Is it demonstrable that a short duration is bad? If I hear a difference in a short duration change am I not hearing a difference? What are the inherent variables?
Bose loudspeakers and double blind tests
- Thread starter bob412
- Start date
Is it demonstrable that a short duration is bad? If I hear a difference in a short duration change am I not hearing a difference? What are the inherent variables?
Having heard a difference it's up to each listener to decide their own preference.
knotscott
Super Member
Big differences are obviously easier to note, but a lot of audio differences are really fairly minute and can much harder to detect. A strange system, in a strange room, with music you may not be super familiar with, plus the pressure of thinking you need to hear a difference can make it tough. It can take some time to note small differences, so IMHO it's best done on your main system over long periods..some times really long periods. If you hear something you like, go with it. I'm just pointing out that many of these A/B shootouts don't prove much....some do, but it will never replace extended listening on your own system.
Last edited:
damacman
Resident Psycho
Lol ... here was the original thread:
https://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/new-speakers-very-controversial.1004698/
Have sure had fun with them ...
All speakers require some degree of optimization in a listening space. What Bose recommends for the speakers I am familiar with at least is not much different than other manufacturers. They give general placement guidelines, not precision instructions. I think its folks here see through the marketing gimmicks Bose presents and the perception they have created of themselves among the public. Lots of other products out there have done the same.
,... there are Sharks and Minnows and if you don't know which one you are, you ain't a Shark.
Sgt Shultz
Addicted Member
"My earlier comments were not to bash Bose, they are what they are, they meet their design goal. The 901 variants can sound stellar when properly set up"
Can you cite a source for this claim?
An ad hominem that dismisses the merits of the thing disliked by maintaining the problem is the person who dislikes something rather than the thing disliked.
I gather that's a question. As compared to exactly what? Are we comparing HTiBs?
Kindly share links or references to what you refer. The only hit I found with a Google search revealed that Consumer Reports allegedly used a DBT in their defense of the conclusion for the AM-15:
Last edited:
My take, Why bash anything? Every speaker sounds like it sounds. I don't know if you can hear what I can hear. Have you ever had an audiogram done? I was required to take them yearly, pretty interesting what I can still here after 40 plus years in the trades.
I just like to play music from media that I already know how it sounds and listen to it on differing sound systems. Some Bose boxes sound lacking to me but so do a lot of other speakers that others rant about. Why be a snob about something as fun as listening to some nice sounding gear? It's got to be utterly terrible for me to turn up my nose and run out of the room.
It reminds me of cheese and wine and the pretentious tastings and opinions that follow...I better stop here.
I just like to play music from media that I already know how it sounds and listen to it on differing sound systems. Some Bose boxes sound lacking to me but so do a lot of other speakers that others rant about. Why be a snob about something as fun as listening to some nice sounding gear? It's got to be utterly terrible for me to turn up my nose and run out of the room.
It reminds me of cheese and wine and the pretentious tastings and opinions that follow...I better stop here.
I get the feeling you are bashing wine and cheese tastings?
quiet
Addicted Member
When this house is full of people over the holidays or for dinner parties the Bose 901 Series One do a very good job. If compared to other speakers for that use alone, they probably will be a speaker of choice in most homes. Once removed from that use, I don't like them. There doesn't appear to be any defined sound coming from them no matter how they are set up. I can't think of a single speaker I've had in this room that spent so much effort tripping over itself.
All things considered, the 301 was respectable in this room. But far short of the average good speaker. In other words, it was messing up all over the room.
It's hard to see how anyone would brand the 501 first generation superior to any good speaker no matter how the test was run. They are just bad, especially the worse than terrible base. All of it. No base would be much better.
So, there it is. My eyes wide open test. Nothing could blind me to the obvious.
All things considered, the 301 was respectable in this room. But far short of the average good speaker. In other words, it was messing up all over the room.
It's hard to see how anyone would brand the 501 first generation superior to any good speaker no matter how the test was run. They are just bad, especially the worse than terrible base. All of it. No base would be much better.
So, there it is. My eyes wide open test. Nothing could blind me to the obvious.
jancumps
iRock
Back to the first post. There is a reason why they do well: they sound well. I'm on audiokarma for 10 years now. Bose sounds good.
We discuss hi-fi here, you understand; of necessity that involves value judgements of gear.
Bill S
Thread Killer
OK, I was trying to be kind saying they were just OK but I agree with your assessment. I was probably 20 when I first heard them. The 901s were a very hyped speaker so my expectations were high. The first time I heard the 501s I thought there was something wrong with them or the receiver. I checked treble and bass settings and they seemed reasonable but the sound was dull and lifeless. I was only 20 and so my appreciation of good gear was not developed but I knew enough to tell they sounded like azz.
I have found thru the years that anything Bose does well, others do better or just as good and cheaper. Case in point, the Bose Wave radio and Cambridge Soundworks Model 88.
And we still have not been provided with the foggiest clue as to which Bose speaker(s) are involved in what tests as compared with what other speakers and when. Are we reliving the perspective of the mid 60s?
I find little value speculating about information-free claims.
It's those 2" paper tweeters. The reasons for offsetting the tweeters had to do with the poor off axis performance of that tweeter design. They just integrated the "solution " into their marketing.
My issues are mostly due to engineering and marketing. You can't argue that their build quality amounts for much. Thin cabinets, rudimentary crossovers, pedestrian drivers. These are assembled to sound pleasant. Not good, just pleasant. (Except for the AM product which sounds horrific.)
The marketing bit isn't about Bose, it was about the "Kool-aide" drinkers. It didn't take me long to figure out that Bose wasn't marketing to me. They didn't give a rat's ass about me. They wanted people who didn't trust their ears and could be convinced that owning Bose speakers bestowed a certain social status upon the owner. These people could get quite rabid at times. Insufferable. It was fun to get them to listen to something else, then switch them back. My point was that if you wanted to spend $500 on a pair of speakers, you should listen to various options in and around that price point. The worst thing you could find would be a game changing speaker for just a few dollars more than what you spent.
They are what they are. If you love it and have fairly compared other stuff, have at it, I'm not going to get in your way.
I've owned a bunch of Bose speakers (and have refoamed 2 pairs of 901s, a tedious task), and thought they were okay, and the 301 is a nice speaker (though I don't think it was as good as the MIcroAcoustics 3DX copy (I believe Bose' copyright infringement suit over these is what put MA out of business). But new Bose are expensive for what they are, and while they work in some rooms, I don't care for the effect. Some of the sub/sat systems are nice, though the active ones don't seem to last long, based on the number at the dump.
Bose does distinguish itself in having a keen sense of current styles - their speakers tend to look better than the competition and WAF is a potent market advantage. Some are glitzy and loose their appeal as the times change, but the 901 in all its iterations is a handsome speaker.
They also distinguished themselves in their marketing - they marketed to the public, not the audiophile public, and they create the impression that they are the acknowledged leader in speaker making, both by saying it, but by the absence of any competing claims in mass market literature - this may have changed since the internet wiped out magazines and newspapers. I think this is the real cause of Bose bashing - the fact that for decades, when audio equipment came up in conversation or when advice was asked for, people who actually knew a lot about speakers were assured in no uncertain terms that Bose was the best. Hear this enough times, and you'll start ranting, too.
I object to Bose because of their suing anyone who gives them a poor evaluation (and then whining because magazines won't risk including them in evaluations). They almost put Consumer Reports out of business because in a review of the 901, CU said the image 'wandered' rather than saying it was imprecise or blurred or whatever, and they did put at least one European magazine (Dutch, I think it was) out of business. While suing MA over the 3DX was ridiculous - tweeters that can be aimed is not exactly anything new - Bose has the deep pockets simply to litigate their victims into submission. I don't like that, and am happy to bash them for it.
Bose does distinguish itself in having a keen sense of current styles - their speakers tend to look better than the competition and WAF is a potent market advantage. Some are glitzy and loose their appeal as the times change, but the 901 in all its iterations is a handsome speaker.
They also distinguished themselves in their marketing - they marketed to the public, not the audiophile public, and they create the impression that they are the acknowledged leader in speaker making, both by saying it, but by the absence of any competing claims in mass market literature - this may have changed since the internet wiped out magazines and newspapers. I think this is the real cause of Bose bashing - the fact that for decades, when audio equipment came up in conversation or when advice was asked for, people who actually knew a lot about speakers were assured in no uncertain terms that Bose was the best. Hear this enough times, and you'll start ranting, too.
I object to Bose because of their suing anyone who gives them a poor evaluation (and then whining because magazines won't risk including them in evaluations). They almost put Consumer Reports out of business because in a review of the 901, CU said the image 'wandered' rather than saying it was imprecise or blurred or whatever, and they did put at least one European magazine (Dutch, I think it was) out of business. While suing MA over the 3DX was ridiculous - tweeters that can be aimed is not exactly anything new - Bose has the deep pockets simply to litigate their victims into submission. I don't like that, and am happy to bash them for it.