ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE: http://www.intellexual.net/bose.htm

INTRO:

As a part of a small sect of audio enthusiests who loathe the company Bose Corp. for its marketing deception, shortcutting in manufacturing, and shameless consumer trickery, I was recently passed on a website written by a "Bose-o-phile", who was defending the company. Upon reading his site, I vowed to represent our side: the TRUTH. However, knowing very little about the products themselves other than the fact that they sound bad for the price, I took it upon myself to audition the Bose AM-15 and perform a little "surgery" on them while I was at it. The review on this page is directed towards the Acoustimass-15, one of Bose's most popular systems, and holds truths to the entire Acoustimass and Lifestyle series products as well. After all, the Lifestyle system is merely Acoustimass speakers packaged with a Bose integrated preamp. The AM-15 is priced at US$1299.99 MSRP. When you are done reading, check out my Bose alternatives page here.

THE PACKAGE:



THE CUBES:

The $1300 Bose Acoustimass system implements five dual-cubed, 2.5-inch, paper-cone satellite speakers. Incidentally, you can buy these exact same drivers for $35 a pair here. The material that is used to build these speakers may seem adequate to the unassuming novice; However, upon closer inspection, it is clear that they are built with little regard for performance. To start off, the cubed satellites are made of what Bose claims is a "revolutionary new space-aged paper", when in fact my own observations lead me to believe that they are nothing more than dyed Manila hemp. Paper grade is besides the point here, as any type of paper has poor resonant properties with upper octave frequencies (2 KHz to over 20 KHz). Research has shown that the best materials to use as tweeter domes are alloy metals and fabric materials, depending on what tone you want your highs to have, as they are both strong and light weight materials. There are other less popular tweeter materials such as soft poly, hard poly, and ceramic domes, but we'll focus on the main ones here. Typically metals such as titanium and aluminum have a much sharper, more detailed, distinction with superior transience. Fabrics like Mylar and silk have a more mild, smooth signature, and fewer issues with resonance than alloys. Of course other factors such as the crossover and driver design can magnify or nullify these characteristics. Because of its wider dispersion angle and lower distortion levels, dome tweeters will sound much more open and airy with an expanded soundstage; However, Bose disregards this fact because making paper cone tweeters is a much cheaper manufacturing process. You won't see this design used by any other reputable speaker company, but you'll find it abundant in $200 boom boxes and mini-systems.

There is also something to be said about the diameter of the drivers. The 2.5-inch paper cone Bose uses falls into the range where conventional tweeter and midrange drivers perform weakest. This incongruous selection of dual 2.5-inch drivers is plagued with substantial shortcomings in the high and mid-frequency range. Remember that sound is merely the rapid movement of air so there are very specific driver sizes that correspond to acoustic properties which allow for the magnet-coil structure to drive the speaker at its targeted frequency band with greater ease. In home applications, high-pass tweeters should be between 0.5 to 1 inch in diameter, and never more than 2 inches. Larger tweeters are especially poor performers when powered by tiny magnets such as those used in the Bose cubes (increased phase distortion). The unusually large size of the Bose drivers creates a substantial frequency response limitation in the highs at 13 KHz. Midrange drivers should never be smaller than 3 inches in diameter, and are commonly 3 to 6.5 inches (ideally over 4 inches). Boses use of a 2.5 inch midrange creates another substantial limitation, this time in the mid-bass response. The smaller the driver, the less surface area on the cone, and thus the more excursion that is required to push the same amount of air need to produce audible sound. Thus with a 2.5 inch driver, the physical excursion of the cone would have to be tremendous in order to perform like a standard 6-inch midrange. Unfortunately, the Bose drivers do not possess this supernatural excursion ability so the midbass drops off at 280 Hz.

Another one of the Acoustimass' major flaws is the fact that they rely on one small driver to reproduce midrange and high frequencies together. I'm referring to the satellite cubes, which are forced to reproduce signal from 200 Hz to 20 KHz. You may argue that there are two speakers in each satellite, but there is also no active crossover separating the signal, so both are driving the same frequency bands. No other speaker company would even consider building these dual-driver "crossover-less" satellites because the resulting performance is evident in the sound produced or rather, not produced. However, this isn't some big mistake in Bose's research team... This system was designed to be small and aesthetically appealing (WAF), and this concoction was the only way to make it so. If high and midrange frequencies each had their own discrete drivers, Bose would have the same satellite speaker as every other competitor---only without remotely similar performance, and thus nothing to market.

The Bose satellites are also enclosed in cheap, thin plastic cabinets, which I assume is due to size constraints again. This is another unwise choice from an acoustic standpoint. The purpose of a speaker cabinet is to provide an inert barrier that absorbs sound, prevents phase distortion and potential sound cancellation, and dampens resonance caused by the driver. The thin plastic enclosures that Bose uses is very light and resonant, and fails miserably at all of the aforementioned goals. It also fails at magnetically sealing the drivers so that it not only gives off EMI (electromagnetic interference), but also receives it with little resistance.

THE SUBWOOFER:

The Bose Acoustimass subwoofer, or "Bass Module" as they'd like to call it, consists of three 5.5-inch drivers in a seventh-order band pass configuration. The three-chamber band pass design is the worst of all major subwoofer enclosure types. Its only purpose is to boost decibel output at the expense of accuracy. It does this by burying all woofers within the cabinet in three separate chambers, and using them to drive air out of its port(s). First of all, 5.5-inch drivers are not intended to be used as bass drivers; they are clearly midrange drivers. In fact, Bose doesn't even claim that its "Bass Module" is in fact a subwoofer because they can't! True subwoofers start at 8 inches and taper off at 15 inches in diameter. Chosen size largely depends on the application, be it music playback and type of music or movies. Smaller subwoofers move faster and thus have tighter bass response for improved clarity and accuracy, but larger subwoofers can reproduce lower frequencies and at louder volumes. Again quality, crossovers, and driver design can magnify or nullify these traits. Sometimes you will find 6-inch subwoofers in multimedia computer systems and novelty 18-inch subwoofers, but those are largely non-conventional designs that do not have any advantage over others. At a glance, you can tell the 5.5-inch Bose woofers are poorly crafted, from the questionable cone material to the frail spiders, coupled with cheap crossovers located near the amplifier section (harmonic distortion anyone?). And with this low integrity build, Bose takes these drivers and uses them as a subwoofer unit. This contrived effort quickly reveals its weaknesses in a computer frequency sweep test.

Build Quality. None of the three woofers Bose employs has adequate driver bracing. This is just one of another crucial aspects of a speaker's design that Bose missed the mark on. Also the spider supporting the cone is flimsy considering the excursion required from such a small woofer. This invariably translates to loose and sloppy response, and even a doubling effect at high volumes! What's worse is the fact that the woofers are accommodated with foam surrounds. A surround is a flexible membrane that is used to attach the speaker cone to the baffle. Organic foam surrounds are known for drying out, rotting, and falling apart within 10-15 years of its manufacturing regardless of usage. Today foam is reserved soley as a cheap substitute used only in low-end speakers where price range is most critical. Well-established alternatives to foam are flexible rubber compounds such as Butyl, Santaprene, Supronyl, and other such polymers. You can tear foam surrounds in a benchmark excursion tests where rubber surrounds would not have trouble, which is why no other speaker manufacturer uses it unless they absolutely have to meet a budget criteria. This leaves no excuses for Bose, because all their speakers from the base model to the flagship model use foam. I own a pair of $50 Boston Acoustics CR4 bookshelf speakers that has a more durable surround membrane than the Acoustimass woofers. Combine these weak traits with the fact that all foam surrounds come off the assembly line with a predetermined shelf-life, and one begins to see that they make for a poor investment. In my opinion, speaker parts shouldn't have to be replaced routinely like spark plugs on a car. It seems that Bose and I have a difference of opinion on that matter though.

I also noticed that the three Bose subwoofer drivers are made of the same type of paper as the satellites, but of a slightly thicker species. Treated paper, paper-composite, and multi-layered laminate make for excellent woofer/subwoofer cones. In fact epoxy-treated paper tends to have the highest strength-to-density ratio, which yields some of the tightest bass response and highest definition of any of the subwoofers I've heard. They are also immune to heat breakdown. Velodyne and REL, for instance, are two companies that implement treated paper with great success; However, Bose uses raw untreated paper that does not possess near the quality of treated paper. Untreated paper falls highly susceptible to moisture damage, which will alter the resonant frequency, compromise integrity, and eventually cause the cone to buckle or tear under load. Trendier woofers use more exotic materials that are unaffected by moisture such as Kevlar, carbon fiber, carbon-Kevlar composites, Aero gel, aluminum, and an assortment of poly plastics.

While on the subject of its structural integrity, the Acoustimass subwoofer is housed in the lowest-grade particle board negotiable. It is a cheap, thin LDF (Low Density Fiberboard), that is a fraction of the industry's standard MDF's (Medium Density Fiberboard) density and thickness. Every other speaker company employs nothing less than MDF in their subwoofer cabinets because it is three times denser than LDF. A general rule of thumb is that the MDF be at least 3/4 inches thick with more thickness emphasized on the front baffle. The Acoustimass module uses LDF in two plies totalling 1/2 inch thick and 1/3 the density. The optimal cabinet material should of course be heavy and stiff such as marble, methacrylate polymer, or solid cast aluminum, which is used by exotic companies such as Wilson Audio, nOrh, and Revel.

A pretty reliable gauge of the workmanship on a speaker is in the type of wire terminals that are built in. Pretty much all high quality speakers, and amplifiers, that I can recall from memory use five-way binding posts. The significance of this is in the higher cost attributed with better build, lower occurence of breakage, improved electrical contact, the ability to accept thicker gauge speaker wire, compatibility with banana plugs, spade lugs, angle pins, and a host of other terminators. Despite the fact that pretty much all other speaker companies have picked up the binding post a decade ago, Bose continues to use the inferior spring-loaded speaker clip in all their speakers and amplifiers. Speaker clips made for popular interfaces back in the 80's, but nowadays they exist only as a cheap substitute used to cut back manfacturing costs. If you want to know what speaker clips look like, check out the back side of any cheapo mini-system in the price range of $80-up (Aiwa, JVC). If you want to know what binding posts look like, look on the back of an executive mini-system in the price range of $400-up (Denon, Yamaha). Taking that into account, one begins to see what kind of production quality Bose aligns itself.

THE COLD HARD NUMBERS (PART ONE):

Many audiophiles, industry professionals, and newsgroups have benchmark tested the much debated Acoustimass system. The resulting numbers are always consistent. 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 Hz matters least in the audible spectrum? I will tell you though that that 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, and 13KHz to 20KHz on the high end. Do the math folks, this Bose system only produces 13,176 of the 19,980 Hertz in the audible spectrum. That's only ~66% of the actual recording being played back to you! Is this the kind of performance you'd expect from a $1300 product? Most speakers in the same price range are able to respond from 15 Hz to 25 Khz, and all modern media formats record these frequencies as well. Though these are peak frequencies that most humans can not hear, the pressure produced from 15 Hz and 25 KHz frequencies can be detected by most people, and will in fact have an effect on the harmonics of the music you listen to. So why does this "industry-leading" Bose company only produce about 52% of the sound of it's equal-priced market competitors? Good question...

Not only will you experience a huge loss 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 that are not supposed to be traceable. Translation: essentially when you're watching movies with a Bose system, you will hear the gunshots and explosions coming from the subwoofer next to the CD rack in the corner of the room, and NOT from the 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.

All this lacking of sonic fidelity and richness is doctored up by placing overemphasis and accentuation on 80 Hz and 200 Hz in the bass module to give the illusion of powerful bass, and by placing the same accentuation on 7 Hz in the satellites to give the false impression of full high-frequency coverage. In the quest for high fidelity and accuracy in sound reproduction, this system is antithetical to the goal. As illustrated below, there is almost nothing linear about the Bose frequency response...



ABOVE: Data gathered by S&V from an anechoic frequency sweep test of the Acoustimass-15 unit. Remember that the goal here is linear response. You want a frequency chart to show as flat a line as possible, which illustrates accurate, linear sound reproduction without colorization. It is true that sound is perceived logarithmically by the human ear, but this should have no influence on a speaker's design because a speaker should faithfully reproduce what the microphones captured when they recorded the source material you are listening to. Notice the high end roll-off at sub-20kHz frequencies at the far right and the extreme colorization from 1 kHz to 20kHz with HUGE emphasis on 5 - 7kHz. There is also a frequency dip between 200 Hz - 300Hz within �3dB. The deep bass rolls off prematurely at around 50Hz and is spiked with colorization at about 200Hz. The bass module and satellites don't even begin to harmonize until beyond -10dB. Remember the representation of accurate sound reproduction on the above graph would be a flat line across the �0dB mark. Just look how miserably Bose stacks up in that regard...

BELOW: Another thing to consider is that the only relevant information on the frequency sweep graph are the measurements between -3dB to +3dB as I've isolated below. This is how the AcoustiMass looks from that standpoint...



THE COLD HARD NUMBERS (PART TWO):

Bose has a "product data sheet" as they like to call it, on their website in Adobe Acrobat PDF-format, which can be viewed by clicking here. If and when you look at this document, you will soon realize that absolutely no where are there any specifications for the system's actual performance; Merely product size, dimensions, and shipping weight. There is mention of the AM-15 being quote: "Compatible with all surround receivers 10 - 200 watts per channel/rated 4 to 8 ohms". Good to know, except that every satellite/subwoofer system sold on the consumer market today is quote "Compatible with all surround receivers 10 - 200 watts per channel/rated 4 to 8 ohms"? So then what has Bose just told us? Absolutely nothing. This is how Bose gets away with telling us nothing about the speaker system's actual performance. What they don't tell you is that because the satellite speakers and bass module are sooo incredibly small, that they are also incredibly inefficient due to lack of internal cabinet air space. This is why the Acoustimass system runs at an unadvertised 6-ohm nominal load, which will put more load on your amplifier than the more common 8-ohm speakers of the competition. Yes your nice expensive receiver you just bought is going to run a few degrees hotter than you expected in order to push the Bose cubes just as loud as a regular satellite speaker. Especially if you bought the Acoustimass with the passive Bass Module.

BUT I HEAR BOSE IS GOOD!:

Popularity. Popularity of a name brand doesn't equate to quality. Bose mystique feeds off of its well-targeted audience: the ignorant, ill-informed, mass-market consumers who search for simplified hifi audio solutions in "all-in-one" chain stores such as Walmart, Best Buy, Sam's Club, Price Costco, Sears, Montgomery Wards, etc. A Bose speaker, when put up against the in-store competition of Technics, Cerwin Vega, Pioneer, Kenwood, and Sony speakers, may indeed sound like a better buy. Since these Japanese mega-icons are established corporate monsters, the buyer will feel confident knowing that he or she made a thorough comparison with other household brand names. The truth is that generally the companies that make the best electronics, tend to make the worst speakers. Their targeted market, mass-production business models, and company focus leaves little room for the psychoacoustic research crucial to designing an outstanding speaker. I would estimate that the vast majority of current Bose owners are the victims of miseducation or a complete lack of audio education, and a false belief that they own the best speakers on the market. A small minority will buy Bose for the actual sound quality knowing full well that they are paying more for a badge than for performance. The size factor should be a non-issue since Polk, Gallo, and others have already made smaller speakers than Bose for less the price and equally big sound. A simple way to test this theory is to see just how familiar a Bose owner is with the real industry leading brands, like Klipsch, Paradigm, Definitive Technology, and B&W.

Audio newbies often throw out the "But I heard that Bose is good!" defense, to which I respond "From who?" Was it a sound engineer, electrical engineer, materials scientist, studio engineer, producer, recording professional, musician, Mark Levinson? Ray Dolby? George Lucas? Anyone credible? Or was it your neighbor with the GoldStar walkman, Teac boom box, Funai mini-system, and Sylvania receiver? Perhaps the ubiquitous Bose Ads that they find in completely irrelevant magazines such as Popular Science, Times, Playboy, GQ, People, Astronomy, etc, had some sort of subliminal effect against the better of their judgment? But that's just conjecture...

FAIR LISTENING:

In all stores that sell Bose, you will see one of two types of Bose displays. First, there is the more common 'end-cap display' with a small TV screen, neatly laid out Bose components with speakers and extended steel arms that reach around to create a surround environment. In this setup, the trick to making the Bose system sound good is in unfair comparison and unrealistic environment. In most of these low-end stores, no other 5.1 surround system is configured in such a way because the store does not have a dedicated listening room. Therefore the experience of listening to Bose is more fulfilling than hearing the other 5.1 speaker systems that are all lined up in a row on the shelf-top facing you. The Acoustimass displays are also only about six feet around, therefore when you're listening to the Bose demo in the pocket, the speakers will most likely sound powerful from three feet away. You put the same system in your average 20 by 20 foot living room and in order to fill that airspace with the same sound pressure level, the AM-15s will audibly distort in numerous frequency bands. Bose also carefully selects music and movie sequences that flatter their speakers and most effectively utilize its built-in accents. And as a former employee of one of the top three largest hifi audio specialty retailers in the United States, I personally know how stubborn Bose is about not allowing their speakers to participate in fair speaker comparisons in listening rooms. I know how Bose reps require that a store's floor plan has to place Acoustimass/LifeStyle systems in separate areas with their own displays far away from other speakers.

The second breed of Bose displays is the 'expo room'. These are placed in stores that are deeply in cahoots with Bose Corp. These are stores like Fry's Electronics that lease out 2000 square feet of showroom floor for Bose to erect their own specially designed theater room and an attached catalog room. The thing with these show rooms and theaters is that they are very heavily sound treated with acoustic sound padding and acoustically engineered and calibrated rooms. The control room behind the theater is operated by a $30,000 rack of professional-grade preamplifiers, equalizers, DSP processors, and amplifiers. The technical prowess and build quality of this rack system compared to the Bose Lifestyle media console is a night and day difference. The subwoofer used is positioned in the optimal location to maximize spatial loading. The expense of running a room like this is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars range. Again this is a gross overstatement of the Acoustimass' true capabilities, presented in an impractical, unrealistic environment. I can almost fully guarantee you that the Acoustimass system consumers buy will not sound the same as they do in this room. If you don't believe me, then on your next visit to this Bose demo kindly ask the Bose spokesperson to show you their control room. They will be reluctant and steadfast to do so. Some will deny such a control room exists. I would also be interested in dissecting the speakers and subwoofer they use in this room to see if they matched that of the Acoustimass system that they sell to consumers. My guess is they are likely modified as well.

Finally, it is useful to know that in comparison tests, psychologically the listener is more attracted to the speaker systems that have more emphasized bass and treble, and less midrange-- a fault of pop/rock sound engineers. This is the wrong approach, as it is the goal of every audiophile to find the most balanced, most accurate sound. If you do decide to shop around for the Acoustimass system, point your attention to the bass module. On it, there are tone controls (bass and treble dials), which control the tonal saturation of the speakers. It is standard practice by every audiophile to neutralize tone settings. So neutralize the dials on the subwoofer and listen to how terribly dry and lifeless the entire system sounds with music. What's worse, turn the tone settings all the down to the base setting and the system sounds unbearably bad. Only when the settings for bass and treble are completely saturated will the speakers sound healthy.

MARKETING AND BOSE:

It is estimated that Bose has spent more dollars on advertising last year than ALL other high-end companies COMBINED. Does it have an effect? Sadly, yes. A few years back, the United States Air Force signed Bose onto a multi-million-dollar contract to design noise cancellation headsets for Air Force flight crews. Bose won the contract over two other companies simply because of their "more established name" (brand recognition). The concept of a noise cancellation headset is to actively monitor the noise frequencies emitted from a jet engine and the turbulent wind, and reproduce the exact signal 180 degrees out of phase, thus theoretically canceling it out completely. Many reputable manufacturers have successful done so as well. Bose produced a model that cost approximately $1000 per unit, which failed to cancel out a significant amount of noise. The company used the contract as an opportunity to unload obsolete parts from years back. Bose pawned off thousands of outdated interface connectors for which there were no longer commercially available mating jacks, and incorporated them into the headsets. The Air Force, proud as it was, didn't scrap the project, but instead spent countless millions more replacing the consoles in a number of aircraft to make them compatible with the said headsets. In the end though, the Air Force did terminate the contract when test crews found that the headsets were ineffective and non-durable. This whole mess was created over a brand name's alleged reputation and prestige. Bose is now selling a downgraded version of these headsets to commercial airlines and to the consumer public. They now work to a minor degree, but are not surprisingly still easily outperformed by their competitors. These consumer market headsets are also very, very poorly crafted. I belong to many audio forums and have heard stories about these very expensive headsets falling apart prematurely.

Few magazines are now willing to give honest reviews of Bose products due to a Consumer Reports review a few years back that gave the AM-15 embarrassingly bad ratings (score of 62 out of 100). Consumer Reports allegedly used a double-blind comparison test, which is in fact the ideal way to compare speakers. That particular review ended up in a lawsuit over "unscientific testing methods". Thankfully, Bose lost that lawsuit, but since then, Consumer Reports and various other magazines give neutral-to-rave reviews that tip-toe around sound quality and focus more on ergonomics, while more prestigious publications like Stereophile, Fi, and What HiFi? ignore Bose products completely.

BOSE AND THE PATENT SYSTEM:

To quote from Michael Wong, a visitor to this site: "...a casual perusal of their website reveals that they have used money and lawyers to repeatedly abuse the patent system. They have patents for the Acoutimass (Helmholtz resonator), the Direct/Reflecting technology (multipolar speakers), their Acoustic Waveguide (transmission line), and their JewelCube technology (amalgam of transmission line and other old ideas). In each and every case, their patent is a joke; an obvious example of the all-too-common trick of making one minor alteration upon a pre-existing idea and then using an army of lawyers to get it patented... And why all the bother? Because it looks good to write "patented technology" on the box...".

GOT THX?:

Considering the large emphasis on marketing that Bose places on its products as well as the ostentatious boasting of "innovation" and "performance", I am curious as to why none, count them: ZERO, of their speakers are THX-certified. George Lucas offers certification to any product from any company willing to undergo the scrutiny of his tests. I'm sure Dr. Amar Bose has brought in many Bose speakers to the Skywalker Ranch for certification only to have them rejected time and time again. I am no fan of THX-Certification myself; However, no one can deny that it is perhaps the singly most powerful marketing tool in the entire industry. One tool that Dr. Bose would not have overlooked, but again, one that he could not obtain for himself.

THE ALTERNATIVES:

I have made it quite simple to shop for an outstanding home theater system using the same $1300. I've been getting a lot of emails and guestbook entries requesting my opinion and advise on specific system designs. I am unable to answer all of them though I do read them all and try to answer as many as possible, but it would be much easier if you shopped and auditioned speakers based on the list I've compiled. Again, my opinion on the quote on quote "best speakers" cannot be relied on, nor can anyone else's. Since sound is a subjective quality, no one can answer that question but you. If in fact you are blessed with the inability to decifer Bose speakers from other premium brand speakers, then all the more power to you! I am not trying to promote or upsell you something fancier, nor am I here to play favorites. I'm merely suggesting superior alternatives to the Bose Acoustimass for the same price or less.
> Surround Sound Speakers List <

THE BOTTOM LINE:

This six-speaker unit costs $1299.99 USD MSRP. From dissecting it, I can tell you it costs $100, no more than $150 tops, to assemble. It performs similarly to a $500 Optimus-Radio Shack surround sound system and is very easily outperformed by a $350 Cambridge Soundworks system. For $1300, there are at least three dozen other configurations from companies such as KEF, PSB, NHT, Mission, Tannoy, Diva, Polk, B&W, Energy, Paradigm, M&K, Infinity, Mirage, Monitor, Jamo, Axiom, nOrh, Dahlquist, Sound Dynamics, Acoustic Research, Phase Technology, Definitive Technology, Wharfdale, Boston Acoustics, and Klipsch that easily outperform all Bose speakers from the 151s to the 901s. If you are in the market for such a surround sound system, I have compiled an extensive list of speaker systems for you to peruse. Just click here. Bose equipment, even the flagship LifeStyle 50, resembles the sonic performance of the 11-year-old Aiwa minisystem in my garage. For $500, the Wave Radio is an overpriced alarm clock. If you're impressed by it, have a listen to a Henry Kloss radio for a fraction of the price! For $1000, the Bose 3-2-1 can not be described as anything less than a crime against sound reproduction. The message I want everyone to take from this lengthy review is that Bose, like Bang & Olufsen and Nakamichi, sell lifestyle and designer products whose prices are very heavily saturated by image and appeal. They are by no means performance products. They have no cost-effectiveness, no bang-for-the-buck value, and draw no respect from any audio enthusiests. If your goal is to appeal to and impress housewives, then this system gets the job done, but if your goal is high fidelity, high performance, high endurance, upgradeability, and fair market value pricing then I would very highly suggest you look elsewhere.

I am by no means classified as an elitist audiophile who touts his golden ears about in gross snobbery. I am an audiophile in its purest and most basic form: one who is enthusiastic about high fidelity sound reproduction, which I think we all are to some degree. I've worked in hifi audio/video retail sales before (for two companies that offered Bose) and have designed and personally installed home theaters for hundreds of clients of very diverse needs. I have no affiliation or financial ties to any competing speaker companies so I speak out of objectivity and out of a big-brotherly desire to inform those that don't already share my knowledge and experiences. Happy hunting!

Wow...I've heard this sentiment before, but wasn't informed enough to make anything of it. It does strike me, however, as similar to the BMW brand--low enough hanging fruit for the mainstream consumer yet with the appearance of elitism. Blechh...

I'm actually in the market for a good pair of headphones right now. I've got these $150 Sennheiser thingies, which sound great, but the cheap wires have developed shorts in both ears which must be constantly nudged to complete the circuit. Anybody got a recommendation? (or should I just take them apart and try to splice them?)

LOL--the Bose headphones are out of my price-range these days...

teller said:

Bose DO suck... BAD.

I use Sony headphones in the studio... they work rather well. Sony MDR-7506.

These are not expensive and they have been very highly rated.

http://www.musiciansfrien...e_id/55985

All that I can say is that the Bose Quietcomfort "noise cancelling headset" was the best damned part of a recent experience on a long flight. Incredibly comfortable, low noise, great sound.

WOW!!

Oh, and I do have a Bose Wave CD/radio for my bedroom. I think the sound is rich for it's size, and I really like the fade up feature when it comes on in the morning. Beats the hell out of the usual, abrupt-on, jarring clock radio.

As for a home sound system. I dunno. Mine is due to be updated. The posted article helps. I was thinking more about Tannoy speakers.

TheMax said:

Tannoy make some VERY good speakers, and Bose's noise-cancelling headphones are actually pretty cool for what they are.

I use Tannoy loudspeakers,fantastic product that doesnt cost the earth


Much love Pochacco

Is there a "clock radio" anywhere that is superior to the BoseWave? I looked, but couldn't find one.

TheMax said:

I don't know... I am not really into that sort of thing. I fall under the heading of "snobby audiophiles" and waste far too much money on my stuff.

IceNine said:

So how do you know when to wake up?

TheMax said:

An alarm clock, sans radio.

I'll agree that Bose's reputation among average consumers is largely due to the marketing. When I give people a ride in the Miata, many of them will look at the audio system and say something like, "Wow, you've got a Bose!" Even my grandmother, who is over 80 years old, commented on the Bose. None of them are audiophiles, and I don't know if they've ever heard a Bose before--I assume they've just seen Bose's advertising.

I will also agree that Bose isn't high-end audiophile equipment. It's mass-market stuff, at least for the more affluent masses.

However, I do take issue with the notion that Bose is somehow bad because it emphasizes certain frequencies to "trick" the ear and therefore doesn't "acccurately" reproduce the recording. I have two problems with this assertion:

1) The quality of the sound you hear is limited by the quality of the recording you're playing. I've got what's essentially a bootleg recording (the audio from a stereo camcorder in the audience) of some jazz stuff I did when I was 17. Even if you play it through $100,000 speakers, it's still going to sound lousy.

2) I'm not a sound engineer, but I bet that somebody in the studio has already played around with the EQ in the process of creating the master recording. Therefore, by the time the recording is pressed to CD (or whatever), it's no longer "accurate."

A friend and former colleague of mine was a home and car audio salesman/technician before he decided to become a lawyer. I asked him for his professional opinion on Bose, and he basically told me this: Bose isn't going to satisfy an audiophile, but the average listener will probably be impressed with Bose's sound. (Maybe it's overpriced, but that's another issue.) And Bose is what he uses for the audio system in his own office (granted, he got them free as some sort of bonus during his days in the audio industry).

I'm not sure whether I'd go out and buy a Bose system or some Bose speakers. But I'm happy with the Bose system that came with the Miata. And I figure that trying to get concert hall sound in a convertible is an exercise in futility anyway.

teller said:

I'm just curious... have you ever driven a BMW? I didn't buy my 1987 BMW 325 for the name--who would be impressed by a 16-year-old car? Rather, I bought it because it was a solid and reliable car (even after 16 years and 162,000 miles) with good handling. While it might not be the "Ultimate Driving Machine," I'd much rather drive the BMW than my wife's Oldsmobile, which, despite being ten years younger, handles poorly and just seems to lack the quality engineering that went into the BMW.

It just seems like without a ton of money...I'm better off sticking to my SONY Walkman.

LaVisHh said:

There are actually a lot of speakers that are FAR better than Bose that cost FAR less.

In fact, the company that makes the rather expensive speakers that I own makes a line of inexpensive speakers that get rave reviews and reproduce sound very accurately.

Thanks for the article!!!

We've been in the market for a nice surround sound, but wanted to wait until we got a house. This article is reaching in perfect timing. Very interesting and I have to agree with many things it states.

I have the Klipsch 5.1 with THX for my computer and would love something like that as well for my living area... well maybe a little more powerful.

Much Love,
LoLinex

Pochacco said:

Agreed.

You cannot go wrong with Tannoys.

matt said:

newsflash! it's an automobile. 99% of each and every one of them is engineered exactly the same

AaronUnlimited said:

If that were the case, I'd be driving a Kia or a Daewoo.

matt said:

Actually no...so perhaps I spoke out of turn. I'm still not convinced, however, that it's worth the price. I was surrounded by BMW's in college--it seemed to be the frat-boy's type of car, for nothing but the brand name, and so I'm a little biased against them. They may be great cars...just as Bose are great speakers...just not sure if they fit the price-tag.

matt said:

if that were the case, you obviously wouldn't need a penis extension through your car!

AaronUnlimited said:

You may have already heard this one, but anyway...

Q: What's the difference between a porcupine and BMW's?

A: The porcupine has pricks on the outside.

thanx again Ice for informing me of a bad consumer choice!






hardley any of the BMWs on the road are even fast ones
and you see to many of them WHY oh WHY would you want a BMW?


AUDI!!!VW!!BUGATTI!!BENTLY!!LAMBORGHINI!!
Quality modern cars for a range of peoplke, people with high standards irreguardless of thier pay check

GIOVANNI said:

"Irregardless"?

From dictionary.com:

Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.

Sincerely yours,

The prince.org Grammar Police

matt said:

Don't get me started on "ebonics" now!

:LOL:

matt said:

yeah, it was a regular Watergate, i tell ya...

teller said:

I'm not a big fan of BMWs image either, but their performance qualities are undeniable. In virtually every category of automobile, the BMW is at or near the top of the list. Their specialty is the small sports sedan - they own the category with their 3 series cars. The new M3 may be the best all around performance sedan in the world.

...Sooo you say my BOSE suck eh?

moonangel said:

They are just great if you like them...

As far as real audio quality and accurate sound reproduction goes, they suck.

:LOL:

Here is something that you should do if you want to know the truth.

Get an audio test disc with full-spectrum pink noise at 0db.

Play this disc through your system and measure the response with an AudioControl Audio Spectrum Analyzer with a laboratory calibrated microphone.

You will see peaks and valleys in the response curve... you don't want this. This is where you use an equalizer to correct the output to make the output flat at 0db.

Luckily, my equipment is VERY flat and I do not have to use an EQ at all... I have all the test equipment and I have used it to set up acoustic material to fix resonant waves and such in my room.

You can correct many audio problems by correcting your room.

IceNine said:

I'm surprised you haven't yet said, "No highs, no lows, must be Bose."

matt said:

OK, thanks IceNine..but that thing about wanting to know the truth , well if I have to . Now I will try in time what you said, I will sing a song see how I sound ...Agree with Matt, just say it, say it and get it out, "No highs, no lows, JUST BOSE"