To all of the Bose-bashers

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

...an audiophile is a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction...

Certainly there are folks who post @ this site who are quite enthusiastic...hobbyists can be quite fanatical in fact...

Who can define what hi-fi reproduction is? IS it straight wire with gain? Can be...mostly it's not...in order to achieve that goal one would need to replicate the gear and listening room sonics present at the final mix...and even that's not quite it...you would need access to the raw inputs to the board before editing and mixdown...that is neither practical, possible nor commercially viable...

Hi-fi is what each individual is satisfied as to what that might be...eye, or in this case, ear of the beholder...

There are those who think wire is wire and others who think insulations sound different, those who like to like to warm their cheese sandwiches on a bank of 6L6s, those who prefer vinyl over an approximation thereof or those who think Kenny G. is jazz...

Audie

So I suppose by your definition, and boom box is hifi. I mean after all, it is in the ear of the listener. There are some here that find the sound of a boom box quite pleasing.

Are you from Marin county and worship crystals?

[Audie Oghaisle]

"...So I suppose by your definition..."

Not mine, Merriam-Webster's.

"...and boom box is hifi..."

If all you have ever been exposed to is a tiny ransistor radio, it could be. It's all relative. It wouldn't fit my definition, however.

"...Are you from Marin county and worship crystals?..."

The left coast? No. Although I am bigger than a breadbox...one down, nine to go...Arlene...

By the way, what exactly is a "Stoogie"?

Audie

[slate1]

GOOD speakers won't need an EQ. Bose speakers REQUIRE an EQ. What does that tell you?

No offense N. Abstentia, but I just have never understood the whole "you should never touch your tone controls and should be hung, drawn and made to listen to polka if you use an EQ" point of view.

I could subscribe to the whole idea if every recording ever made was done in exactly the same recording studio using exactly the same equipment under exactly the same conditions, etc. etc. - but that's simply just not the case.

If you ever get the chance to witness the recording process you'll see that from the moment the first guitar string is plucked to the moment it's placed on the final master there are tonal adjusments via EQ being done throughout the entire process.

I've been using an AudioControl Ten Series III EQ for years with every amp/speaker combination I've ever had. The trick, in my opinon, is not to over do it - I never tweak more than 4-6db and have always been able to compensate for some of the obvious faults in the original recordings.

Ahhh - I hear you already out there, "faults in the original recordings??? but that's the way the record was MEANT to be heard"

How do I know what it originally sounded like unless I've got the exact equipment and monitors that were present in the original recording and mixing studio? I can't - no one can.

Everyone just needs to face the fact that there's no way to exactly duplicate what the originators of the music were intending with a particular mix. Furthermore, everyone also needs to realize that no two amp/speaker combinations are ever going to sound alike and that even if you take the same amp/speaker combinations and place them in two different rooms they're likely to sound dramatically different.

My only point is that, in my opinion, a **GOOD** EQ that doesn't introduce any additional noise (like an AudioControl - which, btw, is going to set you back several hundred dollars) is an essential part of any setup. Tone controls, I will grant you, are fairly useless as they adjust broad swaths of the sound spectrum and unavoidably end up adjusting elements that you don't want tinkered with.

If you know what you're doing and are fairly reserved with your adjustments a high quality EQ can be an invaluable piece of equipment.

Let the flames begin!!!!

[Ja Galus]

I was a sucker back in 1986...I bought a pair of Bose 901s. I played around with placement for a few months...tried everything. I could never get the midrange to sound right. About 6 months later, I heard a friend's DCM Time Window speakers. The 901s went up for sale the next day. I bought into the hype. They were my biggest audio mistake up to that point, with the exception of buying an outboard Carver Digital Time Lens. Mind you, they were a perfect match for the inferior "digital sound" of the day...they were good at masking flaws!

[eisforelectronic]

Lifestyle systems always paid excellent commission. With a little experimenting I did happen upon one way to make a lifestyle system sound decent.....change all the speakers.

[Pat D]

...being a liar, presenting fantasy as fact, being a shill, countless other transgressions...and of course, dead wrong about everything I've stated...

So...in that light, I really have nothing to lose...

I have IN FACT done all that I say I have, I do IN FACT hear the levels of performance as claimed...I have IN FACT presented those statements subjectively and not gotten into a numbers game because numbers do not apply...My thirty year-old 901s are not direct radiators...comparing them to conventional speakers is inappropriate...the boom and tizz will always sound much more impressive at first glance...the outer gloss cannot compare to looking deep into the performance...one cannot approach these speakers with a mindset conditioned by years of listening to woofers and tweeters and crossovers, close miking techniques, mixing boards and pan pots...you must suspend all you think you know, immerse yourself in their sound field and ignore the specsmanship...they require much more listener involvement than most are willing to contribute...in auditioning these units, most really don't know how to listen...and it really is a shame.

Audie

They are, of course, a very old model and a different animal than subsequent versions. I heard it so many, many years ago I wouldn't want to comment, though I don't remember thinking they were unpleasant. They are certainly very different from those silly cube things, which I found quite unpleasant on a lot of classical material--mixed chorus, for example. Sound & Vision measured the ghastly little things some time ago, I believe . . .

A few years ago, I heard the Bose 901 series something or other in the same room with a some big Klipsch box speaker. While I know the meters on amplifiers aren't very accurate, we did notice that they read a fraction of a watt on the Klipsch speakers while they read over 200 watts on the 901s at quite moderate levels--I think because they require EQ in the deep bass. But, anyway, they weren't unpleasant and threw a nice enough image.

Well, I don't think that they are quite my cup of tea, your taste and your preferences are king. And I don't think think the current model 901 is a bad speaker, but for me it's not a good value. But then I've never tried one at home, either.

[Pat D]

No, I don't use tone controls. They add too much noise to the signal path, and I won't buy a preamp that does not have defeatable tone controls.

RIAA phono EQ? I thought that RIAA thing was just a phono preamp that allows you to hook a turntable up to any RCA input? Did I misunderstand that one?

Tape deck..gave up on cassettes in 1991.

Auditorium tweaking..well I don't live in an auditorium so I don't need that.

Speaker placement..when done right you won't need an EQ. If you think you need an EQ to fix sound problems, you have either crappy speakers, don't have them set up right, or your room is not properly damped.

Well, of course a phone preamp is used so you can hook up a phono cartridge on a tone arm mounted to a turntable. But why is this needed? Well, I'll tell you. First of all, phono cartridges have quite low levels of outputs, which is measured in millivolts. So a phono preamp has to raise up the signal level to line level (tape, aux, CD inputs).

Second, dragging record past a stylus is an inherently noisy process. Anyway, in the mastering process, EQ is applied to the signal to raise up the highs and reduce the bass. Hook up your turntable to a line level input like a Tape or Auxiliary input, and you will not only find it quite low in level but rather screechy. So, on playback, the phono preamp applies reverse EQ to cut down those highs and make the response more or less flat and a lot more mellow! So, you see, phono playback does involve EQ both in recording and playback. There used to be a number of different EQ curves, but the RIAA one became the standard one.

Ahhh, the young! They just lack experience in a lot of things. . . .

[skeptic]

"RIAA phono EQ? I thought that RIAA thing was just a phono preamp that allows you to hook a turntable up to any RCA input? Did I misunderstand that one?"

I think you misunderstood that one...and maybe one or two others.

With the invention of the microgroove phonograph record, what we call vinyl LPs today, certain limitations of the physics of making records had to be overcome. If the signal was applied to the cutting head flat the bass tones would make the groove much too wide to allow any appreciable playing time and the highs would be obliterated by surface noise. So, engineers wisely devised a standard for boosting the highs and cutting the lows on recording and then applying a complimentary boost to the bass and cut to the highs on playback. This equalization process meets a standard called the RIAA curve. All magnetic phonograph cartridges require this equalization to produce anything close to flat frequency response. (by the way, the boosts and cuts at the frequency extremes are considerable.) Of course they encountered the same problem with other processes like tape recording where they have to do the same thing only their equalization standard is called the NAB curve. FM broadcasts also have a similar problem but they just use a filter on playback called a 75 microsecond de-emphesis but it amounts to the same thing. So before your phonograph record reaches your hands it has undergone at least 2 1/2 equalizations, one on the master tape, one on the mixdown tape and again on cutting the disc. But it doesn't stop there. Look at a picture of a recording engineer sitting at a recording console. See all of those knobs, switches and sliders? Know what they do? There sure are a lot of them. And a good percentage of them are used to apply....you guesed it, equalization. So your recording has been equalized to death before you even get it. What about all of the noise and distortion the other equalizers have introduced? It's usually well below audibility. Oh BTW, many microphones use the mechanical equivalent of equalizers in their design as well. And guess what. The crossover networks in your loudspeaker system is a kind of equalizer especially if it uses the Linkwit Riley criteria where there is a slight boost just before the cutoff filtering for each driver. And the resonant chambers used to tune some speakers are you guessed it, the mechanical equivalent of equalizers of a sort.

BTW, you don't get away from it just because you get away from audio. The video amplifiers in your TV set have special equalization circuits that help it separate and decode the chroma signal so you can see color TV.

Equalization is an inherent part of analog signal processing whether we like it or not. On the other hand, digital signals don't need equalization. They don't rely on any mechanical devices whose physical limitations must be compensated for electrically. It dosn't care what part of the spectrum the ones and zeroes occur in.

[brigrizzme]

Ears are like eyes and they're all different. I myself don't like the sound of Bose, but obviously many people purchase this product. They're keeping BestBuy's audio section in business. Could all of those consumers be wrong?

[blake_mooney]

Ok I'm sorry I don't mean to flame anyone but people who like Bose do not know ANYTHING about speakers. Seriously, Bose is the abomination of speakers. Klipsch is similarly priced and they completely wipe the floor with anything Bose has to offer. Go listen to some Klipsch Reference home theater speakers and you'll see what I mean. Here is a nice little article http://www.retailworker.com/node/10435 on why Bose sucks so bad. Those who like Bose most likely buy only from Nike and use AOL as their ISP. I really don't care if people say "Everyone prefers different sounding speakers" that arguement only goes so far, that's like saying KLH speakers are better then Wilson Audio speakers because it's your "opinion". I agree with people having their own opinion and all but the plain and simple fact is that Bose makes HORRIBLE speakers and they overprice, period. They use 5 1/4 inch subwoofers in their LifeStyle home theater speakers, you can NOT get thunderous bass from that small of a driver, I don't care what anyone says. A Velodyne or Klipsch sub would pound ANY Bose sub into the ground without breaking a sweat.

I really feel like I'm saying all this for no reason even though it's true. Why do people always feel the need to defend crappy companys? Really, people com'on, this is like defending AOL, the only reason people defend it is if they already bought them unknowing how crappy the product is and they wanna justify their crappy purchase. No matter how obviously horrible a company is there will always be someone who defends them.

[vr6ofpain]

If you've owned them that long chances are you will be so accustomed to that particular sound that anything else would come across as a shock. Tough to give up smoking too - even if it's good for you.

You've actually got a point on this one. Audio people seem to carry a bizarre chromosone that flares up everytime an audio manufacturer goes "mainstream". It's the same one that forces them to call their favorite band a "sell-out" when their music becomes part of the pop culture (as if it's the bands fault that tastes evolve). Lest we forget, Infinity and JBL also used to make VERY good speakers that were "hi-end" not too long ago. However, as soon as they started selling to the mass market, they lost all credibility with audiophiles. How often do you see members here recommending Polk, Inifinity, or JBL these days instead of Von Schweikert, Green Mountain, Taylor, JM Lab, or some other name that very few have even heard of? Does anybody else remember the thread about 6 months ago about Totem being carried in a chain and the poster questioning their validity as a mid-fi, hi-fi brand? Tweeter carries Sonus Faber, does that mean the products are now automatically inferior?

Interesting point Audie...but I still don't care for Bose

[mixadude]

LOL! Back in the early '70s when I was selling HiFi, I sold a few 901 systems powered by flame linears... same old carp, insults, and arguements; nothing new here.

By the by, I like boom and tizz. A few years ago we built eight 12 cubic foot over ported boxes out of baltic birch stuffed with EVX-180s. We used fence posts for baffle stiffener / port shelves! Powered them with a pair of QSC Powerlight 4s. That made some serious BOOM. I took a friend by the shop and he was amazed to see the sawdust jump up and down 2" off the floor to the tune of Sade!

They're in Puff Daddy's studio now

[mixadude]

These sorts of EQ arguements have cracked me up for decades.

The recording process has become the creative process in much of the music out there. EQ is the order of the day, whether it's analog or digital, you can bet that there's eq aplenty been applied in the creative process. skeptic's primmer was a good rendering of RIAA eq though. (yet another edit) Then there's the mastering lab

I've been a live sound mixer most of my life and I'm old. EQ is my best friend, followed by compression, with gating a distant 3rd. The problem is I want it where I want it, but more importantly I don't want it where it is unexpected. I don't want it from my environment. I also don't want it from my playback system. But you can rest assured (or uneasily as the case may be) that I'm gonna crank the everlivin snot outa the eq and compressors in many circumstances.

I (we) leave it to you to build playback systems that you enjoy, whatever the variety.

edit- spelling check

[T BOMB25]

Im not a Bose fan to be fair its hard for a speaker with the same design to hold for over thirty years in this case it could be considered one of the best of all time but over the years it has showed that it was mearly and increadible marketing scheam that Bose created hey at least they are responsible publicity in the audio field,it takes more than great articles to be a great speaker in speakers it could be your worst sin more than anything you can buy on this planet.Yes i have heard many other over rated speaker from many other companies but when a company thrives off of advertisements only now that is pathetic and very misleading to the consumer but see thats the differrence a consumer is not a audiophile and we! wont be mislead like that you wanna talk about old ledgendary speakers here is the real list first and foremost Quads esl 57&63s next Magnepan,Harbeneth,and the rest as follows Tannoy,Vandersten,Wharfedale (could be mentioned with Quads),yes Klipsch over fifty years cant be wrong and unlike Bose they are still imprving their design,yes JBL and Infinity they are still doing well lots of maketing to but in most cases they hit where it counts in the sound ever hear the Infinity Overture 3 great speaker thats just to name a few and as far as its derrect competitors 30 years ago Ohm and Dahlaquest they got smoked so to the BOSE BASHER! so advise you to invest in one those brand or the 12 thousand others that are on the speaker market or buid your own Dynaudio makes plenty of speaker kits any thing has got be better than the 901s so get off of here consumer and quit trying to make Bose richer and something you can really debate about "All Highs and Lows Dude! stop watching so many commercials and use the more important "sense" your ears you clown! stop disgracing this forum.

[blake_mooney]

Im not a Bose fan to be fair its hard for a speaker with the same design to hold for over thirty years in this case it could be considered one of the best of all time but over the years it has showed that it was mearly and increadible marketing scheam that Bose created hey at least they are responsible publicity in the audio field,it takes more than great articles to be a great speaker in speakers it could be your worst sin more than anything you can buy on this planet.Yes i have heard many other over rated speaker from many other companies but when a company thrives off of advertisements only now that is pathetic and very misleading to the consumer but see thats the differrence a consumer is not a audiophile and we! wont be mislead like that you wanna talk about old ledgendary speakers here is the real list first and foremost Quads esl 57&63s next Magnepan,Harbeneth,and the rest as follows Tannoy,Vandersten,Wharfedale (could be mentioned with Quads),yes Klipsch over fifty years cant be wrong and unlike Bose they are still imprving their design,yes JBL and Infinity they are still doing well lots of maketing to but in most cases they hit where it counts in the sound ever hear the Infinity Overture 3 great speaker thats just to name a few and as far as its derrect competitors 30 years ago Ohm and Dahlaquest they got smoked so to the BOSE BASHER! so advise you to invest in one those brand or the 12 thousand others that are on the speaker market or buid your own Dynaudio makes plenty of speaker kits any thing has got be better than the 901s so get off of here consumer and quit trying to make Bose richer and something you can really debate about "All Highs and Lows Dude! stop watching so many commercials and use the more important "sense" your ears you clown! stop disgracing this forum.

Periods are your friend. But yah well said, I totally agree. I am so SICK of people trying to justify the atrocity that is Bose. Just like those people that defend AOL, *shudders*, why people feel the need to defend HORRIBLE companys I will never understand....

[bjornb17]

I seriously dislike how Bose operates, but since i don't like them, i dont buy them.

I just hate it when bose fans come up to me and tell me how much better their bose system is than mine without even knowing what i have. They are so brainwashed that they usually assume their AM system is the best system out there, and everything else in inferior.

I just try to be modest and not get into a heated discussion because it's pretty pointless.

If bose charged about $500 for their acoustimass systems, i would still think thats expensive, but i wouldn't complain at that price because it wouldn't be a totally huge ripoff. but for about $1500 for a few little cubes and a passive sub, NO amplifier, spring clips, plastic and untreated paper construction, its a big jip.

A DIY kind of guy can probably build a bose system for a couple hundred bucks or less. but then again, a DIY kind of guy knows better

[topspeed]

Thank you so much for reviving this YEAR OLD THREAD that had mercifully died a natural death.

Bose bashing is as played as dub spinners.

Seriously, the last time the OP was online was in August 2004!

Let it go people.

[RGA]

why people feel the need to defend HORRIBLE companys I will never understand....

Well look at the hostory of Ford motor company --- people defend them because people don't care or don't pay attention in their high school Social Studies classes -- that is assuming the teacher does not have a gag order on them.

Some schools here get some funding by cola companies and in trade get to put pop machines in the building...thsi is all fine and good and I don;t have aproblem with this because i believe high schoolers get so much advertising anyway and they still have the CHOICE to buy or not. What IS a concern is that they also demand that teachers say not an ill word against the company (or they get canned as it were) and that one can not broach the moral and ethical issue about advertising and selling harmful junk food to the school population...again I'm not saying iot should not be sold but gag orders from companies not to allow free discussion is a problem.

Of course they argue that welll the school board made the decision to take the money...and that's because schools are desperate for the money -- but this is not what education is about or SHOULD be about - it is just like using slave labour in a less developed country because the country has no law against it...just because you CAN do a thing doesn't mean you SHOULD do a thing.

Ford is such a morally bankrupt company over its history that it is absolutely stunning that anyone Buys their exploding cars. This BTW is coming from ME an ex Ford owner. So they fooled me once too.

The worst thing about university is that when you see what some of these companies have done and are still doing it really starts to limit the stuff you can buy and not feel guilty about it. Luckily there are alternatives.

[mixadude]

Just for the record, I never said that i was pro or con on the Bose issue. I just thought that it would be ironic to respond to this ~year old thread with a comment about how nothing has changed on this subject for >30 years

I will say that I have heard them sound pretty good with some material in some conditions. I don't, however, own any, nor have I ever owned any, and I will most likely not ever.

I did say I like boom and tizz... I may not have mentioned that I also like everything else inbetween. In the right amounts. With coherancy and phase accuracy. I've been setting up large systems very frequently (sometimes daily) since the late '70s and strive to achieve the most out of what I have to work with each time. Never though with anything Bose! LOL

[bjornb17]

i didnt realize how old the thread was :P