"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
. ..
"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...

I don't know why everyone has such a 'downer' on Bose products.

Because many of them are crap. This wouldn't normally be a problem -- lots
of companies make crap products -- but for the fact that Bose products
aren't cheap, and the company makes exaggerated claims for them. I owned
Bose 901s, and it took me a year to finally get through my head just how
poor they were.


Although I would agree that their products carry a premium sale price,
I would have to say, purely from a service point of view, that they are
well
built, and appear to use quality components and PCBs. They are also
thoughtfully designed from a mechanical dismantling angle, and their
service
info and backup, if you are fortunate enough to have access to it, is
second
to none, IMHO. What other manufacturer these days, for instance, has a
proper paper manual, with a full text description of how every
sub-circuit
in the item works, full-sized fold out schematics which follow proper
schematic drawing principles and are thus a breeze to read, and have full
sized board layout diagrams from both sides, that are actually legible?

No argument, but who cares how well-built or easy-to-service a product is,
if it's not a very good product in the first place?


I would also dispute that the Wave Radio is a "profoundly mediocre
product". Compared to any other portable or semi-portable that I have
come across in recent years, I think that the sound this little unit
produces, is perfectly stunning, both in overall quality, and spatial
definition.

No offense, but you've got to be kidding.

A few years back I went to a Bose-sponsored demo at a local hotel. They
had
a demo area where you could play with the radios. Not only was there a
stunning lack of space and definition, but when you lifted the front of
the
radio, you could hear a noticebable _reduction_ in coloration. In other
words, there is severe interaction with reflections from the table. (This
ought to occur with just about any table radio, but the Wave seems to be
unique in this regard.)

I have an inexpensive TEAC "executive system" which is my at-work stereo.
It's hardly the greatest system in the world, but it handily beats a Wave.


So much so, in fact, that I have on several occasions had visitors
to my workshop comment on how impressed they've been when
they have listened to one that I've had on soak test.

I have some experience with live recording, and have owned really good
playback equipment for over 30 years. I have little respect for the
opinion
of the average listenier.


I don't know how much of it is "emperor's new clothes syndrome", but
most Bose owners that I've spoken to seem to be well pleased with their
systems and what they cost them.

The two might be intimately connected -- if something is expensive, you
tend
to like it.


Remember that proper Bose dealers have a listening room where the
products
can be fully demonstrated, so it's not as though purchasers of Bose
equipment
have been conned or fooled in any way by clever sales banter.

The consensus is that Bose has a separate demo room precisely to _prevent_
a
full demonstration. The belief is that they don't want their products
being
compared with other products.



Well, I guess that in the end, it all comes down to opinion, but if I were
slagging off Bose, I'm not sure that I would be admitting to owning a Teac.
Some of their stuff is some of the worst I've ever had the misfortune to
work on, and it also is not what I would call cheap.

When I was talking about 'visitors to my workshop', I was referring to other
service engineers, so not just 'off-the-street' casual observers. Whilst we
might not be loony audiophiles, we have between us collectively, a great
many years of experience in the business, and unless we knew what basically
sounded 'right', we would not have survived as independant repairers, as
long as we have. Therefore, contrary to your opinion of these people, I have
a great deal of time and respect for their observations.

Having owned your 901's, have you actually had much experience of their
other products on which to base your (apparently) heavily slanted opinions ?
If it took you a year to figure out that they were no good (for you) it begs
the question of how you came to buy them in the first place, and just why it
took you so long to come to the conclusion that you had seemingly been
duped, and that they were crap ?

As far as listening tests go, my colleague's dealership has many high end
systems from the likes of Yamaha and Pioneer and Technics available for
audio evaluation, alongside his Bose range, and still he manages to sell
them, so I'm not sure quite how that stacks up ...

I often wonder when attacks like this on a company start, just what the
attackers believe was the motivation for the creation of that company, and
how they believe that it manages to keep going. I mean, do you honestly
believe that a couple of guys sat down over a beer a few years ago and
decided that they would produce poorly designed equipment, and charge a
totally unrealistic price for it ? Do you think that their accountant then
agreed that this was a cracking idea, and sure to be a long term success ?
Did they then go out and hire a couple of designers from the poorest audio
background that they could find, and give them free reign to go ahead and
design exactly what they liked, no matter what it sounded like ? And having
established this business model, have continued to be successful with it for
many years ? In today's business environment, where anyone who cannot turn a
healthy profit rapidly goes to the wall, I rather think not.

I might add that I have no particular allegiance to Bose, and I wouldn't say
that their kit represents particularly good value for money - to me at
least, but I am interested to know just why their products always come up
for such a kicking on here, whenever anyone is naiive enough to post about
one. They are certainly no worse sounding, or have any worse on-paper specs
than many other makes of high end audio. Their high cost can in some
respects, although not totally, I would agree, be mitigated by the quality
of parts used, the standard of quality of construction, and the service
backup quality, should it be needed.

Arfa