Bose Quality Speakers for cheap

[deeznuts]

Originally posted by: NutBucket
Forgot to mention. Ever notice how you can never listen to Bose speakers in the same room as any other speakers? I wonder why they're always seperate from Polk/Energy/etc.

yup, was just about to mention that. got a friend who works at tweeter (the only mega chain that even has semi-decent stuff really) and he says that bose, who pays for their little corner, forbids the employees from allowing anybody to bring speakers over to their little corner and compare. notice how bose is always hidden in the corner somewhere? makes it look like the store is showcasing the "great speaker" when it was an intentional move to keep it away from other speakers.

btw, got my Mirage OM9's, TWO sets of OM surrounds, OM subwoofer, and OM center for $1000, when it costs over $3,500 or so. teh same buddy at tweeter hooked me up, mirage had a 75% off, yes that is 75% off, sale for employees. so if you got friends that work in those places, tell them to keep you informed!!!

 

[NuclearFusi0n]

this guy a spammer? i think so

 

[Otaking]

How is Bose anything similar to BMW? BMW makes a great car; Bose doesn't even make a car.

 

[Atrac]

Originally posted by: NuclearFusi0n1
this guy a spammer? i think so

You got that right. I was wondering if someone was going to point that out.

Galak
Junior Member

Posts: 1

All of this discussion about Bose and no one noticed that the guy's pushing his own site! heh heh

 

[rj2828]

LoL!

Or that nobody's even discussed what the HELL a JA Audio speaker is (I agree that Bose is crap; my Boston Acoustics Micro9000 would whip that Acoustimass system anytime).

To me, this deal is ICE COLD - unless someone tells me that either:

a) JA Audio speakers rock.

or

b) The name of a 5.1 set that rocks that's under $250 (because you can get plenty of decent speakers for $300).

 

[Wooster]

I got Bose speakers and I am happy with it. BTW... I am deaf.

 

[icecube]

LOL!

Originally posted by: Wooster
I got Bose speakers and I am happy with it. BTW... I am deaf.

I'm still glad this spammer posted this, as I learned a great deal about how BAD Bose is. I was one of the naive that had always "heard" how good they were. Have never bought from them, and now I never will...

 

[alyosha]

Interesting info here, and thisis not the first time I read about how bad Bose speakers are. However I see the pattern- people compare Bose systems to others (usually a combination of several brands worth of speakers, amplifiers and subwoofers) setups, which together end up more expensive than Bose system they comparing it to, but in the end their main point is how expensive Bose is. Sometimes with an addition of "for what you paid" implying to pay about the same but get some kind of setup which they just got (also expensive as hell, but sounding better).
I also think is it possible that Bose in their showrooms could use tricks to demonstrate sound better than what they are selling you - they probably would get sued right away.
About the paper cones vs other materials - well paper is the lightest material available today, no matter what they compare it to, but is not as durable as metals and plastics and also not as easy to shape. There is plenty of market space for speakers made out of new materials and from old material. I am not convinced, but than again I dont expect Bose to be a big topic on bargains site.

 

[Meltz]

Originally posted by: V00DOO
Don't buy Bose until you read this link. Once you read it you wouldn't want to buy Bose.

I'm not going to comment on Bose quality because honestly I don't know. I've never done any informal testing on Bose speakers and the competition because I can't afford any of it. However, I will say that the article that link points too isn't so hot.

First, he throws up a frequency response of the Bose system but makes no mention of how he produced it. What was his amplifier? What was its frequency response? Did he make the measurement in an anechoic room or at least a soundroom? If not, what's the frequency response of the room? These factors can make some huge contributions to his measurements.

Second, he claims that you want a linear reponse which is all well and good, but his plot doesn't prove that the Bose system is non-linear. It proves that it's not flat, but says nothing about linearity. If he cranks up his input signal by 6 dB and that frequency response doesn't shift upward by 6 dB then it's probably not linear. But his plot, by itself, with no explanation tells me nothing of the sort.

Third, there's this beaut of a passage:
...but the fact that the subwoofer has to respond to frequencies as high as 280 Hz (a well-mated subwoofer should never have to produce anything higher than 80 Hz, ideally less than 60 Hz) means that there is extreme amounts of audible localization of the bass module.... For you current Bose owners, try unplugging all your cubed-satellite speakers and play the DVD "X-Men" on your AcoustiMass system. You will be able to follow the enitre movie off of dialogue picked up by your Bose bass module.

1. He states that a subwoofer shouldn't have to produce anything above 80 Hz, then recommends at least 2 subwoofers (the Polks) that have 3 dB cutoffs at 160 Hz.

2. Just because a subwoofer in the Bose system is supposed to produce higher frequency sounds (i.e. up to 280 Hz) doesnt' mean the lower frequency sounds are going to be localized. Wouldn't 280 Hz sounds produced say by the two main speakers in another system also be localized to location of those speakers? The non-directional nature of low frequency sounds is due to the nature of large wavelength (low freq) sound waves, not the speakers.

3. And I'd bet you wouldn't be able to understand a word of the dialogue if you follow his X-men viewing instructions if his frequency response plot is even remotely accurate. That subwoofer has an attenuation of 15 dB at about 300 Hz (as best as I can tell). Most speech information is conveyed between 500 and 4000 Hz (don't believe me? Your telephone cuts off speech below 500 Hz and you can understand it perfectly). Good luck understanding what comes out of that subwoofer. If anyone here has Cool Edit or the like, take a speech signal and filter it with a low pass filter at 300 Hz and listen for yourselves.


Again, I don't know how good Bose speakers are. But it seems to me that this guy has an axe to grind with Bose and will do whatever it takes to show that their systems are no good.

 

[ValsalvaYourHeartOut]

2. Just because a subwoofer in the Bose system is supposed to produce higher frequency sounds (i.e. up to 280 Hz) doesnt' mean the lower frequency sounds are going to be localized.

Oh yes it does. Play a 200Hz sign wave through a Bose subwoofer, close your eyes, spin around, and you should have no problem pointing to where the distorted sound is coming from. If you don't know what you're talking about, then maybe you shouldn't offer your opinion.

Wouldn't 280 Hz sounds produced say by the two main speakers in another system also be localized to location of those speakers? The non-directional nature of low frequency sounds is due to the nature of large wavelength (low freq) sound waves, not the speakers.

Which is why frequencies that can be localized due to their shorter wavelength should NOT be reproduced by a single bass-unit that is not placed equidistant from two satellites -- otherwise, it ruins the soundstage by projecting the lower portion of the stereo image from a different location. If you don't know what you're talking about, then maybe you shouldn't offer your opinion.

And I'd bet you wouldn't be able to understand a word of the dialogue if you follow his X-men viewing instructions if his frequency response plot is even remotely accurate. That subwoofer has an attenuation of 15 dB at about 300 Hz (as best as I can tell). Most speech information is conveyed between 500 and 4000 Hz (don't believe me? Your telephone cuts off speech below 500 Hz and you can understand it perfectly). Good luck understanding what comes out of that subwoofer.

This is irrelevant. While the primary frequencies of speech fall within the midrange, there are components of human voice that fall within midbass. Again, if a fraction of your vocal recording is reproduced by your subwoofer, this jacks up your soundstage...and probably more so when dealing with instruments with wide frequency components. If you don't know what you're talking about, then maybe you shouldn't offer your opinion.

Again, I don't know how good Bose speakers are. But it seems to me that this guy has an axe to grind with Bose and will do whatever it takes to show that their systems are no good.

You can attack his method of presentation all you want, especially when you obviously don't have any idea what you're talking about. However, the general consensus of people who know what they're talking about (versus ppl who own Bose systems or have sensorineural deafness) is that Bose is of inferior sound quality, especially given its price.

And to the dude who was defending paper-cones as a diaphragm material -- it is true that paper is light, which makes for better transient response. However, it is also extremely flexible, which increases distortion, and has marginal resonance characteristics. I almost rarely see high-end speaker companies use paper as a cone material, and god-forbid, uncoated/untreated paper. The NHT SuperZero's and SuperOne's were decent low-end bookshelf's with paper woofers, but that's it.

The market for Bose is not going to be be people who can differentiate between high quality sound reproduction and low-fi. The consumer base will be people who don't know any better and who are under the false premise that Bose is synonymous with quality. I apologize to the rest of this forum for using "Bose" and "quality" in the same sentence. It won't happen again.

Valsalva

 

[Meltz]

Originally posted by: ValsalvaYourHeartOut

2. Just because a subwoofer in the Bose system is supposed to produce higher frequency sounds (i.e. up to 280 Hz) doesnt' mean the lower frequency sounds are going to be localized.

Oh yes it does. Play a 200Hz sign wave through a Bose subwoofer, close your eyes, spin around, and you should have no problem pointing to where the distorted sound is coming from. If you don't know what you're talking about, then maybe you shouldn't offer your opinion.

Perhaps you should take your own advice before insulting me. I wasn't talking about 200 Hz, I was talking about more low frequency sounds, such as you know, below 80 Hz as he insists should be the max limit that subwoofer should produce. I wouldn't doubt you'd be able to localize at 200 Hz SINE wave. But just because the speaker is producing 200 Hz which you can localize doesn't mean you're going to be able to localize low frequency sounds (again say below 100 Hz). Moreover, give then frequency resposne of that subwoofer, the sine wave wouldn't be distorted unless you turn up the gain.

Wouldn't 280 Hz sounds produced say by the two main speakers in another system also be localized to location of those speakers? The non-directional nature of low frequency sounds is due to the nature of large wavelength (low freq) sound waves, not the speakers.

Which is why frequencies that can be localized due to their shorter wavelength should NOT be reproduced by a single bass-unit that is not placed equidistant from two satellites -- otherwise, it ruins the soundstage by projecting the lower portion of the stereo image from a different location. If you don't know what you're talking about, then maybe you shouldn't offer your opinion.

I don't argue with you there, but what you say doesn't contradict my point. I'm not arguing that a subwoofer should produce these mid-bass range sounds. My arguement that if it does produce these sounds as well as the very low frequency sounds, you still won't be able to localize the very low frequency sounds.

And I'd bet you wouldn't be able to understand a word of the dialogue if you follow his X-men viewing instructions if his frequency response plot is even remotely accurate. That subwoofer has an attenuation of 15 dB at about 300 Hz (as best as I can tell). Most speech information is conveyed between 500 and 4000 Hz (don't believe me? Your telephone cuts off speech below 500 Hz and you can understand it perfectly). Good luck understanding what comes out of that subwoofer.

This is irrelevant. While the primary frequencies of speech fall within the midrange, there are components of human voice that fall within midbass. Again, if a fraction of your vocal recording is reproduced by your subwoofer, this jacks up your soundstage...and probably more so when dealing with instruments with wide frequency components. If you don't know what you're talking about, then maybe you shouldn't offer your opinion.

It is hardly irrelevant. He claims you can follow the movie just by listening to the subwoofer. My definition of following the movie includes being able to understand at least some of the dialogue. The speech in that subwoofer is going to be muffled at best since you're only getting at most 3 harmonics of the human speech. For a female speaker, you'll hear the fundamental frequency. There is no way you'd understand a thing.

Again, I don't know how good Bose speakers are. But it seems to me that this guy has an axe to grind with Bose and will do whatever it takes to show that their systems are no good.

You can attack his method of presentation all you want, especially when you obviously don't have any idea what you're talking about. However, the general consensus of people who know what they're talking about (versus ppl who own Bose systems or have sensorineural deafness) is that Bose is of inferior sound quality, especially given its price.

You're honestly going to tell me that he can throw up a frequency repsonse of a speaker system without any mention of how he obtained it is a valid method of proving the inferior quality of the system? Give me a break. If he pulled that in front of a group of engineers he'd be laughed out of the room.

Again, my bone to pick is that if you're going to demonstrate a point which relies on quantitative data to back it up, then you'd better explain how you obtain your data. Otherwise it's almost useless. I really couldn't care less about whether Bose is good or not.

 

[MowSow]

I am just posting this so I can bookmark it and come back later to read more ... it's a pretty interesting post.

 

[Macro2]

The saying goes....

No highs...
No lows...
It must be BOSE....

 

[DielsAlder]

Those engineers at Bose probably got their PhDs at the Bourns College of Engineering, a premier institution in Southern California.

And they probably go to church too.

LINK

 

[Fritzo]

I'm a big Cambridge Soundworks fan. Their products sound great, and are usualy priced the same as mid end speakers (because you can only buy them at hifi.com or at their retail outlets). My $400 Movieworks 408 set sounds awesome on my home theater...highly recommended.

 

[MrCodeDude]

We have BOSE speakers in my mom's Maxima and in our Family Room. I've got no problems with the company, seeing how we got like a 5 speaker set for around $300 (Fry's screws up prices pretty often ) But since I'm not an audiophile, I'm assuming to me, any speakers would be the same as Bose in terms of quality.
-- mrcodedude

 

[seribellum]

According to the counter, I'm the 1184th person to ever go to this site. Hmmmm. Not to mention a bunch of typos littered all over the site.

 

[stingygrrl]

ok, i need help. i'm no audiophile and neither is my friend who asked my advice (on pricematching ) on the AM-15.

does he do or not do it? frankly I can't understand most of the argument above!! It's for a home theatre system (in a studio sized condo with brick walls adn concrete floor and ceiling (converted firesafe storage or something).

Thanks. And I thought BOSE what good too. Glad I stumbled across this thread. the time frame for buying is this weekend.

 

[ValsalvaYourHeartOut]

I wasn't talking about 200 Hz, I was talking about more low frequency sounds, such as you know, below 80 Hz as he insists should be the max limit that subwoofer should produce. I wouldn't doubt you'd be able to localize at 200 Hz SINE wave. But just because the speaker is producing 200 Hz which you can localize doesn't mean you're going to be able to localize low frequency sounds (again say below 100 Hz).

Okay, I see what you were trying very hard to say -- that just because the Bose sub is reproducing sound up to 280Hz doesn't mean that 80Hz sounds aren't non-localizable. Either you have no idea what you're talking about, really confused, or you're making an irrelevant/noncontributory statement. In any case, the frequencies below 80Hz are not involved in this discussion at all. We are talking about frequencies above the threshhold of localization (we'll call it 100Hz to be nice) but below the low-pas crossover frequency (somewhere around 280Hz). THIS frequency range *IS* localizable, and should NOT be reproduced by subwoofer at all. If you knew what you were talking about, then it would be PATENTLY OBVIOUS that sending this passband to the sub instead of the stereo satellites would ultimately compromise soundstage and imaging.

Moreover, give then frequency resposne of that subwoofer, the sine wave wouldn't be distorted unless you turn up the gain.

That was a sarcastic remark, because I was referring to a sine wave reproduce by a Bose subwoofer.

I don't argue with you there, but what you say doesn't contradict my point. I'm not arguing that a subwoofer should produce these mid-bass range sounds. My arguement that if it does produce these sounds as well as the very low frequency sounds, you still won't be able to localize the very low frequency sounds.

Not only is your argument retarded, but it is also 100% irrelevant. Nobody is concerned about reproduction of nonlocalizable sounds by any subwoofer -- we are talking about frequencies ABOVE 80Hz and BELOW the crossover frequencies. Why is that so hard for you to understand?? These frequencies are localizable and should NOT be reproduced by your sub, unless your name is Mr. Bose.

It is hardly irrelevant. He claims you can follow the movie just by listening to the subwoofer. My definition of following the movie includes being able to understand at least some of the dialogue. The speech in that subwoofer is going to be muffled at best since you're only getting at most 3 harmonics of the human speech. For a female speaker, you'll hear the fundamental frequency. There is no way you'd understand a thing.

No, it's irrelevant. If at least some of your dialogue is being reproduced by the sub, then your soundstage has been compromised. It doesn't matter if MOST of your speech falls into a higher range, because again, your soundstage has been compromised.

You're honestly going to tell me that he can throw up a frequency repsonse of a speaker system without any mention of how he obtained it is a valid method of proving the inferior quality of the system? Give me a break. If he pulled that in front of a group of engineers he'd be laughed out of the room.

If you pulled your crap in front of a group of janitors for the Bourns College of Engineering, *YOU'D* be laughed out of the room. I don't know which freq response you're talking about because you failed to cite the exact passage you refer to, but it's common knowledge that Bose crosses over it's sub/sat systems at high frequencies to compensate for the high F3 of the tiny-a$$ satellite cubes. Most people who are experienced in this area would agree that this is an inherent design flaw.

Again, my bone to pick is that if you're going to demonstrate a point which relies on quantitative data to back it up, then you'd better explain how you obtain your data. Otherwise it's almost useless. I really couldn't care less about whether Bose is good or not.

You can choose to ignore his main points by demanding quantitative data (as if we all have 20 hours a week to devote to lab measurement of mediocre speakers), but he is just reiterating arguments made time and time again about Bose. There's nothing new, my friend, and you are defending a product with a piss-poor performance/price ratio, which goes against everything that AT HD stands for.

Valsalva

 

[nowallet]

I'm sorry to put craps on this thread, but since many high techs are viewing this thread. I was wondering what is the best mixer for the money around $1000?
It's for a band of ours.

BTW, we have the 2000 watt amplifier.


P.S. once again sorry. but can someone help please? I just know how to play music, but don't know much about high tech stuffs and sounds.
Thank You

 

[greg]

http://www.price2low.com/jabb32.html

If you guys want a barometer, I have these speaks for my surround. I paid $30 and I'm BARELY happy with them. Really low end quality.

 

[DielsAlder]

I think that we can establish one thing as a result of this thread.

"When you buy Bose, it's like you're settling for the hoes."

 

[dandruff]

irrigating wrote:

Bose are like BMW.

irrigating ! i thank you! You make me feel superior!

 

[laugh]

I wonder what if the subject is "B&W Quality Speakers for cheap"...

 

[ElDonAntonio]

ValsalvaYourHeartOut, I think you should go back on Vallium. Calm down man, if you don't agree with someone here, no need to bash the hell out of him. It's interesting to read a debate, but you seem absolutely incapable of mature discussion.