5 is ignorant of what a truly exceptional burger can taste like.

emaidel points out exactly the marketing ploy of Bose - A&B Sound a big box chain in Canada sold Bose and thei'r demand was that Bose not be in any side by side shootouts with other gear - they had their own independent space (all Bose) separate from everything else. No one is knocking the sales success of McDonalds or Bose - they sell to people who don;t care or can;'t afford better or for non-quality reasons for purchase. Although McDonald's doesn't really pretend to be anything more than it is and the prices are low enough that no one is expecting anything great - just consistency. Bose on the other hand purports to be more than it is and consumers think they're buying the "best." And the prices are higher than their quality. Again - generally accepted facts by virtually every audiophile who takes this stuff remotely seriously.

As for overtaking the market - that is no small feat and that applies to any industry - those who get there first establish the market. High end audio manufacturers can't defeat Bose because they are spending their time and money on quality drivers and loudspeaker design - not pretending that the acoustimass which is missing large gaps in the frequency band, is producing great sound with $1 tweeters in a cube and a cheap bass unit that can hardly be called a "subwoofer." To get that market you would have to design a similar look and then a herculean task to get that look to sound good. Then you'd have to build a name brand following.

In and out burger is a much better fast food burger joint than McDonalds. But it's never ever going to catch or be able to beat McDonalds no matter how good the food is and no matter how many people rave about it. Kids want the clown - mommy I want to see Ronald. No Ronald no purple thing no happy meal the kid screams - even if mommy and daddy want the fresh ingredients of guys chopping lettuce and onions over McDonalds that takes a package of dehydrated onions in a paper package and sticks it in water for 2 hours to let the onions "expand" (I know I worked at McDonalds for 3 years).

No one that hears high quality audio and who cares about music reproduction buys Bose. That is not to say that all Bose owners don't care - some do - but they got sucked into thinking it was great without doing their due diligence.

The original article incidentally wasn't talking about Bose - it was more than likely talking about Harman.International

mlsstl
05-12-2012, 10:29 AM
Goodness, RGA, the discussion seems to have struck a raw nerve for you.

For most people, Bose is just another big company that has figured out a successful strategy. There are plenty of alternatives for anyone who chooses another route.

Glad you were able to vent - hope it relieved some angst.

markw
05-12-2012, 03:42 PM
Only a total fraking moron would call what I said snobbery - only bnrainless retards could possibly not be able to determine that some objects in existence in the world of retail sales do in fact represent a "higher" or "lower" level of quality. A Bentley is a better car than Ford Fiesta - and that is an objective fact and only a fraking idiot with a brain the size of a pea would argue against that point.Hey, you're the one that brought up Bose to sneer at, nobody else. I just pointed out that for some people it's just what the doctor ordered and they ae very, very happy and don't feel ripped off.

It's too bad your bloated ego can't accept the fact that not everyone think like you. ..And I thank God for that.

For most sane people, all the "quality" they need is for an object they purchased for what they percieve to be a fair price deliver the goods they expect for a long time with no problems.

I'd say Bose delivers that in spades. So would their customers. That's why they have so many and get more each day.

Not everyone needs a Bentley. Aside from a snobbish Country Club or something similar where making impressions on similarly shallow people congregate are all important, where can a Bentley go that a Ford can't?

Some people are very happy with their Fords which, according to recent surveys, have come along way in the past few years. Not everyone wants or needs a Bentley. Maybe they are secure in themselves that they don't feel the need to impress others with an expensive car and are happy with what they have. Their egos aren't dependent on what they own and impressing others, like some here.

Heck, one could buy several Fords for every Bentley and have a stable of spares in case the Bentley needed service, which I'm pretty sure can't be bone by any gas station.. Me, I prefer Hyundai.

That you don't agree with their tastes and look down your long, pointed nose at them is pure snobbery in it's rawest form, but that's not news to any of us here.

RGA
05-12-2012, 05:52 PM
Unfortunately everything needs to be spelled out. Usually to the Evolution isn't real the earth is 5000 year old, I'm wearing magic underwear, I'm getting 72 virgins in death types. So let's spell it out ---

Number 1;

the point - underline the point - the point is the thing in which is being discussed not something you invent from your own mind. Have to clarify that too it would seem.

1a - Being happy with a Bose or being happy with a Ford or being happy with a McDonald's Big Mac has absolutely ZERO - I spell it out for the Thick - ZERO to do with what I said - ZERO to do with any and every and all points I made. UNDERSTAND !! ZERO. Being HAPPY has NOTHING (that means ZERO) to do with any and all points made.

I am sure you don't get it - but that is why the term "Ignorance is Bliss" was coined. Bliss is a fancy word for "HAPPY" see I underlined the two words Bliss and Happy to help out.

One can be Ignorant and be completely happy - people are happy to believe all sorts of wrong things - like they're happy that Santa is watching everything they do and judging them and if they are GOOD they will get to go to heaven (err I mean get a present) or that the earth is 5000 years old and evolution is fake and dinosaur bones are a "test of faith" Lots of those dimwits are HAPPY or BLISSFUL.

Part 2: No one said you HAD TO HAVE a Bently - it is not about "me too" products - it is simply recognizing "truths" that A is better than B when it IS a FACT. Again the Evolution isn't real, earth is 5000 year old thick F-tards are not able to accept truth or facts so they change the focus of discussions to something else "FEELINGS" and create "STRAWMAN" arguments like "Not everyone needs a Bently" to be happy. Faith (I mean FEELINGS) has nothing to do with accepting facts or truths. The guy who owns a Bently may be a snob, I may be jealous, I may hate all rich people and yadda yadda yadda - but that has NOTHING - ZERO - to do with the FACT that the actual car is a better car than a Fiesta or Escort (I owned an Escort - never owned a Bentley)

The fact that I will likely NEVER be able to afford a Bentley and my last car was a KIA (yes a KIA) doesn't mean I can't respect the fact that a Bentley is a terrific automobile and much better than my Kia or my Ford Escort or my GM Grand Am. I am not a snob when I am getting out of my KIA and I say to the guy who owns a Bentley - "Wow that is a great car you have there it's much better than MY KIA." It's also not being a snob if the Bentley owner on a car board says that a Bentley is better than a Kia. It doesn't become snobbery simply because of which owner is discussing the cars.


No not everyone needs a million dollar car but we don't have to bury our head in the sand and not at the very LEAST acknowledge that "Bentley is a better car than a Ford Festiva." Or that a burger from a Michelin star restaurant is better than a Big Mac, or that musicianship required for classical music is higher than is required for a rock band, or that a top of the line Panasanoc 50 inch Plasma TV is better than uncle Bill's 12inch black and white tube TV to watch Raiders of the Lost Ark on. No one is being mean to Uncle Bill. If Uncle Bill believes that nothing is better than his 12 inch B&W TV then we take Uncle Bill from his cave and we bring him to the store and say - now watch Raiders on this Uncle Bill and tell me what you think. Bill is amazed and will no longer say his 12 inch B&W TV is the best in the world because he was "edu ma cated" on what is possible with moving pictures technology.

He had a belief system that he held for years until he was "exposed" to something much better.

Must spell out analogy - must try to edu-ma-cate
- The Bose owner typically have no exposure to what is better - in many places Bose has their own store - not just a "wall" so no comparison can be made to anything else. The B&W 12 inch TV looks AMAZING when all you have to compare is a blank wall. No one is looking down on Bill. Bill's a smart enough uncle - when brought out of the cave and shown the light (Panasonic Plasma) Bill like anyone else is amazed by the superior quality of the Panasonic - never again will Bill see the world of TV in the same way as he did before. Bill is no longer Ignorant. Even if he can't afford the Plasma and has to keep watching his 12 inch B&W - he is now smart enough to realize that his 12 inch B&W isn't the "BEST"


Part 3

No one is looking down on Bose owners - they/we/I may look down on Bose for duping people into spending "MORE" than they should for inferior products with advertising that is truly shocking and wrong (like Fox News). Bose incidentally is not some "good value for a cheap price company" - no one picks on Sony for selling $100 loudspeakers at Wal-Mart for selling $19 DVD players. The reason they/we/I pick on Bose and I do it less than most is because people are being duped into "believing" stuff that isn't true (ahem evolution is fake, dinosaur bones are a test of faith, the earth is 5000 years old, underwear is magic, you will get virgins when you die BS) . Attacking ignorance isn't being a snob - it's the only war worth attacking since it leads to less actual war.

What isn't true is that Bose is the best. It may not in fact be the worst just like the Big Mac probably isn't the worst or that Bill's B&W TV is the worst, but it isn't the best. You may BELIEVE the Big Mac is the Best or Bose is the best or that Bill's TV is the best - and you may be 100% completely happy in the belief that it is the best - you may like eating Big Macs your whole entire life - and all your friends can think so too (just like all your friends can believe in magic underwear and you'll get 72 virgins when you die) and you can all love listening to Bose believing it's the best bang for the dollar. = BLISS. (lots of people all believing the same thing doesn't make it true. There is no democracy in facts and truth. A fact doesn't care whether you believe in it or not. The earth revolves around the Sun and always has whether 99.99% of the population read a book and believed the opposite didn't change the fact that the earth revolved around the sun.

There is better than Bose - there is better than the Big Mac, there is better than the Ford Festiva, Evolution is a fact, the earth is round and more than a billion years old - whether you choose to accept fact or choose to be "thick" is entirely up to you.

When a class of 30 children are 6 years old their favorite hamburger might be Hamburglar's hamburger at Mcdonalds. When they "experience more life" and "expose themselves to different burgers" a high percentage of those children soon discover there is more to the world than McDonalds - just as numerous Bose owners often eventually do. And some of them learn to read more than one book too - and become less ignorant to the world around them and realize that Santa isn't real, and you're not getting 72 virgins when you die - and Magic Underwear isn't real, and they learn what evolution is and even try to understand it rather than take what some guy in black tells them.

Attacking ignorance isn't being a snob. Education isn't "evil doing" or being mean. It's getting people to see errors and correct them. If they still choose to eat a Big Mac or buy Bose that is perfectly fine. But at least they KNOW that the Big Mac or BOSE isn't the BEST burger or speaker on the planet - I've had better burgers and still occasionally have a Big Mac - because it's cheap and I know that from my experience working there that their cleanliness standards are generally higher than other fast food chains (depending on the management of the store but at least they have written clear standards and all employees are trained. So the chances are better. But when I suck down that Big Mac the reason isn't because I think it's the "best."

markw
05-12-2012, 09:37 PM
Wow, the more you write the more you make my point.

Yeah, you picked on Bose and it's owners because you deem as unworthy of being able to decide for themselves what's best for them. Funny, there's a lot of happy Bose owners out there and, gues what? A lot of them are big boys and girls who have lead a much more fufilling life than you have so far.

You need a group to feel superior to and you select them because, on an audio forum, happy Bose owners make an easy target.

It's too bad they are perfectly happy with their under-performing but over-satisfying product for it's combination of features they you consider inconsequential,

inda like Rolex owners. Heck, Rolex doesn't even keep as accurate time as a Timex or Casio but, hey, the snobs like showing them off and itf it makes them happy but, hey, who am I to piss in their cornflakes.

Now, shake off the last few drops, stuff it in your pants, and zip up.

...snob, but not man enough to admit it, even to yourdself

tube fan
05-12-2012, 09:47 PM
I would rather have my Mini Cooper than a Bentley. I have only had four cars in 50 years: a 1957 Chevy, a 1970 BMW, a 1994 Miata, and a 2007 Mini convertible. I have only had three speakers in my main system: an AR SP 3a, a Fulton J, and the Dunlavy SCIV. I am still using my decades old Audio Research Sp8 preamp (which has a phono unit) and an Audio Research D70 amp to power the Fulton and Dunlavy speakers. The only rooms that came even close to my system (yes, of course, IMO) at the 2010 and 2011 CASs were the Teresonic, the Audio Note, the Sonist, and the Usher. BTW, it IS interesting that three of these rooms were using an SET amp!

RGA
05-13-2012, 08:14 PM
Now I understand Mark that you don't read very well and that's ok - I am used to teaching Special Needs students and realize you need extra special help.

This has nothing to do with attacking Bose owners. I do not quite get your entire system of reading and what you choose to pull out of posts but it's pure strawman.

How did I pick on Bose owner's ability to decide for themselves? How does anyone do that? Person A walks into store and is ready to buy a Bose. Seems to me they can make that decision no?

If audiophiles say to them that gee "did you know about product B for 1/8 the price that is "objectively" and "subjectively" considered to be a much superior product."

So the mere mention of this is being a snob? This is a yes or no answer - if your answer is Yes - you're a moron. If the answer is no - then you agree with me.

markw
05-14-2012, 03:33 AM
You make the assumption that all Bose owners are blindly led like sheep to believe the marketing. In your opinion, their marketing makes them buy a product they don't want. As I tried to point out, but was lost on you, is that speakers and sound is the least of what Bose offers. It offers other niceties they like such as style, size, convenience, the promise of a simpler lifestyls, etc, but that seems to have been lost on you. ...allof which they apparantly deliver.

Apparant;y, they do waht wha tBose promises ...and delivers.

Add to the fact that many Bose products are sold by people seeing and hearing a Bose product at a friend's house and being summarily impressed. So, they've seen the product. They have heard the product, They like the product. They want to buy the product. The product must be what they want. They have a fairly liberal return policy, at least the equal of many of your approved products and yet it doean't seem to be costing them any sales. Why is that?

The fact that their marketing department reinforces ther satisfaction simply means they are doing a fine job.

The fact that you think that Bose "lies" to it's customers, forces them to buy something you don't approve of, and doesn't deserve it's success shows you resent so many people actually liking the prodict and it pisses you off no end that not everyone believes what you believe and likes what you like and you hold them beneath contempt.

Face it, you don't think anyone that doesn't agree with you has any value and you've shown that here many, many times.

But, I was wrong before, It's not the lack of oxygen from the high altitude that drives your madness. It's from breathing the methane being produced from where your head is inserted.

texlle
05-14-2012, 05:59 AM
The majority who buy Bose view audio equipment as a necessary appliance. These are the same people that buy bland Chevy Impalas and Toyota Camrys because they see a car as nothing more than simply mandatory for their day-to-day, and to quote the culmination of Mark's argument, have other priorities in mind when buying. I don't disagree with you RGA, I think the sheeple could do a lot better than Bose- like the Anthony Gallo spheres, but Bose wins in the marketing department. Yes, I believe it to be a bit deceiving of an audio company to engineer their signature house sound on the basis of resonance (i.e. filling your house with pleasant sound) and call it accurate reproduction. However, if I have to credit Bose for one feature of their manufacturing, it's that their entire line is just about bulletproof reliable and lasts for decades without issues. This keeps 'em coming back.

cackalacky
05-14-2012, 07:00 AM
You make the assumption that all Bose owners are blindly led like sheep to believe the marketing. In your opinion, their marketing makes them buy a product they don't want. As I tried to point out, but was lost on you, is that speakers and sound is the least of what Bose offers. It offers other niceties they like such as style, size, convenience, the promise of a simpler lifestyls, etc, but that seems to have been lost on you. ...allof which they apparantly deliver.

Apparant;y, they do waht wha tBose promises ...and delivers.

Add to the fact that many Bose products are sold by people seeing and hearing a Bose product at a friend's house and being summarily impressed. So, they've seen the product. They have heard the product, They like the product. They want to buy the product. The product must be what they want. They have a fairly liberal return policy, at least the equal of many of your approved products and yet it doean't seem to be costing them any sales. Why is that?

The fact that their marketing department reinforces ther satisfaction simply means they are doing a fine job.

The fact that you think that Bose "lies" to it's customers, forces them to buy something you don't approve of, and doesn't deserve it's success shows you resent so many people actually liking the prodict and it pisses you off no end that not everyone believes what you believe and likes what you like and you hold them beneath contempt.

Face it, you don't think anyone that doesn't agree with you has any value and you've shown that here many, many times.

But, I was wrong before, It's not the lack of oxygen from the high altitude that drives your madness. It's from breathing the methane being produced from where your head is inserted.

This urinating contest is displaying some pretty respectable skills, but I should warn you. Armed with nothing but a pitcher of beer, my bladder, and my wee wee, I can write my name in the snow in cursive,

markw
05-14-2012, 02:05 PM
This urinating contest is displaying some pretty respectable skills, but I should warn you. Armed with nothing but a pitcher of beer, my bladder, and my wee wee, I can write my name in the snow in cursive,If that's all you've got to add to the subject under discussion, I'd say you've pretty much proven that by example.

RGA
05-14-2012, 06:32 PM
Bose owners are blindly led like sheep to believe the marketing. In your opinion, their marketing makes them buy a product they don't want. As I tried to point out, but was lost on you, is that speakers and sound is the least of what Bose offers. It offers other niceties they like such as style, size, convenience, the promise of a simpler lifestyls, etc, but that seems to have been lost on you

Heavy marketing has the goal to get people to buy something without thinking about it too much. If people did the marketing is less likely to work on them.

You are arguing with me on things we agree upon so I don't get why you argue points as if I don't agree on them (that's also a strawman).

I agree with you - people who buy BOSE do it for a whole bunch of reasons unrelated to sound quality "style, size, convenience, the promise of a simpler lifestyles"

Yes that is why most people buy Bose and B&O. Commercial Electronics in Vancouver (maybe the largest audio dealer in BC) sold B&O and may still. I overheard the salesman - and it went something like this - this is a terrific style product that looks futuristic and is easy to use. If you remember B&O they had those CD players where you could see 5-6 CDs and you would wave your hand across the front and it would open. They were "cool" they had neat lights and the speakers were very attractive flat designs.

This is a high end dealer. The customer asked him "how do they sound?" He replied - it sounds ok but doesn't compete with the less costly products we sell - but this is about home decor. This saleman won surf-boards and vacations from B&O as the top selling salesman of the brand in the country because he wasn't implying that they were the best sounding systems in the world. People don't like being lied to.

So I get why people would want B&O or Bose. They score high on those marks.

However this is an audiophile forum which discusses audiophile quality products - B&O and Bose are not geared to the posters who are interested in very high quality music reproduction. As you noted - people are buying Bose for all those other reasons.

I am not insulting anyone who chooses to buy those products for those reasons. However it is when Bose advertises that the Wave radio can replace full surround sound systems, or any Big stereo system then that's laughable. The Wave Radio sounds like a glorified Clock radio - because that is what it is. That is marketing deception. And many of the buyers out there really do "believe" it because they have never heard anything better.

It has nothing to do with AGAIN - whether Bose owners are happy campers or not. I am happy with my $99 microwave - it's lasted nearly 20 years and never failed - even fell off the back of a truck and still works great. Nothing but praise for my Danby Microwave. People treat audio gear no differently than they do any other home appliance.

And Bose advertises 1/2 infomercials in the middle of the day along side the home kitchen appliances before or after the Bosemercials.

Nothing wrong with a Wave radio itself - you can hook it up under a kitchen cabinet - it has CD remote wireless can hook up an ipod and it's only $500. There are better less expensive alternatives but they're not that much less money and you can probably sell the Bose for more on the used market. And better alternatives (Boston Acoustics and Cambridge Soundworks, or B&W) - well they're all still glorified clock radios so it's not a huge difference and Bose looks good. Still the Cambridge Soundworks is no worse sounding and is considerably less money Cambridge Soundworks: Table Radios, Stereo Systems, Music Systems, Clock Radios, Sound Systems (http://store.cambridgesoundworks.com/b/2744203011)

But if someone chose a Bose over that I could care less - it is not about what people choose to buy. It's about choosing to buy it for the wrong reason when had you known you would not have. The folks who think Bose sounds the best and then discover that nope they sound pretty bad (once they hear better). If they bought at Commercial Electronics they would be able to hear excellent systems and they'd know they're buying style. Everyone goes in eyes open. No one wants to buy something they're told is the best sound available and 5 months later find out they were rooked. If I was in the market for a $500 clock radio I would try and audition the Bose because it fits a niche few are in. I would not NOT buy it because it's a Bose product.

Recently I've been touting the Cerwin Vega CLS 215 - this is a brand most audiophiles sneer at for being - for being - well - Cerwin Vega. I mean this has been long held to be a poor sounding bass dominant brand. But it's a good speaker at an honest price and it's fun - but it actually sounds good. I have no problem saying so.

In fact Bose had a speaker called the 305 which was a good sounding speaker - it was even recommended in blind sessions in Hi-Fi Choice magazine - so there. And some are reporting the headphones are good.

Like anything else - I am not brand loyal - I am product loyal perhaps - I may like Audio Note but I don't like all the stuff they sell and I don't think all of it represents the best value. And if Bose makes a superior product for the money I'll say so.

cackalacky
05-14-2012, 07:16 PM
If that's all you've got to add to the subject under discussion, I'd say you've pretty much proven that by example.

You've raised the bar too high. Forgive me for not measuring up?

markw
05-14-2012, 08:29 PM
I am not insulting anyone who chooses to buy those products for those reasons. [b]However it is when Bose advertises that the Wave radio can replace full surround sound systems, or any Big stereo system then that's laughable. The Wave Radio sounds like a glorified Clock radio - because that is what it is. That is marketing deception. And many of the buyers out there really do "believe" it because they have never heard anything better.No, it's not laughable, except perhaps to you. And, for their target market, the bolded statement is entirely true. There is no deception. Just like a Chevy can replace a Bentley for anyone's transportation purposes, these little plastic boxes produce satisfying sound to them and can replace a big rack of equipment. So, essentially, it serves the same purpose as a rack for their target market for all they care, and they are just as happy. Style, size, and simplicity take precedence over sound for them and they are apparantly willing, and happy, to pay for it.

You might want to look into the word "puffery" and expand your knowledge base a bit.

As for those people you seem to be trying to protect, if they blindly buy into the hype and buy Bose based purely on their advertising without exploring what else is out there, then that's on them, not Bose.

So, stop trying to apply your standards to others. You look like a snob.

RGA
05-14-2012, 08:55 PM
So, stop trying to apply your standards to others. You look like a snob.

Thanks but I will do whatever the hell I want. So stop telling me and others (based on YOUR standard of etiquette) what to say and do and how to run their life.

markw
05-14-2012, 09:24 PM
Thanks but I will do whatever the hell I want. And so will I..


So stop telling me and others (based on YOUR standard of etiquette) what to say and do and how to run their life.I'll say what I want to whomever I want. Paticularly to snobs like you when you get full of yourselves and need an enema. I'll be here to insert it.

And, no JM. I'm not switching sides. :D

TTFN

RGA
05-14-2012, 10:26 PM
Yeah it's a shame your inferiority complex has you jealous of anyone who likes the finer things in life. I know it's a shame you can't appreciate quality audio reproduction equipment - anyone who thinks Bose doesn't sound too good is a snob. LOL. An audio equipment reviewer says something is better than Bose - he is an audio snob for saying so - cause Markw's world view is that everything is equal and it's all the same level of quality. Sneer in snobby derision - chortle chortle.

Actually - I can live with being viewed as Audio Snob. Wine critics are Wine Snobs and so too are food critics - and I'm an Audio Critic so the shoe fits I should be happy to wear it. In fact I hold back far too often on my views of audio equipment to placate simpletons in order to not make them feel bad. Perhaps you've inspired me to let loose and call it the way it is.

markw
05-15-2012, 04:10 AM
An "audio reviewer" publicly implies that an entire class of people, (anyone who buys Bose) is sheeple who cannot think for themselves but rather blindly follow the dictates of the big, bad, hypnotic marketing machine. So, whose stroking their ego here?

Who needs to post an article from another website and then inserts his own personal prejudices into the thread and then tries to blame the article?

But he doesn't even have the cojones to come out admit it, but when confronted with it would rather try to deny it by hiding behind a barrage of words that circle around and come right back from where they started Oh , yeah, there's a real paragon of virtue if ever I've seen one.

No, snob. Not everyTHING ie equal, everyONE is, as their personal opinions but, as you've shown over and over again, you don't believe that. Only you and your opinions are worth anything.

Go ahead; let loose. It's hard to hold it in. I see the laxative is working.

mlsstl
05-15-2012, 04:18 AM
The dictionary definition of "snob" is: "one who thinks that money and rank are very important, and has contempt for those he considers inferior." (Webster's New World)

I know many people who are sophisticated and erudite on certain subjects but who show no hint of snobbery. They are happy to share their knowledge with all who ask but understand that others have different priorities that leave them uninterested in a particular issue, be it wine, food, cars, audio or whatever.

So, yes, it is possible to appreciate some objects more than others, but that doesn't mandate that others who don't share that appreciation are inferior.

texlle
05-15-2012, 08:24 AM
I would consider it snobbish to think that ALL Bose buyers are ignorant of better brands. SOME are and some aren't. There are those who buy bose for the brand-whore and aethetic appeal. These are the people who I believe RGA is attacking here. I happen to agree with him. Doesn't make me a snob- maybe a bit opinionated. Then you have others who aren't as concerned with accurate sound reproduction as the typical audiophile- those who buy for convenience (large dealer network, ease of installation), WAF, and other reasons not related to accurate reproduction. RGA, you understand this distinction as you stated, but did not make this distinction until later on in the discussion. Somehow this is still evading Mark's needlessly conflagratory argument. But, yes, some people are led to believe that the wave radio can sound like a large "traditional" stereo system. However, whether or not their belief that this is true cannot be determined and truly should not be judged. Maybe there are those who have never seen any of Bose's ads and their wild claims (as I'd see it), who wandered into a Bose outlet and literally believed a bose wave radio to sound just as good, and as big as their old Magnepan setup. It's subjective preference. Maybe they're almost deaf or just guilty of brand lust. I believe both of you to be guilty of generalizing. In Mark's case, the very arrogant comment where he claimed to speak on the behalf of everyone on this forum when he characterized RGA as being snobbish.

JohnMichael
05-15-2012, 08:40 AM
And so will I..

I'll say what I want to whomever I want. Paticularly to snobs like you when you get full of yourselves and need an enema. I'll be here to insert it.

And, no JM. I'm not switching sides. :D

TTFN


Wow that is rude and offensive in so many ways.

markw
05-15-2012, 09:02 AM
Wow that is rude and offensive in so many ways.It was truly meant in good humor. I'm sorry you didn't see it that way.

Hyfi
05-15-2012, 09:20 AM
All pretty entertaining considering that the referenced article is ONLY someone else opinion and had very little real facts in it. Hardly worth the bandwidth and server space this will take up. Specially from someone who labels himself An Elitist JERK.

JohnMichael
05-15-2012, 09:43 AM
It was truly meant in good humor. I'm sorry you didn't see it that way.


I was not even participating in the thread. Wow and you thought it was humorous.

Hyfi
05-15-2012, 09:48 AM
I was not even participating in the thread. Wow and you thought it was humorous.

And the whole thread is about going out of your way to offend someone, or a whole group of someones.

Definitely uncalled for, and not a bit funny.

markw
05-15-2012, 09:50 AM
All pretty entertaining considering that the referenced article is ONLY someone else opinion and had very little real facts in it. Hardly worth the bandwidth and server space this will take up. Specially from someone who labels himself An Elitist JERK.And yet was used as a springboard to dig on Bose and those who choose to purchase it. I guess it's like using the "N" word at a KKK meeting since the common belief is that nobody there would object.

And, as for my tag line, you might want to look up the meaning of "irony", as well as the difference between "specially" and "especially".

Hyfi
05-15-2012, 10:06 AM
And yet was used as a springboard to dig on Bose and those who choose to purchase it. I guess it's like using the "N" word at a KKK meeting since the common belief is that nobody there would object.

And, as for my tag line, you might want to look up the meaning of "irony", as well as the difference between "specially" and "especially".

Oh, sorry my grammar and word usage is not up to your elitist standards. You got the point tho. (and I spelled Though incorrectly on purpose because I type all day)

Hyfi
05-15-2012, 10:10 AM
And, as for my tag line, you might want to look up the meaning of "irony"

And we are supposed to believe you are the total opposite of an Elitist and a Jerk? How ironic!

markw
05-15-2012, 10:15 AM
I was not even participating in the thread. Wow and you thought it was humorous.And, as a moderator, I assumed you were monitoring it. If you want to be offended, feel free, but just know it was not my intent. I'm not going to lose any sleep either way, though.

markw
05-15-2012, 10:16 AM
And we are supposed to believe you are the total opposite of an Elitist and a Jerk? How ironic!Believe whatever you wish. It's probably got no basis in reality anyway.

Hyfi
05-15-2012, 10:22 AM
But, ultimately, Bose has a very satisfied client base. If not, word of mouth would have put them out of business years ago

Wal Mart also has a very large satisfied customer base and all they sell is disposable junk. Cheaply priced junk is what keeps them in business. Can we lump all those consumers into a specific Label? You bet you can. I know plenty of people who will purchase the same cheap ass item and throw it away to get a new one as opposed to doing a little more research and spending a little more money to get a quality item that lasts longer and end up saving money and time.

Bose customers are not much different. They see an Add, they see a Bose store, they see little tiny speakers you can hide from your wife but they DON"T compare a Bose setup to a similarly priced setup that you can piece together because it is just easier to buy the Bose than to do some extra homework. If they did the research and realized that for the same money they could have a better sounding setup, things may be different. But, the majority of humans are just simply lazy.

Bose has OK quality items for the casual listener and good customer service but they sell more because they market more and correctly compared to high end MFGs.

They don't sink squat into R&D, they Market what they have already created well.

Hyfi
05-15-2012, 10:24 AM
Believe whatever you wish. It's probably got no basis in reality anyway.

I can only believe what I see and read, if we met outside of a cyber world, I would probably have a different opinion but again it would be worthless.

markw
05-15-2012, 10:26 AM
Wal Mart also has a very large satisfied customer base and all they sell is disposable junk. Cheaply priced junk is what keeps them in business. Can we lump all those consumers into a specific Label? You bet you can. I know plenty of people who will purchase the same cheap ass item and throw it away to get a new one as opposed to doing a little more research and spending a little more money to get a quality item that lasts longer and end up saving money and time.

Bose customers are not much different. They see an Add, they see a Bose store, they see little tiny speakers you can hide from your wife but they DON"T compare a Bose setup to a similarly priced setup that you can piece together because it is just easier to buy the Bose than to do some extra homework. If they did the research and realized that for the same money they could have a better sounding setup, things may be different. But, the majority of humans are just simply lazy.

Bose has OK quality items for the casual listener and good customer service but they sell more because they market more and correctly compared to high end MFGs.

They don't sink squat into R&D, they Market what they have already created well.Apparantly, you gleaned nothing from this entire thread, and not just from my posts. Did you even nother to read it? ...and yet you want to be taken seriously?

P.S.. What's an "Add"? Is that something like a "Subtract"?

Hyfi
05-15-2012, 10:49 AM
Apparantly, you gleaned nothing from this entire thread, and not just from my posts. Did you even nother to read it? ...and yet you want to be taken seriously?

P.S.. What's an "Add"? Is that something like a "Subtract"?

Maybe you should spell check yourself bobo.

WTF is a nother?

See and you act just like an elitist jerk yet ask us to view you just the opposite. What we see is what we get.

And yes I read the whole thread. It ended up being no different than a Taste Great-Less Filling argument.

Nobody can argue that most Bose customers can be lumped into a labeled group. Are they all idiots? I don't think so but the majority of them are lazy or really don't care about anything more than looks and convenience.

markw
05-15-2012, 11:36 AM
Maybe you should spell check yourself bobo.

WTF is a nother?Try "Bother". That is called a"typo". You'll notice that the "B" and "N" keys are next to each other and all it takes is a slip of a finger. That's a lot different than a total misspelling or unintentional use of a entirely different word with extra letters, particularly when it's needlessly capitalized.


See and you act just like an elitist jerk yet ask us to view you just the opposite. What we see is what we get.How so? By getting riled when an entire group of people is being ridiculed for their preferences?


And yes I read the whole thread. It ended up being no different than a Taste Great-Less Filling argument.

Nobody can argue that most Bose customers can be lumped into a labeled group. Are they all idiots? I don't think so but the majority of them are lazy or really don't care about anything more than looks and convenience.So, just because they don't care about the same things you and your real "elitist jerk" buddies do, then you can smugly boast amongst yourselves that they were stupidly blinded by the light of marketing hype and make fun of them?

Right.. .so, who's really the elitist here?

Hyfi
05-15-2012, 12:05 PM
How so? By getting riled when an entire group of people is being ridiculed for their preferences?

So, just because they don't care about the same things you and your real "elitist jerk" buddies do, then you can smugly boast amongst yourselves that they were stupidly blinded by the light of marketing hype and make fun of them?

Right.. .so, who's really the elitist here?

How so? You had nothing else so you decided to be the spelling and grammar police. Pretty much everyone types too fast and makes simple mistakes. You knew exactly what I meant but felt the need to belittle me for a few simple mistakes. I guess that regains your spot as the Elitist and most perfect typist of the online community. I bow to your superiority.

I am not making fun of anyone who chooses to buy a Bose product. I just stated a few of my own opinions as to why a certain group of people do. I actually think the Wave sounds pretty good for a clock radio but it is just overpriced.

One can do so much better than a $3500 Lifestyle system but they are mostly just lazy and don't care about quality over aesthetics. You can get 5 good speakers, a sub and a nice HT receiver that would blow away a Bose setup for around $2k so guess what, that does make them stupid and lazy.

And since this is just an stupid message board, if you get all riled up you should maybe get a life.

mlsstl
05-15-2012, 12:20 PM
You can get 5 good speakers, a sub and a nice HT receiver that would blow away a Bose setup for around $2k so guess what, that does make them stupid and lazy.

I think it is certainly possible for someone to choose a Bose or similar system without being either "stupid or lazy".

Not everyone wants 6 speaker boxes in a room with all of the attendant wiring needed, or has the proper spots for them.

I've also known many, many extremely talented musicians over the years who couldn't care less about the quality of their stereo. Once they hear what the artist is up to, their mind provides everything else they need.

I say this without ever having owned a Bose product. I just know that I'm wasting my time making judgements about others who have chosen differently that I have.

I know for certain that I regularly make choices that aren't up-to-snuff for aficionados in other fields. I think it would be a pretty safe bet to make about anyone.

Pity this discussion has gone so far off the rails.

Hyfi
05-15-2012, 12:42 PM
I think it is certainly possible for someone to choose a Bose or similar system without being either "stupid or lazy".

Not everyone wants 6 speaker boxes in a room with all of the attendant wiring needed, or has the proper spots for them.

I've also known many, many extremely talented musicians over the years who couldn't care less about the quality of their stereo. Once they hear what the artist is up to, their mind provides everything else they need.

I say this without ever having owned a Bose product. I just know that I'm wasting my time making judgements about others who have chosen differently that I have.

I know for certain that I regularly make choices that aren't up-to-snuff for aficionados in other fields. I think it would be a pretty safe bet to make about anyone.

Pity this discussion has gone so far off the rails.

I know, I was just pushing Mark's buttons since this seems to bother him to the point where he has to attempt to make others look stupid and small because they make a few typing mistakes and he is "so riled up".

I really don't care what people buy or like, until they start trying to tell me how great it is.

Believe me, I am called Cheap and whatever all the time because I "choose not to have other than DSL and a Roof Antenna among other decisions I make.
It's all good. If nothing else, I get lots of chuckles over internet persona. Maybe others get chuckles out of mine, no worries.

RGA
05-15-2012, 10:35 PM
I would consider it snobbish to think that ALL Bose buyers are ignorant of better brands. SOME are and some aren't. There are those who buy bose for the brand-whore and aethetic appeal. These are the people who I believe RGA is attacking here. I happen to agree with him. Doesn't make me a snob- maybe a bit opinionated.


I didn't think I was attacking them; however, yes that is the difference. Aesthetic buyers versus the "brand-whore" to a not very good brand (in terms of sound quality). The sound quality opinion may be opinionated but not snobby. Interestingly, it is the reason one often pays MORE for BOSE and tells everyone it's the best - they are actually the ones who fit the definition of "snob" as they are buying the brand to "have it over" everyone else.



Somehow this is still evading Mark's needlessly conflagratory argument. But, yes, some people are led to believe that the wave radio can sound like a large "traditional" stereo system. However, whether or not their belief that this is true cannot be determined and truly should not be judged.

Not really sure that that is the issue. It doesn't really matter what the reason is for buying a wave radio. When it becomes an issue is when an owner says it's the best and decent hi-fi equipment. Merely stating the fact that they are ignorant of what is out there isn't being a snob - it's simply telling them by the way listen to any one of these 400 brands some of which are in driving distance from your house.



Maybe there are those who have never seen any of Bose's ads and their wild claims (as I'd see it), who wandered into a Bose outlet and literally believed a bose wave radio to sound just as good, and as big as their old Magnepan setup.

Possible, but highly doubtful. If you meet anyone let me know. If I meet anyone I'd be amazed. That's just it - I have never ever met anyone anywhere that has heard good quality audiophile brands and proceeded to purchase a Bose loudspeaker system. The Wave Radio is something else- I don;t know anyone who is an audiophile and bought one but I did read about a guy on a forum who did - but nobody is buying a clock radio to recreate the Philharmonic anyway.

There are generalizations and generalizations. When I say for example Bose is "viewed" by virtually every audiophile and reviewer on every audiophile website in the world as being overpriced for the coin I am coming up with that information on more than 10 years on audio forums and discussing it with reviewers.

I have not met anyone that traded in his SoundLab or AN's or Teresonics or Quad panels, or Magnepans, or Revels, JM Labs, etc etc for a set of Bose 901 loudspeakers. I have read many posts and know many people who had those speakers and dumped them.

Indeed, when I had the $250 B&W 302 loudspeakers and let a Bose 901 retailer (who didn't know much about audio and thought the 901 was best) audition the 302 he was so impressed he bought a pair for himself and sold his 901s. The 302 is a fine little speaker but it's still just a tiny 2 way for $250. The 901 was going for $1850 and is a royal pain in the arse to position.

So yes there may be an exception - there may be a Scaena or Perfect 8 Technologies speaker owner out there who decides - nope the Acoustimass sounds better. But the point of generalizing is that it is a "general" rule.

For instance I will mentions SS high feedback amps sound a certain way and invariably someone will mention Sugden or Pass Labs. But how many SS makers are out there that don't design amps in the same way and that are affordable? To me it's pretty safe to generalize when it's 90%+ part of the time.

The only audiophile poster I have met in support of the 901 was Soundmind/skeptic and even then only the first original model - and only after he basically rebuilt the entire thing and only with a special crossover presumably that he designed and only with additional drivers.

And I defend Bose more than most - the 901 is fine in a club where you want to spread the music around a large room - it works like a charm - much better than the sound in the pub when they were using Klipsch horn loudspeaker with a narrow focus. The 901 sounded better not just to cover the room either - it was less shouty and hard sounding - you could converse with the Bose in the background not intruding your conversation. In a home the Klipsch speakers sound better however in the listening chair (Ref 3).

E-Stat
05-16-2012, 10:41 AM
"brand-whore"
Hey, great term! I happen to observe them. :)

RGA
05-16-2012, 05:49 PM
I know the term well since people grossly mistakingly call me one a fair bit. The difference is that it requires a person to love every product that the brand makes and state that each item is the "best" to the exclusion of all else. People tend to believe this about me which is patently untrue and there is an abundance of evidence of a cross section of my posts that indicate that.

I do have certain preferences at certain price points that I consider to be "best of a given class" but then so do most individuals and indeed review publications with their rankings.

I think it is natural for people to become brand loyal to the extent they expect certain qualities from brands - Honda and Toyota built brand loyalty through the 80s and 90s by building care that didn't fall apart as often as American cars. Indeed, in a UK study a Ford would fail 8 times more often than comparable Toyota models and the Fords also had the double whammy of having more costly (bigger) problems. And this was the BEST American company in the listing. Some GMs were 25 times more likely to fail than a Tercel. And they had the actual repair figures.

So being brand loyal makes sense. The fact that Toyota and Honda have both slipped big time and the American's have improved - while it may be true - it is difficult to go back to a company you had bad experiences with and leave one you had good experiences with.

In Audio - I have certain expectations of Audio Note - and when it doesn't live up to my expectations I may be far harder on them than I would be with a company that usually makes mediocre sounding gear. I expect when Audio Note brings out the AX One loudspeaker that it will be a class leader and game changer at the entry level. And when it's not - then I rip it harder than a B&W where my expectation is lower.

The one thing about Bose is that at least their prices have been coming down over the years. The Acoustimass is about half the price that it used to be. Something like $699 - used to be around $1300-$1500. $699 is about the same price as other similar looking cube systems found in the big box chains. The Wave Radio is only a couple hundred more than competitors not triple the price.

markw
05-16-2012, 08:05 PM
I didn't think I was attacking them; however, yes that is the difference. Aesthetic buyers versus the "brand-whore" to a not very good brand (in terms of sound quality). The sound quality opinion may be opinionated but not snobby. Interestingly, it is the reason one often pays MORE for BOSE and tells everyone it's the best - they are actually the ones who fit the definition of "snob" as they are buying the brand to "have it over" everyone else.Well now, I can't think of too many audio manufacturers that can get as much "decent" sound from as little real estate as their devices do and, when you consider their "lifestyle" systems, have as good a human interface. Some of those things cost money, ya know. For people who seek these qualities, I can see where they might see them as the best they could have purchased FOR THEIR NEEDS.

Now, as for lording it over others, I can't say that I've seen any Bose owners doing that. Have you? Do you even associate with Bose owners? I think not.I do, however, see them telling others how much they like their purchase.. And, ya know what? Others go out and buy them based on what they've seen and heard at a friend's house. That's called word of mouth.

I do see where a lot of their one-piece units are in the homes of older people who don't see the need for a big system. They seem to be their biggest market, at least from my experience. Good luck trying to talk them into a complicated system. Their infomercials aim for the heart of this market and hit the bulls-eye.

And, if print advertising in upscale magazines keeps their name recognition high, so much the better. That's the name of the game.

Say what you will, they can take one small box, place it in the room, plug in, and fill the room with pleasant sounding music. Maybe not the highest in fidelity, but certainly far from unlistenable, and easy simple to operate. Can Audio Note make that claim?

And, if print advertising in upscale magazines keeps their name recognition high, so much the better. That's the name of the game.

I do, however, see you flaunting your Audio Notes all over the place so I'd be careful about calling others "brand-whores". For them, their little system is as good as your beloved monkey coffins but, from your continuing posts here, you just can't give them credit for knowing what they want and like .

But, I await Audio Note's entry into the lifestyle audio jewelery systems that so far seem to be the sole domain of Bose and B & O.

So, quit trying to make THEM out as snobs. You should look into the mirror.

RGA
05-17-2012, 03:04 AM
You know mark I am still trying to figure out where we're in actual disagreement with Bose products.

Seems to me we both agree that Bose hits a target market that is interested in simple easy to use unobtrusive equipment.

We both agree that that target market is happy with the product.

We both agree that they get "decent" sound from as little real estate as their devices do and, when you consider their "lifestyle" systems."

We agree that Bose's "infomercials aim for the heart of this market and hit the bulls-eye."

We agree that Bose is "not the highest in fidelity." I left the maybe out.

The original link was about people or manufacturers claiming to own or make the best based on DBT listening or measured response - when they are the ones stacking the deck in their own favor and insinuating no bias. Obviously a manufacturer who conducts a test - chooses the competition, chooses the listeners (if not employing them) running the test (which means it is no longer "double" blind. When Harman International runs the test it is not a DBT period. Yet their white papers claim them to be. That is a lie. When they create a test and then don't say what other speakers are in the test or provide specific listener results - and don't allow any third party test that is a problem.

Hi-Fi Choice magazine is at least independent SBT and has far more credibility than any manufacturer claiming to to do DBT. Interestingly speakers that are different measuring from Harman often win - funny how that works eh. And funny that Harman doesn't use ANY of those Hi-Fi Choice winners in their tests. And incidentally that includes a BOSE loudspeaker that finished well enough to be recommended in Hi-Fi Choice (which means it either won or scored close enough to the top to be recommended). How many reviewers can you list that give props to BOSE other than me? Aside from one reviewer back in the late 60's?

Like I said - I get Bose and their target market and the buyers. Most of them are exactly the kind of buyer you state - fully 100% agree with you.

Where we part is that I know several people in person and on forums who bought it based on the advertising where they were under the impression they were buying "elite" high end or the best sound. Only later to be upset that they felt they got ripped off because it wasn't "elite" sound. Or the people who bought it on the premise of it being "elite" level sound and tell everyone that Bose is the best. That part of the Bose market is the ONLY part of the market that I was talking about. And maybe that was not clear at the early part of this thread.

And side stepping Bose - plenty of people buy plenty of speakers and products for reasons that are not strictly for performance. Headphones are a great example. You may like several headphones but my advice is to buy the one that is most comfortable and worry about the sound later. Last thing you want is a great sounding headphone that you plan to listen to for 3 hours a day and it's so uncomfortable that you have to take them off after 20 minutes. As good as it sounds it may make better sense to take the third choice in sound for comfort.

That applies to Bose cubes - you want something for the WAF and takes up not space and can easily be moved etc. Perfectly good reasons to buy them. I still maintain you can get alternatives - to me Gallo or Totem off similar sizes and better sound at similar dollars. But I would only offer that advice to people "into audio." I respect the fact the the vast majority of people just don't give a rat's bottom and Bose is perfectly fine for them.

Please don't mistake having an opinion on sound quality and stating it in a matter of fact way as being a snob. I am not telling a Bose owner or an owner of anything else that they should buy what I tell them to buy or their system is rubbish. Certainly, I am entitled to have an opinion that A is better than B and on a forum dedicated to audiophiles - I expect that people come to read about a guy who believes A is better than B and wants to know why that person thinks A is better than B and even the ranting and raving of posters like RGA who very strenuously and over excitedly want to tell everyone that in his experience A completely destroyed B in his auditions of both A and B.

Isn't that partly the point of Audio Forums. User experience. After all, if it is about marketing and word of mouth then folks would simply go an buy a Bose. The reason this place exists isn't for "most" Bose owners - it's for people who maybe don't have to answer to partners and who can buy butt ugly big stuff purely for sound quality reasons and not for home decor.

Even for WAF products forums are useful to get people to consider alternatives they may not have considered. Sure there is the Bose Cube but perhaps the poster could have a slightly bigger speaker and discovers the Totem Mite or a single driver or a dual concentric small speaker from Tannoy. All of which may sound considerably better and all of which may still satisfy the WAF. The people who come to these audio boards are people interested audio reproduction and alternatives. The plenty of happy Bose owners who don't don't. Comments by forum posters should really be taken as comments to "audiophiles" and not the Bose target market you and I both agree is the vast majority of their market.

markw
05-17-2012, 03:51 AM
Do you remember when, in grade school, kids would start out with "No offense, but..." and follow that with a slam. Somehow, I see your backpeddaling here a sort of retroactive application of the same princiiple.

When I read the article, I don't recall any single product singled out. I do see where you, in your infinite wisdom, saw that they were talking about Bose. Where did you get the impression that is who they were talking about?

Are you sure they are the only one guilty of this? Are they the only ones that design a product to meet the demands of their target market?

Assuming they do what the article states (you offer no proof), are you sure that they don't simply poll their listeners for what features they want or, perhaps have them in for listening tests, not unlike food companies call in people off the street for taste testing.

To blatantly state that they train the people that appear in their commercials, (I've never seen civilians endorsing their stuff) is a bit much. As for the celebrities that appear in them, how are they any worse than those that sell insurance, juice and whatever else they shill on TV?

No, just let their users go and enjoy their purchase, unless you're jealous that they can derive such pleasure from something you fine so onerous.

It's kinda like being married. You should settle for the one that suits you and makes you comfortable and happy, one you can spend a life with, not one that meets the approval of some anonymous experts that write magazine articles. What you're doing is essentially insulting some guy's wife behind his back to people who you think he'll never associate with.

mlsstl
05-17-2012, 07:50 AM
Anyone else wondering if this horse is dead yet?

Hyfi
05-17-2012, 08:03 AM
Anyone else wondering if this horse is dead yet?


Taste Great

bobsticks
05-17-2012, 08:13 AM
Do you remember when, in grade school, kids would start out with "No offense, but..." and follow that with a slam. Somehow, I see your backpeddaling here a sort of retroactive application of the same princiiple.

When I read the article, I don't recall any single product singled out. I do see where you, in your infinite wisdom, saw that they were talking about Bose. Where did you get the impression that is who they were talking about?

Are you sure they are the only one guilty of this? Are they the only ones that design a product to meet the demands of their target market?

Assuming they do what the article states (you offer no proof), are you sure that they don't simply poll their listeners for what features they want or, perhaps have them in for listening tests, not unlike food companies call in people off the street for taste testing.

To blatantly state that they train the people that appear in their commercials, (I've never seen civilians endorsing their stuff) is a bit much. As for the celebrities that appear in them, how are they any worse than those that sell insurance, juice and whatever else they shill on TV?

No, just let their users go and enjoy their purchase, unless you're jealous that they can derive such pleasure from something you fine so onerous.

It's kinda like being married. You should settle for the one that suits you and makes you comfortable and happy, one you can spend a life with, not one that meets the approval of some anonymous experts that write magazine articles. What you're doing is essentially insulting some guy's wife behind his back to people who you think he'll never associate with.

Damn...I tried to give you Greenies just for being pithy...:thumbsup:

markw
05-17-2012, 08:17 AM
Anyone else wondering if this horse is dead yet?We'll know when/if it's backside responds

RGA
05-17-2012, 04:28 PM
The article I posted was not referring to Bose because Bose isn't acknowledged by anyone as an audiophile maker. And Bose doesn't do DBTs to cull what people like nor do they publish white papers involving "claimed "DBT"s and also uses an Anechoic chamber. Harman International which makes Revel, JBL and others do make those claims. And that is very likely the company they were referring to - Unless someone knows of another obvious American speaker maker that does all three of those things.

I never said anything about training for commercials - show me where I said that - stop lying.

Harman trains their listeners to listen for aspects of sound they tell the listener is best. They don't hide the fact which is a plus but then it's also not letting people decide for themselves either.

I say again because the "thick" don't get it - I don't care what people like or enjoy. I don't write thousand word essays as to why Bose makes a bad sounding product.

This is an audiophile board - people are looking to buy audiophile products - Bose isn't one of them.

As illustrated here - From a guy who owns the product.

"Unlike other speaker manufacturers, Bose refuses to publish any frequency response charts or distortion data on their products (and for a good reason). Thus a few independent audiophiles, industry professionals, and newsgroups have taken it upon themselves to benchmark the much debated Acoustimass system. Here is a pretty credible one sourced from the August 1999 issue of Sound and Vision magazine...

SATELLITES BASS MODULE
Frequency Response 280 Hz to 13.3k Hz at �10.5 dB 46Hz to 202Hz at �2.3 dB
Sensitivity (SPL at 1 meter)* 85.1 dB N/A
Impedance (minimum/nominal) 5.3/8 ohms N/A
Bass Limits (-3/-6 dB) 280/220 Hz 46/40 Hz

* measured with 2.8 volts of pink-noise input

To reiterate the above, the Acoustimass's bass module responds to 46 Hz to 202 Hz at �2.3 dB, while the satellites respond to 280 Hz to 13.3 KHz at �10.5 dB. This is, by the way, the only speaker that I have ever seen tested with a �10.5 db allowance.

Still, this leaves a frequency gap between the satellites and bass module of about 80 Hz! That is 80 hertz of sound that is completely erased within the system's internal crossovers! I wonder how Bose figured out which 80 hertz matters least in the audible spectrum? I will say though that this gap accounts for a huge loss in midrange sound, which is responsible for the majority contralto, baritone, and tenor vocals in music, and many sound effects in home theater. And let us not forget that the Acoustimass system also ignores audible signal from 20Hz to 45Hz on the low end (deep bass), and 13KHz to 20KHz on the high end (high treble). Do the math folks, this Bose system only produces 13,176 of the 19,980 Hertz in the audible sound spectrum. That's roughly 66% of the actual recording being played back to you! Is this the kind of performance you'd expect from a $1300 product?

Not only will you missing out on a considerable amount of sound with Bose, but the fact that the subwoofer has to respond to frequencies as high as 280 Hz means that there will be extreme amounts of localized midbass in the Bass Module. A well-mated subwoofer should never have to produce any frequencies above 80 Hz and ideally should be crossed over around 60-70 Hz. The purpose of a subwoofer is to produce non-directional low frequency effects. So essentially when you're watching movies with a Bose system, you will hear the gunshots and explosions coming from the subwoofer in the corner of the room, and NOT from the sound imaged television screen. In music, you will hear the singer's voice come from the subwoofer next to the CD rack in the corner of the room, and not the converging point of the two main speakers. This is known as extremely poor 'sound imaging'. For you current Bose owners, try unplugging all your cubed satellite speakers and play a DVD on your Acoustimass system. I used the DVD 'X-Men' for my review. You will be able to follow the entire movie off of dialogue picked up by your Bose Bass Module alone.

continued here
intellexual net · m k i v (http://intellexual.net/bose.html)

Like I said - there are reasons to buy this but audiophiles do not - audiophiles who have heard this tend to draw the same conclusions - it's atrocious sound for way too much money.

JoeE SP9
05-17-2012, 04:36 PM
Do you remember when, in grade school, kids would start out with "No offense, but..." and follow that with a slam. Somehow, I see your backpeddaling here a sort of retroactive application of the same princiiple.

When I read the article, I don't recall any single product singled out. I do see where you, in your infinite wisdom, saw that they were talking about Bose. Where did you get the impression that is who they were talking about?

Are you sure they are the only one guilty of this? Are they the only ones that design a product to meet the demands of their target market?

Assuming they do what the article states (you offer no proof), are you sure that they don't simply poll their listeners for what features they want or, perhaps have them in for listening tests, not unlike food companies call in people off the street for taste testing.

To blatantly state that they train the people that appear in their commercials, (I've never seen civilians endorsing their stuff) is a bit much. As for the celebrities that appear in them, how are they any worse than those that sell insurance, juice and whatever else they shill on TV?

No, just let their users go and enjoy their purchase, unless you're jealous that they can derive such pleasure from something you fine so onerous.

It's kinda like being married. You should settle for the one that suits you and makes you comfortable and happy, one you can spend a life with, not one that meets the approval of some anonymous experts that write magazine articles. What you're doing is essentially insulting some guy's wife behind his back to people who you think he'll never associate with.

Puleeeze! If I think your wife is ugly and that upsets you well that's just too bad. This is just to say I agree with RGA. It's not snobbery to be aware of and desire something better. It's snobbery when you berate someone for not desiring what you want. RGA has not done that.

All things being equal, me choosing a Bentley over a Ford Focus isn't being a snob it's merely exercising personal prerogative. It's not snobbery to want a better cut of meat, a better wine, a single malt scotch or a better sounding stereo.

It is reverse snobbery when you accuse those who want the "high priced spread" of snobbery. There is an awful lot of reverse snobbery in the US. A depiction of "Joe six pack" being glorified is reverse snobbery at it's worst.

My system sounds better than anything Bose has ever sold to the public. That doesn't have anything to do with snobbery. It's just simple truth. That Bose owners visit and say my gear sounds better than the Bose gear they have still doesn't make me a snob. I tell them the difference is being an informed consumer. IMO RGA is ranting about the "Joe six pack" idea that an uninformed opinion is as valid as an informed opinion. If you believe that then you worship at the fountain of ignorance.

markw
05-17-2012, 04:49 PM
No basic argument with wanting more for yourself that Bose Offers. I do, too, but if I had a need for a small, simple to install and operate one-box solution, they would be a great place to start.

And, since nobody seems to get it, my main complaint was some snob's suggesting that all Bose buyers fell for the advertising instead of making a conscious choice based on their personal wants and preferences.

To wit, or twit. I'm still deciding which is more appropiate.


That's true - let's see the accountant's books on how much they spend on R&D versus marketing verified by an independent auditor.

Bose has more money than anyone for R&D. Is that where it's being spent? Marketing me thinks.

Very few here seemed to pick up on that.

That, plus digging on Bose in an audio forum is a great way for simple-minded snobs to jump in a dog-pile, kinda like suggesting picking on the unpopular kid in school. Nobody's gonna have a problem with that. So, in essense, deal with it.

As for my wife, I married her for love and she's still beautiful to me.
You can buy whatever one you want for yours. Money offers many options..

RGA
05-17-2012, 05:05 PM
Puleeeze! If I think your wife is ugly and that upsets you well that's just too bad. This is just to say I agree with RGA. It's not snobbery to be aware of and desire something better. It's snobbery when you berate someone for not desiring what you want. RGA has not done that.

All things being equal, me choosing a Bentley over a Ford Focus isn't being a snob it's merely exercising personal prerogative. It's not snobbery to want a better cut of meat, a better wine, a single malt scotch or a better sounding stereo.

It is reverse snobbery when you accuse those who want the "high priced spread" of snobbery. There is an awful lot of reverse snobbery in the US. A depiction of "Joe six pack" being glorified is reverse snobbery at it's worst.

My system sounds better than anything Bose has ever sold to the public. That doesn't have anything to do with snobbery. It's just simple truth. That Bose owners visit and say my gear sounds better than the Bose gear they have still doesn't make me a snob. I tell them the difference is being an informed consumer. IMO RGA is ranting about the "Joe six pack" idea that an uninformed opinion is as valid as an informed opinion. If you believe that then you worship at the fountain of ignorance.

Everyone gets a case of envy at some point. I would love to own some of the system's I have heard - but I can't afford it or will never be able to afford it. But I won't bury my head in the sand and say it doesn't exist.

Bose is a marketing engine. The link intellexual net · m k i v (http://intellexual.net/bose.html) illustrates their success.

Bose buyers IMO are duped into believing they're getting premium sound quality. That is an opinion based on several Bose owners and retailers I have met over the years.

Even Soundhounds which carries high end brands presumably selling to audiophiles note that 90% of the people NINETY PERCENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Come in and buy stuff without auditioning the product in any serious way (if at all) and say "this magazine gave this B&W a great review - do you have one?" And they buy it without trying anything else or they ask "what's the best" or "That looks cool I want one." I have witnessed this and even my short stint in audio retail I had customers do that.

None of this matters to me in the sense that most people just want something in the corner that will play a CD or now their iPod. Only the Thick would take my comments on Bose or Bose owners to include the people buying it JUST for lifestyle related reasons. And again - we're not discussing products "outside" of audio sound quality topics. When I refer to Bose or Bose owners it should be pretty clear that I am talking about Bose in terms of sound quality and owners who bought it based on sound quality or their belief in the product's sound quality being best.

Educating people on what is out there is what the hi-fi press does and what forums filled with passionate audiophiles about audio quality are doing - telling people to avoid schlock and buy better alternatives.

markw
05-17-2012, 05:49 PM
It's too bad that your favorite companies aren't as sucessful at reaching their target market as Bose is.

RGA
05-17-2012, 06:01 PM
"Bose has more money than anyone for R&D. Is that where it's being spent? Marketing me thinks."

Take what I said and then the link I posted about the guy talking about Bose Acoustimass. Or simply take one apart.

They have lots of money - advertising is EXTREMELY expensive - Bose advertises more than anyone in audio - they advertise on TV for half hour commercials. Which audiophile company can you point to does that? Money has to go somewhere - Bose is spending it on marketing research and teams of experts in marlketing and advertising to get them to buy. Other companies are spending it on good drivers, cabinets, and engineers.

Bose is simply an "obvious example" as to a company that spends mostly on marketing and not on R&D related to sound quality. Harman International which also spends large on marketing is a less obvious example which is why I chose Bose as the example and not Harman. Though IMO many companies spend more on marketing hype in various forms rather than selling sound quality. Which for people who listen to products rather than pay attention to what got class A in Stereophile, tend not to need advertising.

Take the Shawshank Redemption - this movie did poorly at the box office. It wasn't marketed very well - people did studies suggesting its poor performance was related to the title and to the subject matter. Even after the academy award nominations and they re-released the movie I think it still only pulled in $17 million at the time. It became one of the highest rented movie in history and one of the biggest DVD sellers based on word of mouth.

No attacking Bose is not the same as being a bully picking on the poor unpopular kid in school. HELLO! - Anyone home McFly? Bose IS THE BULLY. They're the biggest richest gorilla on the playground.

Bose could care less what audiophiles think of their product because HELLO!! McFly!! we're not their target market. Their target market is not audiophile communities because they make "generally" poor sounding products.

bobsticks
05-17-2012, 06:41 PM
Taste Great

Is the response you're looking for, "LESS FILLING!!!!" ?


Res ispsa loquitur,

Sticks

RGA
05-17-2012, 06:42 PM
It's too bad that your favorite companies aren't as sucessful at reaching their target market as Bose is.

Seriously, you're going to equate quality with sales? Really. Have IQ's fallen off a cliff?

It's a different target market. Bose hits their target market. So does McDonalds. Are you really going to say that the quality is best because it sells more?

My favorite audio companies hit their target market as well as can possibly be expected. Why this matters to me is purely because I can get products from them in the future.

I assume you're referring to Audio Note. No bones that that is my favorite audio manufacturer in terms of sound quality - it isn't necessarily my favorite in terms of value of the dollar or build quality or affordability (generally). That is why most of the things from them that I rave on about isn't even the stuff I own or can afford to own. Again it's not about snobberry to tell someone you should consider the AN E model X - I have never EVER owned the Audio Note E in any form cause I can't afford them. I am recommending a speaker I don't own! You don't see me recommending my OTO or my turntable. The former has limitation and the latter will take forever to get. Snobs usually recommend what they have. I have products from them that is true but there is a reason for that.

When a company such as Audio Note has far more demand than they can supply, continue to grow, and are one of the only high end companies in the world that have dedicated showrooms in several countries - selling hi-fi not lifestyle - then that is as successful as High End Audio gets.

Entirely different goal and different kind of buyer. It's simply a different perspective. The guy in the link will tell Bose owners they should check out NAD, B&W, Cambridge Soundworks, Paradigm, Magnepan etc. These are better sounding products.

I, in turn, tell these owners of these brands to check out Audio Note, Trenner and Freidl, King Sound, Line Magnetic, Silbatone, Teresonic, Gallo, Acoustic Zen, Mystere, Melody, etc.

Though the first group do make quality music reproduction products I believe there is a league or level of gear. Whether I own it or can afford to own it is another matter. All the stuff I consider to be the best I can't own and do not own.

But Bose and McDonalds are not the best hi-fi and burger - or for that matter even good. But they sell.

markw
05-17-2012, 07:26 PM
And those two, my friends, Bose has in spades. Oh, and customer support as well.

Like it or not. If not, they wouldn't be the big dog in the field.

You can't fool all of the people all of the time. They must be doing something right.

Hurts to have to admit that, doesn't it?

RGA
05-17-2012, 11:17 PM
"Quality" can be determined by reliability and customer satisfaction.

You should know better than to even state something this horrendously dumb.

Ask a 5 year old if he is satisfied by happy meal and yes dada I am. He's ignorant to the world of quality burgers. Yes he satisfied - goes back to ignorance is bliss. The only difference between the 5 year old and McDonalds is that it's a 35 year old and Bose. Assuming it's about the quality of sound and not all the previously mentioned "other" reasons to buy an acoustimass.

As for reliability - pretty much all audio companies have similar reliability. And according the link I piosted - Bose doesn't do very well on that score either because they use bad quality parts they tend to fail early and more often. And their warranty isn't exactly generous 1 year and only for the original owner and they will not pay for any of the shipping costs even if the product fails and it's 100% their fault.

Got any evidence with independant statistics to show the forum how they're more reliable than anyone else in the industry and/or that they have the best customer service?

The way to judge quality for audio equipment is to judge the "quality" of music reproduction. The fact that people have to explain this to you is quite frankly absurd. Virtually all audio companies epxensive or cheap are built pretty well and mostly offer acceptable or better customer service.

markw
05-18-2012, 01:37 AM
It's called "puffery". Look it up.

It's not illegal. Every company does it. Bose is just better at it than most.

And, all manufacturers put forth things they want you to hear and withhold stuff they don;t.

And, like it ir not. so do you.. You have a point to make and you do the exa tsame thing. Even moreso, you claim to be a reviewer.You get paid, or some other consideration, to distort facts to your, or someone's, favor in print. Heck, I've seen you do it here in other subjects. We all have.

So, quitcher*****in and face the fact that that company you hate so much makes a heckuva lot of people very, very happy.

As for reliability, i've heard nothing buy good things about their customer service. Have you heard different over there?

mlsstl
05-19-2012, 05:32 AM
Saw an interesting article this morning that made me think of this thread.

The journal of Social Psychological and Personality Science had an article by Professor Kendall Eskine (Loyola University) that studied the moral judgment reactions of people based on whether they were an "organic" foodie, or ate a more normal diet or were into "comfort" foods. MSN Health had a nice summary of the study.

Rather unsurprisingly, the broad suggestion of the study was that being an organic food advocate turned people into jerks - they had harsher moral judgments about people and situations than the other two groups. The study was apparently suggested by encounters at organic markets where staff and customers can be quite snooty if you're seen with the "wrong" things in your cart. One lady interviewed likened it to a scene from the show "Portlandia".

On one level, it is kind of sad when it takes a university level study to confirm what we already know about human behavior - people love to feel superior to others. One way to do that is to become an enthusiast in a hobby or other area of narrow interest. That always makes it easy to feel sorry for the less educated commoners.

And, once again, it illustrates there is nothing special about the behavior of audiophiles. It is still intrinsically human.

filecat13
05-25-2012, 01:11 PM
The article I posted was not referring to Bose because Bose isn't acknowledged by anyone as an audiophile maker. And Bose doesn't do DBTs to cull what people like nor do they publish white papers involving "claimed "DBT"s and also uses an Anechoic chamber. Harman International which makes Revel, JBL and others do make those claims. And that is very likely the company they were referring to - Unless someone knows of another obvious American speaker maker that does all three of those things.


Harman trains their listeners to listen for aspects of sound they tell the listener is best. They don't hide the fact which is a plus but then it's also not letting people decide for themselves either.





I wondered if the Harman International card would come out. It's certainly the first company I thought of when reading the article. Nonetheless, I doubt it.

Since I own both a JBL K2 S9900 stereo pair and a Synthesis® One Array 7.1 system, it's impossible for me to be impartial. I've already voted with my $$$. Plus I've been to the JBL/Harman Northridge campus and visited the labs, the listening rooms, the speaker switching room, etc.

Naturally, I disagree with the overall tenor of the article if Harman is in the gunsights, since my subjective experience tells me otherwise. (I have no comment on the discussion in this thread, per se.) My disagreement stems from the passion and professionalism I saw on the Harman campus, coupled with the willingness to spend lots of money to figure out why some things work and others don't, and also why people prefer some things even when the science might be contrary.

The listener training tools seem pretty agnostic to me. In fact, the tools are available for download for free. One does not need to be in a Harman International lab drinking the HPAV kool aid to learn the process and improve one's listening skills. Listen on any system anywhere. When some buddies from the LA Home Theater Group and I did the tests in a couple of venues, we all improved our abilities to discern frequencies, elevated output in a specific FR, etc., and we all came to different conclusions about what we preferred to listen to. At least we knew what our preferences looked like and sounded like, and we could also determine the areas in which our tastes seemed to merge virtually unanimously.

As for the DBT nature of the listening test, the speaker mover is computer driven. The operator does not know which speaker is being used at any particular time until after the test is over. Plus everything is hooked up and level matched in advance, so there's no operator or assistant mucking about during the process.

From my experiential perspective, Harman does better science than any other major manufacturer, and it is actively engaged in advancing several important frontiers in audio. It also tends to share a lot of that info freely through its white papers, AES presentations, and free downloads.

In my opinion, if Harman was the target of the article (and who really knows?), then it's a specious piece with little validity or value. If on the other hand Dellasala is just stirring the pot, with no particular brand in mind but intends a general indictment, then I guess it serves a purpose as a challenge to critical thinking. There are a number of things in there that I would concur are used by lots of electronics manufacturers and dealers to the detriment of our hobby.

filecat13
05-25-2012, 01:15 PM
How To Listen:

Harman How to Listen: Welcome to How to Listen! (http://harmanhowtolisten.blogspot.com/2011/01/welcome-to-how-to-listen.html)

Mr Peabody
05-25-2012, 03:53 PM
Filecat, I have become a believer. I got to use/audition some Array 1400's in my system and they sounded great. Those horns are a credit to the technology and the 14" driver can be very physical. I passed on them because I couldn't get imaging in my room to my satisfaction. I could have had those with a 800 center. Out of curiosity what do you drive the K2's and the 7.1 system with? It's a shame the Synthesis isn't more widely displayed, the lesser expensive LS in that series are very good in my opinion and priced well too.

I'm happy with my Revel and what ever the marketing it's still a very good product. If any one read my past posts they would discover I was not a Revel or JBL fan. This was based on past products heard, however, current products have certainly changed my mind about both. Of course, this could change again, I haven't heard the new Performa stuff yet, :), but I'm confident it will be up to their standard.

I wish my access to this forum wasn't jacked up, I just bought some Revel in-wall for one of my rooms, a set of 580's and a 552L, I'd like to talk about the project and once installed the sound.

RGA
05-25-2012, 04:01 PM
These are true points - I still think the articles is targeted at Harman because there isn't anyone else big enough to bother writing the article. This doesn't mean they don't make good products IMO - And umm I am listening to my AKG headphones (Harman company owned). Nevertheless, the implication unfortunately it is that they are the ones fronting the science papers and ALSO selling loudspeakers with the implication that it will be better than anything on the market by anyone else - because we do tests and ours came out on top (without a list of products). Does the speaker selector account for corner loaded speakers like mine? Pleny of high end speaker makers from Tannoy, Silbatone, Trenner and Freidl etc are close to room boundary designed speakers. Does the size of the room change. Not all speakers are made for the same "size" of room. Some are far-field designs not near-field designs.

People under test listening for "individualized" aspects of sound are not listening to music as they normally would. They're listening for compartmentalized traits. And unfortunately that is what most of these loudspeakers end up sounding like to me when listening in the "real world" and why other, many other speakers sound more musically satisfying over the long haul. Do they change amplifiers with the speakers? Some speakers don't like High damping factor amplifiers. My speakers sound like crud with HDF SS amplifiers - designed for LDF amps for example. Something tells me it's the same amps - they make Crown amps.

I want to see the independent tests because the only magazine that puts out a quasi blind test is Hi-Fi Choice (level matched and blind) with a panel of experienced listeners. And what wins the shootouts sometimes is in line with Harman and sometimes not. So it would be nice to know which speakers Harman used so that I can see secondary confirmation. Tests need to be reproduced by outside organizations no matter how well the perceived "goodness" of their facility or methodology may seem. Which is why the fellows at that link I provided want to have their ringer speakers tested and have it run independently.

Are the speakers set up to the manufacturer's respective set-up guidelines (as opposed to where Harment thinks they should be positioned)? Are they being driven with appropriate amps/cables/sources, in the right room dimensions at the correct distance with the right amount of room acoustics for each speaker.

Devil's advocate
Since my speakers are made for corners and if I was running a test maybe I could bring in 10 speakers (that I know suck in corners) and shove them in a corner and run a 5 watt SET. Listeners would wind up drawing conclusions I know they would end up drawing - even if I used a robot to switch the speakers and I had no idea which speaker was being used - I nevertheless stacked the deck in my favor be very carefully selecting the competition and gearing the experience to what my product is doing well.

Granted we all bring a bias to this - If I was more impressed with their speakers "musically" in regular rooms I might be more moved by their views. But even with the AKGs - I prefer Sennheisers, and Revel has yet to sound pleasing to me (arguably could be the amplifiers they tend to get paired with.

filecat13
05-25-2012, 07:37 PM
When I was at the CAS in Emeryville, CA a couple years ago, the Revel Ultima2 Salons, JBL 1400 Arrays, and JBL Everest II DD66000s were in the same room, and I far preferred the Salons. The dealer had a pair of K2 S9900s sitting, disconnected against the wall. He had no intention of demoing them. I was at that point ready to bite on the Salons, but after the show closed for the day a few of us prevailed on him to hook up the K2s just for grins.

Once I heard them, there was never any doubt that I'd find a way to get them, and a few months and lots of haggling later, they were in my house.

To me, the 1400 Arrays seemed great, but they didn't pull me in like the K2s did, and curiously the 1400s don't sound as convincing as the SAM1HF units in the Synthesis set up. (Of course, that's in a pretty well-designed room vs. a hotel ball room divided in half.)

The K2s are driven by a pair of ATI 2003 amps, passively bi-amped, from the analog bypass of an Outlaw 990 through the balanced outputs. The DACs in use are in the Oppo BDP83SE and the iStream DAC for digital files. The third channel of each ATI 2003 feeds a Synthesis S2S sub that handles frequencies starting around 40 Hz.

JBL has such a broad range of products, it's like a smorgasbord: some things are exquisite, and other things aren't worth putting on your plate.


Filecat, I have become a believer. I got to use/audition some Array 1400's in my system and they sounded great. Those horns are a credit to the technology and the 14" driver can be very physical. I passed on them because I couldn't get imaging in my room to my satisfaction. I could have had those with a 800 center. Out of curiosity what do you drive the K2's and the 7.1 system with? It's a shame the Synthesis isn't more widely displayed, the lesser expensive LS in that series are very good in my opinion and priced well too.

I'm happy with my Revel and what ever the marketing it's still a very good product. If any one read my past posts they would discover I was not a Revel or JBL fan. This was based on past products heard, however, current products have certainly changed my mind about both. Of course, this could change again, I haven't heard the new Performa stuff yet, :), but I'm confident it will be up to their standard.

I wish my access to this forum wasn't jacked up, I just bought some Revel in-wall for one of my rooms, a set of 580's and a 552L, I'd like to talk about the project and once installed the sound.

filecat13
05-25-2012, 08:10 PM
I understand your cynicism about testing methodology, and no doubt would feel closer to you if I hadn't been there and experienced it myself. That's why I write it's impossible to be impartial.

Perhaps part of the trust that I have comes from dealing with designers and engineers in Northridge rather than the marketing and accounting departments. Since the love of my life is an MBA, I won't rail against them, but thank goodness I didn't have to talk to any MBAs while I was there.

I will say that when the speaker changing apparatus was revealed to us and we could see the speakers utilized, they were all of comparable design: rear-ported, towers approximately 42" high, drivers arranged in a single row from top to bottom, cabinets deeper than wide, baffles all of similar width. One was narrower at the top and wider at the bottom due to its use of an actual 14" woofer. The apparatus shuffles them all to the same central position, so they're always the same distance from any wall and the same distance to the listener's position, and I purposely took in an SPL meter (in my big pocket) to assure the SPLs were the same. There was only one set of electronics driving them, though it's certainly possible that the setting had been tweaked to favor one over the rest. I saw no evidence of that, but couldn't attest to it in court.

Did I mention it's one speaker at a time--no stereo pairs? It's a comparison of a single speaker centered on the apparatus to other single speakers centered on the apparatus.

I didn't think about and in retrospect cannot discern a way to accommodate speakers that require corner loading. Of the many speakers I saw waiting in the wings to be loaded into the apparatus, I saw none that would require it in order to perform as designed.

There's no doubt it is an imperfect model, yet it is far more sophisticated and applicable than anything else I've seen, so I credit it as an honest effort, far exceeding anything the typical advocate for DBT can pull off. If there were an adequate range of independent tests, I'd be all for it, but it appears only Harman has both the money and the will to do so at this point.

Rather than spend too much time considering what is not available, I just try to be as honest with myself as I can with what is available, and, of course, I depend on my personal preferences to guide me toward happiness.

As I wrote, Dellasala's opinion piece has some points worth considering; it also has some points not worth considering. Thanks for the link. I did enjoy the read.

Now I'm going to listen rather than write about it. :22:


* Sorry the forum software won't let me use all CAPs in the title. :incazzato:

RGA
05-25-2012, 09:53 PM
The fellow who wrote the initial article I posted I think has enough points to make me have issues.

I don't see the point of measuring one speaker or listening to one speaker - when 100% of end users are listening in stereo to stereo systems (or multi-channel) - either way...

Here's a measurement that is vital and not done much - pair matching. I think it is kind of critical that the left speaker sounds exactly the same as the right speaker. Imagine if the left speaker was say 3db off from the right speaker? How would one evaluate the quality of such a system when the left speaker is off from the right speaker by 3 full decibels? If you measure only ONE speaker (as Stereophile does and numerous others do) then it's a waste of time.

And you say - well most makers make both speakers sound exactly alike. Problem is measurements have been done and reported to be pretty abysmal. B&W's N801 (their top model for awhile) was measured as 2.9db off. Quad's 989 (their top model for years) was 5.9db off.

I think in Harman's tests they would have to have very similar looking and designed speakers. The methodology is really only suited to zeroing in THEIR specific design protoypes. They have the slim line deeper than wider design that they think is best - fair enough - and then they want to get a consensus as to which specific proto-type sounds the best to the most people - also fair enough.

Where it doesn't work is to compare corner loaded speakers, large horns, or panels. The number one reason to buy an electrostatic in my view is for their soundstage and imaging - testing one speaker can't allow anyone to listen for those cues - so the number one advantage such a speaker has is eliminated. I may not be a big panel fan but I also don't think it fair to tie a hand behind its back.

The Big JBL K2 S9900 horns I heard walk all over the Revel Ultima Salon (then again they cost a lot more). No comparison to me whatsoever. But this series of speakers is called JBL Synthesis no? Not to be confused with the mainstream mediocre stuff they produce.

filecat13
05-27-2012, 06:58 AM
Did I mention it's one speaker at a time--no stereo pairs? It's a comparison of a single speaker centered on the apparatus to other single speakers centered on the apparatus.


There's no doubt it is an imperfect model, yet it is far more sophisticated and applicable than anything else I've seen, so I credit it as an honest effort, far exceeding anything the typical advocate for DBT can pull off. If there were an adequate range of independent tests, I'd be all for it, but it appears only Harman has both the money and the will to do so at this point.



As for listening to a single speaker, Harman's goal is to determine what sonic characteristics listeners prefer, not which speakers they like (stereo pair, multi channels or otherwise), per se. Since we weren't participating in research, we got to see the speakers as an "Aha!" moment when our little trial was done. We were told that the real listening panels do not see the products; rather they simply record their responses without ever knowing what's behind the curtain. (Not being on a real panel, I have no way of verifying that statement.)

Harman's goal is then to build products at several price points that bring home some of that sonic bacon. If the author of the article you cited has a body of contrary evidence and if he is thinking of the Harman approach in his skeptic's essay, then I'm curious why he doesn't just say so.

E-Stat
05-27-2012, 08:11 AM
Are the speakers set up to the manufacturer's respective set-up guidelines (as opposed to where Harment thinks they should be positioned)? Are they being driven with appropriate amps/cables/sources, in the right room dimensions at the correct distance with the right amount of room acoustics for each speaker.
Clearly, not. This I learned from a correspondence with Sean Olive. He considers such factors "nuisance variables".

Nuisance variables? Clearly, they are catering to those who couldn't care less about system optimization.

Nuisance Variables (http://db.audioasylum.com/mhtml/m.html?forum=prophead&n=53525)


The number one reason to buy an electrostatic in my view is for their soundstage and imaging
As for me, imaging is secondary to coherence and resolution (especially at the bottom).

filecat13
05-27-2012, 06:43 PM
If I understand this correctly, every speaker manufacturer should be able to determine in advance the placement, complete audio chain, room size, and listening distance (+ more?) in order for a DBT to be done properly. In my limited comprehension that seems to introduce so many variables as to make a DBT impossible. In fact I think this may be the best "shut up" argument against DBT diehards that I've ever read.

What would be the constant against which things could be compared? If everything is a variable, then no scientific comparison can be made.

I suppose one could take four speakers times four amps times four room sizes times four placements times four cables times four sources times four distances times four interconnects times four--whoah!, I think we're at 4,096 permutations and rising (my math's not that good) and have 50 people with nothing to do for a very long time listen to all the combos and score them (when not comatose), then average the scores to see which is the all-round champ. But who would do that? Who would frelling do that?

The next time some audio nut job espouses a DBT as the Golden Fleece of proof by insisting on everything being a constant with the exception of the speaker, or with the exception of the cable, or with the exception of any single thing, I'm going to whip out this string of posts and the link you provided and give 'em the STFU smack down.

It's gonna be sweet. :arf: No DBT for you!

E-Stat
05-27-2012, 07:44 PM
If I understand this correctly, every speaker manufacturer should be able to determine in advance the placement, complete audio chain, room size, and listening distance (+ more?) in order for a DBT to be done properly.
"Should be able to determine in advance the placement"?

For every room? Surely you jest.


In my limited comprehension that seems to introduce so many variables as to make a DBT impossible.
What exactly is the goal of the DBT? If not comparing what one speaker can sound like vs. another, then what?


What would be the constant against which things could be compared? If everything is a variable, then no scientific comparison can be made.
Welcome to the real world of audio systems.


I suppose one could take four speakers times four amps times four room sizes times four placements times four cables times four sources times four distances times four interconnects times four--whoah!,
Why on earth would anyone do that? To what useful end?

RGA
05-27-2012, 08:41 PM
E-Stat

"Nuisance variables"

:biggrin5: A nuissance to Harman maybe.


Filecat

Harman is a company selling loudspeakers - and like any corporation the sole goal is to make profit AT ANY COST. Be it health, environmental, or perverting science. Whatever is deemed necessary to make a buck.

All variables need to be addressed as best possible when competing manufacturers are being used in a blind test then one owes them and their employees' lively-hoods to not give them the shaft in a blind test. If the speaker is a panel and panels have certain positional requirements or amplifier requirements they need to be addressed. Some speakers are designed for certain amplifier attributes - so an appropriate amplifier needs to be used.

The problem of course then is that 2 speakers are now using 2 different amps so for a strict DBT you have a problem. But why does it need to be a strict DBT? - why not a preference based blind test? This is not the medical profession where the DBT originated - the ENTIRE point of the DBT is to find out people's preferences for A or B. It is not to determine if A sounds different than B. I'll let the cable guys argue that one forever as all the same points are always made.

The value of "blind" is to remove bias from the listeners. Hi-Fi Choice does a more credible job for "real world" preference. They remove sight bias, the levels are matched removing volume based bias.

The user doesn't know the price, the brand. They choose A, B or C as being the best and a bunch of experienced reviewers and manufacturers are the listeners who write notes as to which is the best out of the "group test."

It still doesn't mean all that much because some speakers cope with different room sizes better than others. The PMC TB1 sounded truly terrible in a fairly large room at Commercial Electronics in Vancouver. Next time I heard them in the small room and they sounded really very good. Nearfield small room turned an utter disaster into a good sounding result.

Some speakers are highly room friendly - they work well in large rooms 20 feet apart or small rooms 4 feet apart. Can be placed in corners or not - while some have to be in a corner or they'll be terrible.

It doesn't matter whether one likes a design or a particular speaker but if we are going to be fair with any such test it needs to be fair to ALL not just one design type. Panels get shafted in these tests - in many instances very large speakers get shafted.

I've been on about it for awhile and I would since I own Audio Note speakers which is a complete left turn to 99% of the "typical" boxed speaker designs on the market. Again regardless if one thinks they're complete BS marketing hype, distortion generators, goof-ball frequency response ringing monkey coffins is beside the point - having a standardized test is only "fair" if the speakers are standard. When they're not - a new test needs to be made.

Most speakers are free field designs designed from a text book of making them operate as well as possible in an anechoic chamber (essentially a room-less environment close to the equivalent of being played in the middle of a football field). The idea being that you know what the speaker is doing and not the speaker/room condition. Rightly or wrongly my speakers are designed to be operated not in the middle of a football field - they are designed to be at a certain height (absolute) and in a corner with a side wall and a back wall. They are designed for corner gain and they will see a variety of rooms the same way (mostly as nothing is ever absolute). Bell Labs and L.L. Beranek(every book on speaker design references LL Beranek) have the info on boxed acoustic design and corner loading propagation. The boxes are designed to resonate not store energy, and a few other things.

But the problem is that most standardized tests don't account for alternate designs - they always do poorly in the standardized test - the square peg trying to fit the round hole. But it doesn't mean the square peg is wrong for not doing what the round hole test demands.


I think things are simply made too difficult when simpler tests can be done.

If you want a test to see which design type works best then my solution a while back was to take out two identical rooms side by side. You put one stereo in one room and one stereo in the second room. So maybe I want to see what is better a B&W system or an Audio Note system. In room one I put in some B&W N801 loudspeakers (freestanding) with Classe amplifiers and CD players (since B&W owns Classe and most dealers carry the pair then it's pretty safe to assume this is an agreeable pairing). In room 2 Audio Note E in corners with one of their SET amps and CD players.

You make sure that a B&W and Audio Note representatives are agreeable to the room size, shape, and positioning that has been done and the equipment used and any and all room treatments used.

You have a black light that blocks out the stereo to the eye (no listener can see the stereo). Both rooms are level matched - both rooms have the identical CD playing - a selection of maybe 18 cuts ranging from Classical to jazz to rock to pop but all well recorded stuff. The CD's are played on repeat

You then bring in 30 classically or jazz trained musicians from the local university to be the listeners. Each listener is given a card. They listen to both rooms as many times as they want for as long as they wish.

They simply drop the card in the box sitting outside the room they liked best.

Add up the cards and see who wins. This is not terribly costly - it is blind, level matched and you'd probably only need to offer pizza and beer to the students at the after party.

The problem of course is it's time consuming and you can really only compare 2-3 systems in this manner. But at least you are hearing a system that is set-up to the designer intent. And IMO the results of such tests can then point back to what measurements matter. If the B&W won at 27-3 then you know the pair matching speakers is not as important as a dead cabinet heavily damped design. If the AN E won by a landslide then you can figure that pair matching might be important and there might be something to corner loading or a resonant box or that flat frequency response is second to timing or dynamics.

To me I want the ears leading the measurements not the measurements telling me what I think should sound good. I started out salivating over Bryston/PMC and B&W/Classe and Martin Logan/and I forget which amp. The measurements led my ears. I bought Arcam over Sugden based on review press at the time (and measurements).

Frankly if I had the time or inclination or money I would simply conduct my above test with the AN E/J with Meishu 300B 4.1 cd player versus a similarly price Revel/Mark Levinson flagship amp source. The guy who wrote the article doesn't need to book time in Harman's facility - all he needs is some trained classical musicians, two rooms and a black light and to level match. Easy.

With stuff that measures as appalling as Audio Note it should very easily be an agreed upon "wrong" approach. So if the AN gear shudder horror manages to win then you know it's all a bunch of bunk.

filecat13
05-27-2012, 09:12 PM
"Should be able to determine in advance the placement"?

For every room? Surely you jest.

I assumed that a manufacturer would be able to establish useful parameters for its products, since none that I know of actually go to every customer's home to "set it up right." But I see your point. In order to be fair, each manufacturer should be able to come onsite and set up its own product before it is tested to be sure that no tool available to the industry goes unused in determining the exact right set up.

Except those tools aren't generally known and/or available to the typical consumer who is ignorant of such things, so.. I guess the manufacturer would need to claim that the products will only work as tested under the exact same conditions in a user's home, otherwise, all bets are off. I guess that's fair: if it can't be set up as intended, then the manufacturer isn't really obligated to meet the user's needs. The user should understand he/she needs to meet the product's needs for best results.



What exactly is the goal of the DBT? If not comparing what one speaker can sound like vs. another, then what?

Umm, not sure anymore, since it also seems to be about how one speaker with a certain cable and a particular amp with a specific interconnect to a complementary source will sound when placed in an advantageous way. What exactly are we comparing again?

The typical consumer will put the speaker anywhere it fits with any speaker wire on hand to any amp and or receiver that's ready to accept the el cheapo RCA cables that came with the sub $300 player he/she picked up at the sales associate's recommendation. To this man or woman, the aforementioned DBT scenario has no relevance. "Why does this sound so bad?"

The answer is


If it can't be set up as intended, then the manufacturer isn't really obligated to meet the user's needs. The user should understand he/she needs to meet the product's needs for best results.

So maybe education rather than pointless, complex, angels dancing on a pin's head DBT minutia is the point? After all, I've never seen a DBT that even a plurality of audio enthusiasts agreed was above reproach. It's not going to happen.

Guys (and I imagine in my mind it is at least 99% guys, maybe 1% gals) who like to pull out the DBT card when they want to "school some fool" are ignorant of personal experience in such an endeavor or they'd name time and place and other participants for validation. If they've never participated, its highly unlikely they can conduct one, although I read a lot of "I conducted one by myself" as if anyone will believe that fantasy. But they blather on about the scientific approach and the true requirements for a pure DBT, all the while speed reading Wikipedia to get their facts straight. It's just a way to try to elevate their opinions or to negate the opinions of others. The guy who plays that card thinks it's the Crazy 8 of the deck. I simply think it's crazy. No one's done it; no one's ever going to do it. Stop talking about it.

There's enough good science out there to make any decent loudspeaker sound pretty good, and make any pretty good speaker sound amazing without having to prove anything with an unobtainable, pseudoscientific red herring like "Unless you prove to me with a DBT that your speakers sound better than before, it's all just...blah blah blah." (Filecat13 puts a gun to his temple.)




Welcome to the real world of audio systems. Thanks for the belated welcome and for the wake up from my dream into the real world of audio systems. :wink5:


Why on earth would anyone do that? To what useful end?

There would be no useful end. It seemed obvious to me; it was also obvious to you. It does not seem obvious to a lot of folks.

filecat13
05-27-2012, 09:26 PM
Well-written and filled with sense.:yesnod:

If you're ever in the greater LA area, maybe we can try such an experiment. You're right, it's not a DBT, but I commend the thoughtfulness behind it.

I might even be able to supply a site at one of my facilities, and I'd be willing to truck one of my systems over for the comparo. If I can get another member of the LA Home Theater Group to do the same with something markedly different from any of my JBLs (say Ascends or Triads that are easy to move, probably not Martin Logans), we could at least evaluate the methodology.

And we'd have some fun, too.

You need to come up with a name for this, so we can stop using DBT. The "RGA Protocol" might work.



E-Stat

"Nuisance variables"

:biggrin5: A nuissance to Harman maybe.


Filecat

Harman is a company selling loudspeakers - and like any corporation the sole goal is to make profit AT ANY COST. Be it health, environmental, or perverting science. Whatever is deemed necessary to make a buck.

All variables need to be addressed as best possible when competing manufacturers are being used in a blind test then one owes them and their employees' lively-hoods to not give them the shaft in a blind test. If the speaker is a panel and panels have certain positional requirements or amplifier requirements they need to be addressed. Some speakers are designed for certain amplifier attributes - so an appropriate amplifier needs to be used.

The problem of course then is that 2 speakers are now using 2 different amps so for a strict DBT you have a problem. But why does it need to be a strict DBT? - why not a preference based blind test? This is not the medical profession where the DBT originated - the ENTIRE point of the DBT is to find out people's preferences for A or B. It is not to determine if A sounds different than B. I'll let the cable guys argue that one forever as all the same points are always made.

The value of "blind" is to remove bias from the listeners. Hi-Fi Choice does a more credible job for "real world" preference. They remove sight bias, the levels are matched removing volume based bias.

The user doesn't know the price, the brand. They choose A, B or C as being the best and a bunch of experienced reviewers and manufacturers are the listeners who write notes as to which is the best out of the "group test."

It still doesn't mean all that much because some speakers cope with different room sizes better than others. The PMC TB1 sounded truly terrible in a fairly large room at Commercial Electronics in Vancouver. Next time I heard them in the small room and they sounded really very good. Nearfield small room turned an utter disaster into a good sounding result.

Some speakers are highly room friendly - they work well in large rooms 20 feet apart or small rooms 4 feet apart. Can be placed in corners or not - while some have to be in a corner or they'll be terrible.

It doesn't matter whether one likes a design or a particular speaker but if we are going to be fair with any such test it needs to be fair to ALL not just one design type. Panels get shafted in these tests - in many instances very large speakers get shafted.

I've been on about it for awhile and I would since I own Audio Note speakers which is a complete left turn to 99% of the "typical" boxed speaker designs on the market. Again regardless if one thinks they're complete BS marketing hype, distortion generators, goof-ball frequency response ringing monkey coffins is beside the point - having a standardized test is only "fair" if the speakers are standard. When they're not - a new test needs to be made.

Most speakers are free field designs designed from a text book of making them operate as well as possible in an anechoic chamber (essentially a room-less environment close to the equivalent of being played in the middle of a football field). The idea being that you know what the speaker is doing and not the speaker/room condition. Rightly or wrongly my speakers are designed to be operated not in the middle of a football field - they are designed to be at a certain height (absolute) and in a corner with a side wall and a back wall. They are designed for corner gain and they will see a variety of rooms the same way (mostly as nothing is ever absolute). Bell Labs and L.L. Beranek(every book on speaker design references LL Beranek) have the info on boxed acoustic design and corner loading propagation. The boxes are designed to resonate not store energy, and a few other things.

But the problem is that most standardized tests don't account for alternate designs - they always do poorly in the standardized test - the square peg trying to fit the round hole. But it doesn't mean the square peg is wrong for not doing what the round hole test demands.


I think things are simply made too difficult when simpler tests can be done.

If you want a test to see which design type works best then my solution a while back was to take out two identical rooms side by side. You put one stereo in one room and one stereo in the second room. So maybe I want to see what is better a B&W system or an Audio Note system. In room one I put in some B&W N801 loudspeakers (freestanding) with Classe amplifiers and CD players (since B&W owns Classe and most dealers carry the pair then it's pretty safe to assume this is an agreeable pairing). In room 2 Audio Note E in corners with one of their SET amps and CD players.

You make sure that a B&W and Audio Note representatives are agreeable to the room size, shape, and positioning that has been done and the equipment used and any and all room treatments used.

You have a black light that blocks out the stereo to the eye (no listener can see the stereo). Both rooms are level matched - both rooms have the identical CD playing - a selection of maybe 18 cuts ranging from Classical to jazz to rock to pop but all well recorded stuff. The CD's are played on repeat

You then bring in 30 classically or jazz trained musicians from the local university to be the listeners. Each listener is given a card. They listen to both rooms as many times as they want for as long as they wish.

They simply drop the card in the box sitting outside the room they liked best.

Add up the cards and see who wins. This is not terribly costly - it is blind, level matched and you'd probably only need to offer pizza and beer to the students at the after party.

The problem of course is it's time consuming and you can really only compare 2-3 systems in this manner. But at least you are hearing a system that is set-up to the designer intent. And IMO the results of such tests can then point back to what measurements matter. If the B&W won at 27-3 then you know the pair matching speakers is not as important as a dead cabinet heavily damped design. If the AN E won by a landslide then you can figure that pair matching might be important and there might be something to corner loading or a resonant box or that flat frequency response is second to timing or dynamics.

To me I want the ears leading the measurements not the measurements telling me what I think should sound good. I started out salivating over Bryston/PMC and B&W/Classe and Martin Logan/and I forget which amp. The measurements led my ears. I bought Arcam over Sugden based on review press at the time (and measurements).

Frankly if I had the time or inclination or money I would simply conduct my above test with the AN E/J with Meishu 300B 4.1 cd player versus a similarly price Revel/Mark Levinson flagship amp source. The guy who wrote the article doesn't need to book time in Harman's facility - all he needs is some trained classical musicians, two rooms and a black light and to level match. Easy.

With stuff that measures as appalling as Audio Note it should very easily be an agreed upon "wrong" approach. So if the AN gear shudder horror manages to win then you know it's all a bunch of bunk.

filecat13
05-27-2012, 09:41 PM
BTW, I would never assign altruistic motives to any corporation, from Apple to GE to R. J. Reynolds. I would, however, assign integrity to some of the people working at these corporations, even in the.. ouch..dare I say it.. it really hurts...the marketing department. I have to believe there's at least one body with a soul in it even there.

I actually think Harman International has had some spectacularly bad leadership at the executive level, but I also see the diligence with which many others address their responsibilities.

From the time I bought my very first new pair of "real" speakers, JBL L100s in 1970, to the time I purchased the K2s, the designers, engineers, scientists, and technicians have been conscientious and accessible, helpful and encouraging, even when doing things for free and fixing problems that were mostly my fault.

Some I've met once or twice, others, I've met many times. As I wrote in my initial post in this thread, I cannot escape that bias, but I'm also not blind to it. On balance, the work Harman has done in research and development has been spot on every time I've taken the time to read and act on the findings of Welti, Toole, Timbers, Morro, Devantier, Eargle, Olive, and the rest.

Dual-500
05-27-2012, 10:02 PM
True but it's an ignorant client base - or a client base that has not heard "good" products.

Arguably the same people who spend $3 for a bottle of water. It must be better - it costs more and the advertising tells us it's better and Jennifer Aniston drinks it.
The same argument could be made towards spending thousands of dollars on interconnects to include speaker wire.

E-Stat
05-28-2012, 05:59 AM
But I see your point. In order to be fair, each manufacturer should be able to come onsite and set up its own product before it is tested to be sure that no tool available to the industry goes unused in determining the exact right set up.
Doesn't have to be that complex. As I told Sean, placement of dipoles will be different than monopole boxes. One size does not fit all.


What exactly are we comparing again?
The potential sound quality of the speaker.


The typical consumer will put the speaker anywhere it fits with any speaker wire on hand to any amp and or receiver that's ready to accept the el cheapo RCA cables that came with the sub $300 player he/she picked up at the sales associate's recommendation.
The "typical consumer" doesn't purchase the $10k speakers that were included with Harman's test. Anyone who does spend that change doesn't just plop them down anywhere.


it was also obvious to you.
??

Mash
05-28-2012, 06:36 AM
If you attend enough live recitals, there is a far better & easier method....

Buy what you like and then move on. There are many other things to do in one's life.

filecat13
05-28-2012, 03:07 PM
Doesn't have to be that complex. As I told Sean, placement of dipoles will be different than monopole boxes. One size does not fit all.


The potential sound quality of the speaker.


The "typical consumer" doesn't purchase the $10k speakers that were included with Harman's test. Anyone who does spend that change doesn't just plop them down anywhere.


??

Yes, one size does not fit all. Does Harman test dipoles against monopoles?

---------------------------

How do we compare "the potential sound quality of the speaker?" Aren't the comparisons of actual sound under known conditions?

--------------------------

We must be looking at different things. Do you have a link? The group of four speakers I'm reading about cost $500, $600, $800, and $3,000 respectively. That would be double for a pair. To me that's typical consumer range, a range I'd think would extend to $4-6K each, at least here in La La Land.

I know a fair number of people with excess income who spend $15k or more for a pair of speakers based on a sales associate's skillful recommendations. Even with big money, these folks are typical consumers in my mind because they take them home and put them right where the old speakers were, connect them to the same old amp or receiver, and they're good to go. Sure the sales person will be following up to try to sell a new receiver or a pair of separates, despite formerly assuring the customer that "your current electronics are good enough; it's more important to spend more on getting the right speakers. They'll make everything better, including your old equipment."

I know a guy who bought some $12k speakers and spent another $5k to have a carpenter put them in custom enclosures with doors that would completely cover then so it looked like expensive built in cabinets. Unfortunately, even with the doors open, the rear-firing ports were essentially blocked (1" clearance), and the solid wood plane of the open door wreaked havoc with reflections. He thought it was A+ stuff all 'round.

--------------------------

E-Stat
05-28-2012, 03:55 PM
Yes, one size does not fit all. Does Harman test dipoles against monopoles?
The answer would be yes. Which is why I linked the conversation with Sean Olive that I did.


How do we compare "the potential sound quality of the speaker?" Aren't the comparisons of actual sound under known conditions?
Well, known AND complementary to the specific design. Harman failed meeting that last piece.


We must be looking at different things. Do you have a link?
Sorry, the link I provided does contain the answer. Here's the quick link:

Mono and dipoles (http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2008/12/loudspeaker-preferences-of-trained.html)

This links to a relevant page where the specific document is found towards the bottom. Look for "downloaded for free" to find the comparison to which I refer. Dickie Bass Nut Greene never got that far.



I know a fair number of people with excess income who spend $15k or more for a pair of speakers based on a sales associate's skillful recommendations.
A "fair number of people"? Who are these utterly clueless folks? Exactly how many to which you refer? Sorry to hear that! I confess that I cannot relate to that stupidity at all.

RGA
05-30-2012, 06:34 PM
Filecat

Unfortunately, (well fortunately for me) I am living and teaching in Hong Kong now so I can't do such a shootout.

The problem with all audio arguments on forums over loudspeakers or anything that is A VS B is that each side attempts to justify his/her preference using external pieces of information. I do it a lot as well because it is difficult to convince someone that speaker A sounds better than speaker B with words - the proof really only comes down to the listener and if they've not heard it then how do you convince them?

1) There are the measurements guys - "SHOW ME THE FREQUENCY PLOTS! Strangely some of these same people will own tube or SET amplifiers or be convinced by cable differences which are not shown to be better/different by those same measurements they hang onto for dear life when it comes to speakers.

The measurable difference between a top of the line Krell or a basic Rotel power amp is nominal at best but Krell is WAY WAY better.

But no subjective critique will convince them that a pair of speakers A is better than a pair of speakers B if one of the pair of B is measured and has flatter on and off axis response at one meter. It doesn't even matter if the reviewer who has reviewed and heard both and took the measurements prefers and/or buys speaker A - Speaker B is better regardless.

2) I am of this camp that says yes speaker B has flatter frequency response but A after numerous hours of listening to both sounds better. I refuse to discount 100% of the actual in room listening experience - the people from 1 want people from 2 to do exactly that. Discount what you hear and buy the graph regardless.

I have been involved in too many forum threads where someone will say RGA the speaker you like has lousy measurements. I say - yeah but the reviewer bought them and thinks they're one of the 2-3 speakers over the last 40 years he could live with comes from the magazine that does the measurements. That's gotta count for something no? It's not some 20 year old who has only heard iPod headphones and car speakers - it's not a guy who only listens to rock and pop. It's a guy who has heard every major speaker brand in existence, who is mainly a classical music listener.

And so being from the 2 camp where the speaker loses on measurement performance I go to the "consensus" argument model. I look at disproportionate numbers of "experts" and while reviewers are not necessarily experts on technology we can at least say they're audiophiles with a passion who take sound and reproduction seriously than the average. People, nevertheless make arguments that subjective opinion is completely worthless.

So you have grossly inadequate sets of measurements - we trust these measurements that were standardized by major corporations who "told us" that these were the best measurements "standards" (they were standards because their products did well on these measurements and the measurements they don't do well on no longer get tested). SS amps measured at near full power because they measured well there but STANK badly at very low level where SET kicks their butt. But to see SS they made full output the standard to "stack the deck" in SS's favor. I don't even care if one likes SS over SET but at least run a fair test. What are they afraid of? SETs cost much more money to build in general so maybe it's easier to write one page of a new "standard" than actually use high quality transformers.

Most of the folks in group 2 that I know - including me started out as a group 1 type. I used to make the argument that my Pioneer Elite receiver was great because it had .00025% THD all 5 discrete channels and 125 watts X 2 RMS blather blather.

I also made the argument that B&W was the best because they must be good - they sell more than any other "High End" speaker manufacturer. I shudder at myself!

So how can you convince group 1 that something from group 2 is better? Because I say so? Doesn't work. Okay so what I tend to do is use consensus - these reviewers from a wide sector of magazines and even "types of listeners" choose what I say is better. So it has to count for something right?

Reply - "they probably got a discount" - "Who cares about subjective opinion?"

Reviewers can get discounts on anything so that argument never flies. Subjective opinion is the actual listening which is all that matters.

Reply - they're biased.

3) Enter blind listening and my method above. I am somewhat biased because my speakers and the bigger brothers of my speakers and the original Snell models they were based on have won the blind tests they've been involved in. But it still doesn't mean much because it always depends on which speakers it was up against. The fourth place finisher in one group of 8 speakers might have finished first in the second test of 8 speakers. So in one test it is considered a loser but it may very well have won a shootout of different speakers.

This is why the listeners IMO need to be classically or Jazz trained musicians. Simply because audiophiles tend to hold the music and recordings to be the best. Since reviewers are deemed biased or corrupt or whatever other rubbish people believe about reviewers - the easy way to do this is to sidestep the issue and go to people who actually are experts in playing the instruments and therefore listening to them more than the average Joe.

What I want to do is to take what is deemed to be a speaker that is largely beyond reproach from a measurements perspective. One that is at least deemed to be "superior" or very close to being king of the accuracy department. (Focal/Revel/Paradigm/B&W)

Then I want to see how it does in actual real world level matched blind auditioned with classical/jazz musicians against stuff like the AN E which is deemed wrong on about 10 different parameters.

30 listeners should be enough. Surely a classical pianist listening to the Beethoven Moonlight Sonata can pick the best speaker reproducing it. If you can't reproduce the piano properly you can't do anything properly. It is the gold standard of musical instruments and covers most of the critical frequency range and most every other parameter. Transients, decay, tone, timbre, body, dynamics etc.

Dual-500
05-30-2012, 07:38 PM
^ You nailed it. It gets down to personal preference. Which guitar sounds best? Depends upon what's being played through it and by whom.

Florian
06-06-2012, 12:04 AM
Only a total fraking moron would call what I said snobbery - only bnrainless retards could possibly not be able to determine that some objects in existence in the world of retail sales do in fact represent a "higher" or "lower" level of quality. A Bentley is a better car than Ford Fiesta - and that is an objective fact and only a fraking idiot with a brain the size of a pea would argue against that point

You are were i was 6 years ago. Dont try this one, you cant win. By the way, the older i get the more i like reading your posts. Keep it up :yesnod:

Mash
06-06-2012, 01:32 AM
Still arguing, folks?

Only time will tell you... what you really have. Price, "reputation", and PR garantee nothing.

I remember when the ARC D-75, D-76 and D76a were the must-have cat's meow.

I just followed an exchange by owners of these ARC amps and they found that these amps run hot, fry caps, and consume tubes. Some bench photos of an opened (for trouble shooting) D-76 showed indifferent build quality and questionable layout. Then we learn that ARC's Mfg Engineering left a lot to be desired. At those prices?

I am not convinced that musicians would be the best judges.... I remember hearing about the recording engineers of a certain company, long criticized for their bright recordings, personally delivering the tapes of their final effort to the Maestro, who had always complained of their recordings being dull, when one of the engineers noticed that the Maestro not only had his loudspeakers sitting on the carpet but those speakers were also upside down. True? Supposedly. Funny? You bet.

As I noted before: go to a lot of recitals and then you should be able to pick for yourself what will float your boat.

RGA
06-06-2012, 06:17 AM
This is very interesting Mash

I ran into Peter Qvortrup here in Hong Kong and he discussed ARC saying the build quality was atrocious and that caps would blow tubes ran way too hot and blew and he felt ARC gave tube amps a bad name.

Now I like Peter and all but when I listened to him say this - I am just thinking "well you have a horse in the race" so of course he's going to say this. Then again he praised old McIntosh build quality in the same breath mentioning that a fellow had McIntosh amps built into the walls of his house with no access to them. They ran for 30 years - one the SAME tubes and they were ON the entire time. The preamp was accessible but the power amps were in the walls left on. One channel had finally failed - the amp was fine the tube had died.

Now your post mentioning the build quality makes me think Peter might not have just been blowing smoke. Soundhounds used to be a dealer for ARC and they dropped them for Audio Note and I gleaned their complaint was build quality and customer service. Dealers hate being on the front line if manufacturers fail to support the gear because the dealer is the guy getting yelled at and has to face the customer. They want stuff that will be supported. I knew the purchasing agent for Commercial Electronics (may still be) perhaps the biggest hi-fi dealer in Canada. They had a brutal time in the mid late 90s with Marantz which had a high failure run and they were not doing much to support the product. They ended up dumping Marantz.

They love carrying Bryston - not because it fails any less - it doesn't - they're not using the highest grade parts or stuff that is any better than their direct competitors - and they have a premium charge built in to cover warranty issues - But Bryston is superb if you have a problem - they take it fix and send it back and covered it for 20 years regardless of who the owner is 1st owner or 15th owner (not sure if they still do that but they did and it was awesome).

Dealers after all are not so much selling a product but an experience and service. They don't want stuff that manufacturers won't support or stuff that has high failure rates.

I think perhaps this is why you see a lot of the new Chinese stuff being ridiculously overbuilt beyond reason. China had such a bad reputation for quality that if you want to change North American minds about the gear you can't build it to be just as good you have to over build the gear to "over the top" levels to be be given any credit at all for quality. I saw a Cayin CD player here for about $1k US that in terms of build is in the $5k-10k range. The Line Magnetic 219Ia doesn't look out of place with $50,000 amps (in terms of build) - I might say sound if I get a few more hours on it.

But here's the thing - it's not even US market - the Chinese don't trust Chinese made stuff - they covet McIntosh Audio Note, Shindo, and Rogue Audio etc so the Chinese amp makers have to blow their doors off with first rate sound and build to compete.

This is why I like Grant Fidelity and some others - it was a pretty smart move to basically have the best Chinese companies make the gear and put his own label on the front. Even with a mark-up the products are built so much better than the usual entry hi-fi suspects from NAD, Arcam, Rotel, CA etc. The prices are the same but the looks and build are far far superior. And because of that they have less failures and less complaints and more positive customer experience and comments.