Why do audiophiles hate Bose?

nathanm · « **Reply #40 on:** 28 Feb 2003, 05:01 pm »

Quote

Anyway, Nathan, you really get people going - what an agitator!

Yeah, I suppose I should have known I was opening up a can of worms with the 'ol Bose chestnut. I tried to stop it, but there was already too much momentum! I'm glad it didn't veer off into another cable debate. *WHEW!*

Uh oh, Audiojerry just lost all of his indie cred!

A Bose-Liker! Get the torches! Grab the rope! Find a strong branch! No just kidding...like I said I have no opinion of Bose, I just wanted to know why they are the punchline to every cruel joke. It sounds like they are a Microsoft of sorts; you hate them but you are forced to live with them. Well, maybe not forced, but you get my meaning...

A ramping-up alarm clock sounds like an excellent idea. I'd love to have a robotic window shade that gradually increases the light in the room over the course of an hour or so in conjunction with the sound before you have to wake up. I can't stand music alarms though, that song you wake up to then pervades your consciousness the whole day. Not good.

Pez · « **Reply #41 on:** 28 Feb 2003, 05:02 pm »

Quote from: audiojerry

I don't have time to read the entire thread, but in my opinion Bose is not all bad. I own their table clock radio and really like it. It has a very big sound for its size, the bass is impressive for its size, and for casual listening it's very pleasant.

Audiojerry's opinion:

I'm sorry, but you can do a lot better for a radio type system than the $500 you spent on that little Bose wave piece of crap. A lot of companies make a similarly small product that sounds a lot better.

ABEX · « **Reply #42 on:** 28 Feb 2003, 05:06 pm »

PEZ
For one I agree!Awia makes great mini components and JVC has a good little system I have heard.And I have heard the BOSE system and it's ok,but that does not justify the cost.The only reason they get the $$ is because they have a following.

JMO

audiojerry · « **Reply #43 on:** 28 Feb 2003, 05:09 pm »

Paid $299 including shipping.

I didn't know my Bose sounded crappy and others sound better, but if Jason says so, it must be gospel. Now I must rescind everything I said about Bose cause I don't know Jack Schitt!

nathanm · « **Reply #44 on:** 28 Feb 2003, 05:25 pm »

Jeepers...and you call ME an agitator!?

Pez · « **Reply #45 on:** 28 Feb 2003, 07:08 pm »

No Nathan AJerry meant you are agitating

jcoat007 · « **Reply #46 on:** 28 Feb 2003, 09:39 pm »

My only experience with BOSE is a pair of 201's that I bought about 20 years ago.

They had been in a box for 15+ years and I pulled them out a few months ago to put in my garage.

They suck so much ASS. I mean I couldn't beleive how much they suck.

I'm thinking about getting some nOrh 3.0's or something very inexpensive like that. Anything would be an improvement over these SUCK ASS speakers.

I just cannot believe that I paid money for these

ABEX · « **Reply #47 on:** 1 Mar 2003, 12:24 am »

To bad they did not collect intreat sitting there!

Look at it this way,you might have been using them as your reference speaker's till recently discovering real audio!

BlackCat · « **Reply #48 on:** 3 Mar 2003, 03:02 pm »

Many years ago, whilst I was still an undergraduate, the BIG names in stereo were Kenwood, Pioneer, Sansui, Marantz, JBL, Klipsh and Bose. The 901's were quite pricey at the time (around $1000 US...this was a lot of $$ back in 1978). If you wanted really high-end stuff, you went for MacIntosh or SAE. My brother and I always had a "competition" going for who had the best stereo. I have to admit he bested my JBL's with his purchase of the Bose 901's. These speakers were very HIGHLY touted by the reviewers of the time, top honours in every stereo rag. They were very placement critical, he had them hanging off the ceiling a prescribed distance from the back and side walls, and was running orange outdoor extension cord as speaker wire. Damn if they didn't sound good - for the time. I don't know what happened to the company since then, I know the stuff I've heard lately is pretty much junk. They have a distribution center here west of Phoenix, occasionally they open the doors to the public to clear out inventory, that's when you can see the obscene markup.

audiojerry...next time you're in Phoenix, look me up. Or at least look up Bob at audionut.com. He's heavily involved in the audiophile club here, and besides actually stocking and selling those expensive speaker wire lifter/isolators, he's a really nice and knowledgable guy.

Thatch_Ear · « **Reply #49 on:** 6 Mar 2003, 03:18 pm »

My father bought a lot of gear and had it shipped home from S.E. Asia in 1972. Among other things were a pair of the possibly 1st vintage of the 901s. An aside to this is that his next duty station was no more than 15 miles from where the speakers were built and these had been shipped to Vietnam and back at no cost and were purchased in the PX for less than they could be bought anywhere else in the world.
I listened to these speakers all through high school and loved them. My memories of them is fond and I still think that they are good speakers. My father recently offered to give them to me and I turned him down.
There are a couple of reasons for that. First I listen to tubed amps except for low bass and 901s are not near efficient enough for my 8 watt/ch amp. Second I am a bit of a purist and go from CD player to amp which has a loudness control then directly to my speakers. 901s cannot funtion properly without the EQ and to me that means that the sound has to be altered in order for them to work.
Any speakers that are EQ dependent are not something I want in my system. Having said that I am giving second thoughts about taking them as they are in mint condition, have the walnut fronts except where the front driver is and should work fine as rear channel speakers for HT. Also there is a sentimental value involved.
My opinion is that the drivers are cheap and that well designed loudspeakers should not be EQ dependent for good sound. On the other hand the 901s were considered TOTL in the early 70s when most everything sounded like crap because SS at that time for the most part was crap. So maybe these will be good enough for surrounds using a late 70s high quality SS rig.
David Thatcher

audiojerry · « **Reply #50 on:** 6 Mar 2003, 04:00 pm »

Welcome Thatch_Ear, I hope your moniker doesn't resemble your hearing.

If the 901's sounded great back in the 70's, I'd be surprised if they still do, because of aging. Minimally, the surrounds and the capacitors probably need replacing, even if physically they look good from the outside.

ehider · « **Reply #51 on:** 6 Mar 2003, 04:55 pm »

Help me out here guys, how do you get a pair of 901s to produce a palpable stereo image? Every pair I've ever heard has never come close to making this happen.

mojoman · « **Reply #52 on:** 6 Mar 2003, 07:25 pm »

Quote from: ehider

Help me out here guys, how do you get a pair of 901s to produce a palpable stereo image? Every pair I've ever heard has never come close to making this happen.

A good question. I had a roomate that had 901s in the late 70s. All I can say is that they would play damn loud. They never displayed anything like an image. How could they, you place eight 5 inch driver on an angled baffle across the back and spray the sound away from the listener to reflect off the back and side walls. They were great for parties though.

Carlman · « **Reply #53 on:** 6 Mar 2003, 11:07 pm »

Quote from: mojoman

Quote from: ehider
Help me out here guys, how do you get a pair of 901s to produce a palpable stereo image? Every pair I've ever heard has never come close to making this happen.

A good question. I had a roomate that had 901s in the late 70s. All I can say is that they would play damn loud. They never displayed anything like an image. How could they, you place eight 5 inch driver on an angled baffle across the back and spray the sound away from the listener to reflect off the back and side walls. They were great for parties though.

I used to work somewhere where the 901's were sold. I argued with one of the salesman that they were the worst speaker in the sound room. Their argument is that the eq had to be installed and that they had to be positioned properly. This became a bet. The eq was hooked up and the positioning was done as best as could be in our crappy sound room. They lost to everything half their price in pretty much every category. It was sad. I guess they'd be OK for a cheap guitar amp.

In fact, if you have a really cheap and small Creek guitar amp, just aim it at the wall the next time you play... that's the 901. enjoy. If you don't think it sounds good, adjust the eq and mess with the placement.... or get 9 more and point 2 towards you and 8 at the wall.... THEN it'll sound EXACTLY like the 901's... maybe even better

-Carl

ehider · « **Reply #54 on:** 7 Mar 2003, 02:16 am »

I guess my question was posted directly at Thatch ear since he still thinks of the 901s as damn good. In my mind, I could never call a speaker "damn good" if they were absolutely incapable of providing an image. Perhaps I have different priorities than Thatch ear?

Psychicanimal · « **Reply #55 on:** 7 Mar 2003, 03:21 am »

Quote from: audiojerry

Welcome Thatch_Ear, I hope your moniker doesn't resemble your hearing.

If the 901's sounded great back in the 70's, I'd be surprised if they still do, because of aging. Minimally, the surrounds and the capacitors probably need replacing, even if physically they look good from the outside.

Jerry,

the Bose 901's have no crossovers, therefore no capacitors.

I will say here that I do own a pair of Bose 901 IV's with a series VI eq. I am working on setting up a 2 ch HT/ background music system in my living room and a dedicated 2 ch audio room upstairs.

The bose might not be great sounding, but it does convey the *experience* of a live performance, unlike regular boxed & planar speakers.

Surprise!

DVV · « **Reply #56 on:** 7 Mar 2003, 11:21 pm »

Quote from: dayneger

ehider, was your point that Bose is running a genuine racket here?

I just realized the root of the issue--the "umlaut" is missing from their name, which would turn it from

Bose to Böse

Böse means "mad" or "angry" in German, corresponding very well with how ones feels after realizing how badly they got jacked on their purchase.

If memory serves, the company's founder is Dr Amar Bose, an Indian from MIT. I don't know if he was born in India.

Cheers,
DVV