Bose loudspeakers and double blind tests

[maxhifi]

I once got enthusiastic about Bose, and was convinced I wanted to own a set. They fared so poorly versus some very ordinary Polk Audio speakers in A/B testing, that I gave up on the whole thing.

The main problem arises from the fact the woofers, tweeters, crossovers, and cabinets suffer from value engineering, to the extent that they sound colored. The gimmicky driver placement and configuration can't overcome the basic lack of quality, unless they're being compared to the sort of speakers rack systems used to come with.

I think their modern digital era products are more competitive. If I ever move to the sparsely furnished urban condo of my dreams, I might buy one of their sound bars.

 

[painttoad]

This is exactly why I said the more I learn about Bose speakers the better I like them. The 501’s that I am currently restoring have a knob that you can adjust the sound deflection based on the room you are using them in. I’m not aware of any other speakers who do this.
IMO these speakers do a great job of playing all the different audiophiles in the music.

the 301 series 1 had this also. now you know of 2 speakers.

 

[bhunter]

I once got enthusiastic about Bose, and was convinced I wanted to own a set. They fared so poorly versus some very ordinary Polk Audio speakers in A/B testing, that I gave up on the whole thing.

The main problem arises from the fact the woofers, tweeters, crossovers, and cabinets suffer from value engineering, to the extent that they sound colored. The gimmicky driver placement and configuration can't overcome the basic lack of quality, unless they're being compared to the sort of speakers rack systems used to come with.

I think their modern digital era products are more competitive. If I ever move to the sparsely furnished urban condo of my dreams, I might buy one of their sound bars.

Now that's a polite term: Value Engineering.

 

[hopeless]

How could there be a double blind test for picking the best sounding speaker?

And what are "golden eared audiophiles"? Would that just be people with different preferences than your own as regards sound quality?

Actually, the NRC studies from Canada answered much of these questions. With blind testing, the vast majority of people will choose the more accurate speakers. This covers audiophiles and non-audiophiles.

 

[hopeless]

Has anyone ever wondered why Bose loudspeakers tend to fare so well in double blind listening tests . I remember reading about golden eared audiophiles who failed miserably with the task of choosing the best sounding speakers in a double blind test . I don't remember the exact name of the magazine but Bose speakers appeared in the lineup . Guess what ? Bose would always do well in such testing . If the reviewer doesn't know the name of the product he's listening there's far less chance of a biased result . I remember when Bose came to town with their audio shows . The same thing happened locally . A lot of us country folks thought that Bose was the bests speakers in the WORLD ! Their speakers do so well in double blind testing . I bet if audio magazines would do these double blind testing Bose would fool them also . I'm not a Bose fan boy but I do like certain models they produce . For speakers considered crap by audiophiles Bose certainly does well when the blinders goes on and all you have is your ears as your guide .

I am completely unaware of any critical listening tests with Bose speakers. The closest I am aware of are the Consumer Reports tests where nobody even listened to any speakers by some point, relying on measurements instead. This was after Bose sued them for not being impressed.

Bose was never marketed to the audiopile community. Their distribution network was mostly big box and appliance stores. Radio Shack used to have a chain of mall electronic stores called Video Concepts. At one point, Bose actually paid them to put up a separate display to prevent any comparisons from happening. At one store, the department manager ran a pair of wires over to allow direct comparisons. The Bose rep would disconnect it, and the cycle continued.

Most of these stories are urban legend. They are what they are. You aren't going to get "magic" out of a rudimentary design with cut rate components. You will find people refer to them as "pleasant for background music or the garage".

 

[RVT1K]

I remember reading that comparing two, different pair of speakers side-by-side was extraordinarily difficult because of how difficult it is to match the volume of both pair with the louder ones typically sounding "better".
Any merit to that?

 

[spark1]

Actually, the NRC studies from Canada answered much of these questions. With blind testing, the vast majority of people will choose the more accurate speakers. This covers audiophiles and non-audiophiles.

I was referring to double-blind testing. This was not the methodology used.

 

[hopeless]

Th

Now that's a polite term: Value Engineering.

They did hold price points over decades through decontenting speakers, or reimagining the product for the changing marketplace. Like the revamped 501 being a 401 clone using an AM5 driver set.

 

[hopeless]

I was referring to double-blind testing. This was not the methodology used.

Just using that as a reference for preferences. Again, completely unaware of the referenced testing being done. Funny, since I was in the industry during the timeframe that would have occurred in. It was not something their reps were taking to market in any form, nor used in print marketing. Not saying it didn't happen, but not seeing anything on Google', the fancy French search engine either.
I used to have a business relationship with one of the former marketing VPs from Bose. We had many a conversation over the years on marketing and market positioning, for which the Bose case is fascinating.

 

[Nat]

The problem of equal volume with speakers none of which have flat uniform response is a thorny one.

 

[peterp1]

I've never hear of any double blind testing for Bose speakers -- if there is a link for that testing, I'd like to see it.

I cannot imagine any blind test across different speaker brands where people could not distinguish them. Different speaker brands sound different in my experience, often very different. If there was a blind speaker test where people could not distinguish two brands of speakers, I'm certain there were plenty of room acoustics tricks and very careful selection of compared speakers to synthesize an environment where they sound the same. That would not happen with two different speaker brands in a truly neutral environment (easy to see this first hand using Crutchfield's SpeakerCompare tool).

Not having a statistical preference for one brand over another is possible, of course. It would be interesting to see the Bose tests if they exist.

 

[peterp1]

I don't see almost any "Bose bashing" on AK. Most people on AK talking about Bose have direct experience with the speakers and are relaying their experience -- some of it positive, and some of it negative, just like any other brand. Bose gets it a little worse because speakers like the 901 only sound good in a very specific setting and can sound pretty awful in the wrong room or without EQ. It only counts as "bashing" in my view when somebody with no experience criticizes them, which I almost never see on AK.

 

[Nat]

There used to be a fair amount of piling on, but that was years ago, and some of us have matured a bit.

 

[maxhifi]

There used to be a fair amount of piling on, but that was years ago, and some of us have matured a bit.

I think the fact that Bose no longer markets stereo speakers makes it pointless to "bash", because the ship has sailed on being able to buy them new, and there's no active marketing campaign. So value for money is a moot point, and theres no more advertising to influence people. They also have started to look dated, so even their ever fresh looks are no longer a factor. The only real reasons to buy Bose at this point seems to me to be either if you get them very cheap on the used market, or nostalgia.

I for one would love to have a pair of original 701 to play with, because I think the design is cool. They'd have to be cheap though!

 

[hopeless]

I remember reading that comparing two, different pair of speakers side-by-side was extraordinarily difficult because of how difficult it is to match the volume of both pair with the louder ones typically sounding "better".
Any merit to that?

Very much so. The old school switchboards had volume compensation capability to even out out, even if it had to be done manually. I had a stripped down female vocal track that made it pretty easy until I gained enough experience to use pretty much everything.
You have never seen anything funnier than a guy finding out that his refrigerator sized speaker with a 15" woofer makes way less actual bass than a 6" bookshelf.
I really miss the old days. When Circuit City "Upgraded" their boards, I built an adapter that I could hook up inline with the speakers. Mostly for salesman training. I didn't want to actually sell those speakers to the crank it up guys.

 

[hopeless]

I've never hear of any double blind testing for Bose speakers -- if there is a link for that testing, I'd like to see it.

I cannot imagine any blind test across different speaker brands where people could not distinguish them. Different speaker brands sound different in my experience, often very different. If there was a blind speaker test where people could not distinguish two brands of speakers, I'm certain there were plenty of room acoustics tricks and very careful selection of compared speakers to synthesize an environment where they sound the same. That would not happen with two different speaker brands in a truly neutral environment (easy to see this first hand using Crutchfield's SpeakerCompare tool).

Not having a statistical preference for one brand over another is possible, of course. It would be interesting to see the Bose tests if they exist.

That's where I brought up the NRC studies. Having known a couple of guys who were around at that time, the whole concept was really interesting to me.

 

[David_NC]

So I'm reading here that 901s can sound ok to good when set up properly as a criticism. Isn't that true of just about every speaker? Just toe in or out my ADS bookshelf models, and a voice that was centered now comes from a left and right speaker. My open baffles sound flat without a wall behind them at a particular distance. Move to tube amps... one usually has to use matched pairs or quads, keep the bias set properly, etc. Let's not even get into how particularly one has to set up most turntables and cartridges on furniture that is very stable and generally away from speakers for best performance. It seems that most good audio equipment needs to be set up and configured properly and that not every speaker sounds good in every environment.
Of course, there are those that will say that only people ignorant of what good sound is would ever choose any Bose model in a double-blind test. If the test involved, as the OP indicated, 'experienced audiophiles', one would think that they'd heard good speakers previously. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that 901s can sound very good but are more sensitive to location and placement than many other models? My old Series IV's did back in the day (with an SX-1050). They aren't the best speakers I've heard for sure, picking out particular instruments, for example, wasn't always easy. I think this depends a lot on the type of music. Still, they always sounded good and big with impressive bass and did not suck.

 

[peterp1]

\Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that 901s can sound very good but are more sensitive to location and placement than many other models? My old Series IV's did back in the day (with an SX-1050). They aren't the best speakers I've heard for sure, picking out particular instruments, for example, wasn't always easy. I think this depends a lot on the type of music. Still, they always sounded good and big with impressive bass and did not suck.

There are many factors at play. A lot of times 901's today are sold without the EQ unit, so regardless of placement, many people hearing them today can't have a fair assessment. I suspect they are in a different league than conventional speakers as far as being more sensitive to placement.

My first 901 experience was back in the early 80's, when a friend of mine inherited quite a bit of money and dumped something like $3k (in early 80's dollars ) on a brand new Bose "550" receiver (specially made for the 901's) and a pair of 901's. It was absolutely the worst thing I've ever heard. Probably could have been fine, or maybe even great, with careful placement and tuning, but I really hated the sound as he had it set up. It wasn't an obviously bad placement of the 901's, so I think it has to be set up exactly right to get good sound. As a high-schooler working nights as a cook, plus having my own lawn service to fund my audio pursuits, I felt a bit nauseous thinking about how that 1980's $3k could have been better spent.

The second experience with 901's was in a very upscale bar above a restaurant in the early 2000's, and I was pretty excited to see 901's hanging from the ceiling -- they looked very, very cool, but when they turned the music on, the sound was awful -- the worst I've heard in that kind of setting. I'm guessing they probably had no EQ.

I think a lot of people today are like me and have only "drive by" 901 encounters in non-ideal settings. I'd love to hear them in the proper setting. I don't presume that they are awful from my "far from ideal" brushes with them, but I do suspect they are far, far more sensitive to placement than any conventional speaker. They used to have 901's set up in Bose stores in malls as recently as 10 or so years ago -- I regret not taking the time to check them out back then as I very much want to hear a properly set up pair.

 

[peterp1]

Separately, when I was in grade school spending $200 of very hard earned lawn-mowing money on speakers, after very extended listening back and forth in the store, I chose Bose 301's over Advents (which were "the' speaker back then). After I brought them home, I brought by brother's Advents into my bedroom, and ended up preferring the Advents all around in my home environment -- but it was close. Although I preferred the 301's for jazz, I ended up exchanging them for Advents. I still think fondly of the 301's, though I haven't heard 301's in 45+ years. Most of Bose's "traditional design" speakers are pretty good. I think the 601's in particular are quite highly regarded, though I've never heard a pair.

 

[David_NC]

There are many factors at play. A lot of times 901's today are sold without the EQ unit, so regardless of placement, many people hearing them today can't have a fair assessment. I suspect they are in a different league than conventional speakers as far as being more sensitive to placement.

My only two 901 experiences were back in the early 80's, when a friend of mine inherited quite a bit of money dumped something like $3k (in early 80's dollars) on a brand new the Bose "550" receiver (specially made for the 901's) and a pair of 901's. It was absolutely the worst thing I've ever heard. Probably could have been fine, or maybe even great, with careful placement and tuning, but I really hated the sound as he had it set up. It wasn't an obviously bad placement of the 901's, so I think it has to be set up right to get good sound. As a high-schooler working nights as a cook, plus having my own lawn service, to fund my audio pursuits, I felt a bit nauseated thinking about how that 1980's $3k could have been better spent.

The second experience with 901's was in a very upscale bar above a restaurant in the early 2000's, and I was pretty excited to 901's hanging from the ceiling -- they looked very, very cool, but when they turned the music on, the sound was awful -- the worst I've heard in that kind of setting. I'm guessing they probably had no EQ.

I think a lot of people are like me and have "drive by" 901 encounters. I'd love to hear them in the proper setting. I don't presume that they are awful from my "far from ideal" brushes with them, but I do suspect they are far, far more sensitive to placement than any conventional speaker. They used to have 901's set up in Bose stores in malls as recently as 10 or so years ago -- I regret not taking the time to check them out back then as I very much want to hear a properly set up pair.

I think you're right about the EQ; these are difficult speakers to use with modern equipment without a tape monitor or pre/main loop. You're also likely on to something with 'drive by' experience'; expecting to hear something at least very good but being sorely disappointed. They are simply not speakers that can be set just anywhere and sound decent.
I have a pair of AM3, the single driver version of the larger Acoustimass model AM-5. I mounted them up in the rafters of a garage facing down at an angle and put the woofer unit up there too. It's at intersection of the sloped roof and side wall, so there's definitely some bass reinforcement. With an Onkyo CR-325 CD/receiver, the setup was good for music when working on projects.
Later, I set up my secondary system in the garage (cave) but left the Bose there out of laziness mostly. ADS L880's and Sherwood S-5000II definitely sound better than the AM-3's; there's no comparison really. However, I've fired up Amazon Music a time or two and didn't pay attention to which DAC I was using (one DAC for each system). I was there enjoying the music when I turned up the volume on the Sherwood. Oops, I had been listening to the Bose / Onkyo system! Yeah, I can tell the difference between the two very easily. Still, those AM-3's were quite pleasant when simply listening vs 'critically listening'. They don't give me goosebumps like other speakers can but were enjoyable, which I think is ultimately why many of us listen to music in the first place.
Note, these AM-3's do pretty much suck when used out in the open, especially the bass. Corner loading them all seems to be key. I'll leave them setup there for a couple reasons. They sound fine for when I just want background music without sitting in the sweet spot, and I can't think of anywhere else they'd sound remotely OK!