"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...

Honestly, I am not attacking you, either personally, or as a sound
reproduction aficionado.

I didn't take it personally. But I did feel your view of "auidophiles" is
narrow and unfair.


Nor am I attacking your views on Bose as such. They are your views
and opinions, and if that's what you believe, then fair enough.

I disagree. I don't buy "You're entitled to your opinion." No one is. You
have to be able to defend and justify your viewst. That applies to me, to
you, to anyone. Unlike Bose, I don't make claims I can't reasonably justify.
You have every right to attack them on that basis.


My only real interest in all of this is that I hear a lot of different
gear,
including just about all of Bose's range -- that is whole systems, not
just
speakers -- and many of the items that I see, and which also cost a lot of
money, seem to have mediocre performance for their cost, but I don't see
anyone ever giving the companies which make this stuff, the same kind of
kicking that Bose always seem to get.

I'd appreciate your giving examples of mediocre/overpriced equipment (other
than very-expensive-but-indifferent audiophile stuff, which does exist and
I've heard). It would focus the discussion a bit more.

But your question about the persistant attacks on Bose _is_ reasonable --
though I thought I answered it explicitly, twice.

Bose makes outrageous, unjustifed claims for their products, claims that any
experienced listener can quickly hear are invalid. Claims that can
reasonably be considered lies. Let's look at some, taken from their
Website...

"lush, room-filling sound" This expression has been used for decades. I'm
not sure anyone knows exactly what it means, other than "big" and
"enveloping". The 901s approximate this. But there's nothing large-sounding
or "lush" about the Wave's sound. I've never heard really small speakers
produce big sound. A parallel example is the Tivoli Model One. Though
designed by Henry Kloss, it just isn't very good. But Tivoli doesn't make
the exaggerated claims Bose does.

"acclaimed for lifelike performance" By whom? By people familiar with live
sound and its recording?

"a bold standard in audio performance beyond that of conventional bookshelf
stereos" I don't know what Bose means by a "bookshelf stereo". But I can
easily assemble a simple component system that fits on a bookshelf and
grossly outperforms the Bose -- for the same money.

"rivals the performance of large component stereos" How closely does it
rival them? How large is large? I have a large component system in my living
room. Do you honestly believe the Acoustic Wave system "rivals" it in any
reasonable sense of that verb?

"...enhanced performance—at all listening levels. You'll hear the same clear
musical nuances whether you turn the volume up or keep it soft."

Anyone familiar with driver design knows that, the smaller the driver, the
greater the excursion needed to produce a given volume level. The small
speakers in the Wave are not going to be able to play at really high levels
before distortion sets in. The Tivoli has a similar problem -- it can't play
at high levels without severe compression.

"With its deeper tones and even more lifelike sound, you might just feel
like you’re sitting in the front row." Well, you might. But my system has a
retail price of 100 times that of the Bose, and I have to play really good
recordings (such as the Mahler 5th on Water Lily Acoustics, or some of my
own recordings) to even _begin_ to get the feeling of hearing "the real
thing". You have to own rather expensive speakers -- and then augment them
with additional channels of extracted or synthesized ambience through extra
speakers -- to even begin to approach what one hears in a concert hall.

It's at this point that advertising exaggeration segues into lying. Did the
person who wrote this ever bother to attend a live concert to judge how
closely the Wave approximates that experience? Probably not. But then
there's always that waffle word, "might". And its presence suggests that
whoever penned this sentence knows that the rest of it is a lie. *

Bose's advertising is aimed at musically and sonically illiterate people. It
uses buzz words designed to produce an emotional reaction that the equipment
itself is incapable of eliciting.

I know of no other audio company that makes such claims. I've seen plenty of
loony, absurd, outrageous, or contrary-to-fact claims made over the past 40
years, but I don't remember any company that has made so many, so often, or
so persistently, as Bose.

The only arguable exception is QUAD, whose slogan has long been "The closest
approach to the original sound." This is a "relative" claim, but it
nevertheless avers that QUAD speakers are the best (or the least-bad). QUAD,
at least, has more than 50 years of listeners and reviewers raving about
their products.

Some reviewers feel the ESL-57, QUAD's first speaker, to be the best speaker
ever made. QUAD's current top-of-the-line speaker, which retails for
$11,000, is considered by some reviewers to the best speaker available,
regardless of size or price. (Before you object, note that $11,000 is less
than the cost of a decent new car.) QUAD has a track record of producing
genuinely high-quality products that listeners, reviewers, and recording
engineers feel give an honest representation of the recording, and a
reasonable approximation of the original sound. Do Bose products perform at
this level? They're light years from it.


On numerous occasions, I have seen questions from posters on s.e.r.
involving simple problems on Bose kit. Nothing to do with the sound or
anything audio related at all. As soon as such a post like this appears,
I can absolutely guarantee that someone like you (and again, I don't mean
that in any personally offensive way) will jump on the post immediately,
telling them that they have bought rubbish and have been lied to and that
they should expect nothing but trouble and so on.

I don't know about the "trouble" part (as far as I know, Bose stuff isn't
unreliable), but I am bothered when I see that someone has wasted their
money. And that's what I'm trying to set right.

It's my opinion that people buy Bose because they're seduced by the
literature, not the sound (the 901s being the only exception).

In the unlikely event the OP is still reading this, I hope he will find some
non-loony audiophile (such as myself) who'll help him pick out some decent,
reasonably priced components that will give him much more listening
satisfaction.

I think most people are more-critical listeners than they think. One of my
co-workers at the camera/music store was an intelligent young man (who was
also a professional photographer on the side) who professed no particular
interest in sound reproduction. He owned Bose 501s and a Pioneer receiver,
and that was fine. After leaving to work for Bendix Field Engineering, I
returned one day to purchase something. He was raving about these great
speakers he'd just heard -- the Dahlquist DQ-10s -- which I had already
bought! He was so impressed with them that upgraded the rest of his system
with "real" (???) audiophile electronics. And he was an "audiophile". At
least, not to start.


Well, ok. The stuff is expensive. I don't dispute that. Maybe their claims
are exagerated in the way that they are worded, but I really don't think
that they can be accused of deliberately lying in this age of litigation.
As
far as their integrity as a company goes, I can only judge them from a
service point of view, and I have to say that I have always found them
helpful, and technically competent, which is a lot more than can be said
for
many other mainstream companies. I would also reiterate the point that I
made before about them staying in business. If you are in business
yourself,
as I am, then you will know that no matter how good a company's marketing
hype is, if they really are producing products that are no good at all,
they
will surely not survive in today's highly competitive market place. The
fact
that they have stayed in business for so long so far, must say something
for
their products. And before you say that it's just down to generation after
generation of people stupid enough to be taken in by their hype, I really
don't believe that washes over that period of time.

The issue here, I think, is not whether or not Bose products are "good"
(highly debatable) or "good for the money" (definitely not), but whether
people like them. Which apparently they do, or they wouldn't buy them. But
customer satisfaction does not imply "quality" in the absolute sense. It
only indicates they're giving the customers what they think they want.

And by the way, ignorant people _can_ be taken in by hype. I was.

Have you ever heard Korngold's music for "The Sea Hawk"? The title is an
over-the-top, in-your-face orchestral "splat" that's great fun to listen to,
and a challenge for any audio system. You can buy $500 worth of components
that will do a creditable job of conveying this music's excitement. Can the
$500 Wave do that?

I don't know what the peak SPL of this piece would be in a hall, but it has
to be at least 100dB. It's highly unlikely the Wave can produce that level
cleanly, whereas a decent compact component system could approximate it.


I'm really not defending Bose as a company just because they are Bose.
I neither particularly like nor dislike their products -- I just fix 'em
up
until they match their quoted specs. I am merely acting as an advocate
for them, because I am interested in this "devil incarnate" image that
some people seem intent on thrusting on them.

I can't read other peope's minds, so I don't fully know their motivations.
But if Bose didn't make such outrageous, unjustifiable claims, it's unlikely
they'd come in for so much criticism.


However, that said, I still think that the little Wave Radio -- which for
lack of a carrying handle, is still really only a portable in size,
concept
and general construction -- sounds a great deal better than similarly
sized
items from other manufacturers, designed to fulfill a similar purpose.

It might -- though I object to comparing a plug-in product to a
battery-operated portable. I'd have to hear a comparison to properly pass
judgement. And Bose doesn't make that comparison -- they compare the Wave to
"much larger" component systems.


I don't necessarily believe that the elevated cost of a Wave Radio is
justified by this. It's just my opinion that it sounds better than those
others. Nothing technical. Nothing clever. It just sounds better to my
uneducated service engineer's ear.

See above.


As for Quad and Peter Walker, it would indeed be strange if I did not know
their products, as they were manufactured not far from where I live. I
have
no problem with the sound reproduction of their equipment, although Peter
Walker did have a few odd design ideas that were less than mainstream.

Such as the "current dumping" amp.


As far as the kit itself goes, I have never been particularly impressed
with
the standard of construction, nor the quality of components employed.

I've worked on QUAD amps, and found them a bit "wispy".


They are adequate, nothing more. The internal construction of the
electrostatic panels, borders on sloppy in many cases. And this is
expensive gear too, in its day.

The ESL-57 had a reputation for less-than-superb build quality. The current
stuff, maunfactured in China, is supposedly better.


And that now really really is all that I've got the time and inclination
to
say on the matter. It honestly isn't that important in my otherwise
busy-enough life. Either you understand what I'm trying to say, or you
don't. Either way, I'm not that bothered.

No, I do understand what you're trying to say. I just feel you're defending
Bose for the wrong reasons.


* I'm aware that a lie is, strictly speaking, an intentional untruth. But it
someone neglects or refuses to educate themselves, then an error of fact
slides toward becoming a lie.