I have a Wave Music System here that won't take CDs. This unit is
controllable only with a remote since there's no buttons on the radio
itself. I know the remote works because I've tried it with another
Wave Radio.

The eject button on the remote does nothing, neither does the "CD"
button. I thought there might be a CD stuck in the player, but there
doesn't appear to be. Strangely enough, pressing the CD or Eject
button causes absolutely nothing to happen, not even that little dot
lights up that normally does when an IR signal is hitting the unit.
But, I get a response on the VFD when I press CD or Eject with the
working radio even with no CD inserted. This seems like a logic
problem, but all other functions work so that seems unlikely. Anyone
familiar with these?

Asking for assistance with a Bose product is asking for trouble.

The Wave system (which I've heard) is a profoundly mediocre product sold at
a premium price. This failure would be a good opportunity to listen around
for something better. You should be able to find a $200 "executive" system
at Costco with substantially better sound. It won't be a "single-piece"
system, but a single-piece system that delivered really good sound would be
large and unwieldy.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
. ..
Asking for assistance with a Bose product is asking for trouble.

The Wave system (which I've heard) is a profoundly mediocre product sold
at
a premium price. This failure would be a good opportunity to listen around
for something better. You should be able to find a $200 "executive" system
at Costco with substantially better sound. It won't be a "single-piece"
system, but a single-piece system that delivered really good sound would
be
large and unwieldy.



I don't know why everyone has such a 'downer' on Bose products. I do a lot
of work for a Bose main dealer, so most of their product range crosses my
bench at some time or another - although I have not experienced the problem
that the OP is having with his Wave Radio, so am unfortunately unable to
offer any particularly constructive advice on it.

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 ?

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. 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 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. 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. They have bought of their own free will, having listened,
played with, and decided exactly what product suited them, and with full
knowledge of what the purchase price was going to be. They could just as
easily have walked out and gone to Costco or wherever, and bought something
cheaper, had they have wanted to ...

Arfa

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:27:49 -0700, "
wrote:

I have a Wave Music System here that won't take CDs. This unit is
controllable only with a remote since there's no buttons on the radio
itself. I know the remote works because I've tried it with another
Wave Radio.

The eject button on the remote does nothing, neither does the "CD"
button. I thought there might be a CD stuck in the player, but there
doesn't appear to be. Strangely enough, pressing the CD or Eject
button causes absolutely nothing to happen, not even that little dot
lights up that normally does when an IR signal is hitting the unit.
But, I get a response on the VFD when I press CD or Eject with the
working radio even with no CD inserted. This seems like a logic
problem, but all other functions work so that seems unlikely. Anyone
familiar with these?


The current CD and non-CD radios both appear to be identical apart
from the lack of a CD slot (at least externally). It sounds like it
might think it's a non-CD radio. You would need the service manual to
find out what the difference between them is. There might be a
soldered jumper that tells it whether or not it's a CD radio, or the
micro controller might be different. If it's not detecting the CD
mechanism because of a bad cable, or failure of the CD mechanism, it
might go into non-CD mode. Have you tried resetting it by removing
the backup battery and leaving it unplugged over night?
Andy Cuffe

On Oct 15, 2:50 pm, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
Asking for assistance with a Bose product is asking for trouble.

The Wave system (which I've heard) is a profoundly mediocre product sold at
a premium price. This failure would be a good opportunity to listen around
for something better. You should be able to find a $200 "executive" system
at Costco with substantially better sound. It won't be a "single-piece"
system, but a single-piece system that delivered really good sound would be
large and unwieldy.

"Which I've heard". So if you haven't heard it first hand then how the
**** can you say for yourself whether or not it is a"profoundly
mediocre product solt at a premium price."

If you can read, the original poster was asking about his CD player
not functioning properly, not for an opinion about Bose products.

This is sci.electronics.repair, not rec.audio.opinion.

I've had enough of your **** and your off topic posts, a complant to
Comcast should teach you some manners.

"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.

"Lynn" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 15, 2:50 pm, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

Asking for assistance with a Bose product is asking for trouble.

The Wave system (which I've heard) is a profoundly mediocre product sold
at a premium price. This failure would be a good opportunity to listen
around
for something better. You should be able to find a $200 "executive"
system
at Costco with substantially better sound. It won't be a "single-piece"
system, but a single-piece system that delivered really good sound would
be
large and unwieldy.

"Which I've heard". So if you haven't heard it first hand then how the
**** can
you say for yourself whether or not it is a"profoundly mediocre product
sold
at a premium price."

Because I've heard it, at length. That's what I said -- I've actually heard
it -- I was not repeating someone else's opinion.


If you can read, the original poster was asking about his CD player
not functioning properly, not for an opinion about Bose products.

It's sometimes appropriate to point out that a malfunctioning product should
be dumped for something better.

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Asking for assistance with a Bose product is asking for trouble.

The Wave system (which I've heard) is a profoundly mediocre product sold at
a premium price.

Seconded. The same is true of all Bose products in fact.

Graham

Lynn wrote:

On Oct 15, 2:50 pm, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
Asking for assistance with a Bose product is asking for trouble.

The Wave system (which I've heard) is a profoundly mediocre product sold at
a premium price. This failure would be a good opportunity to listen around
for something better. You should be able to find a $200 "executive" system
at Costco with substantially better sound. It won't be a "single-piece"
system, but a single-piece system that delivered really good sound would be
large and unwieldy.

"Which I've heard". So if you haven't heard it first hand then how the
**** can you say for yourself whether or not it is a"profoundly
mediocre product solt at a premium price."

If you can read, the original poster was asking about his CD player
not functioning properly, not for an opinion about Bose products.

This is sci.electronics.repair, not rec.audio.opinion.

I've had enough of your **** and your off topic posts, a complant to
Comcast should teach you some manners.

It's not off-topic and your idea that a complaint is any way even remotely
acceptable or warranted is idiotic.

Comcast will merely laugh at you. I suggest you look at ANY ISPs terms and
conditions to look for the section that says annoying Lynn is a breach of the T's
& Cs.

Graham

William Sommerwerck wrote:

"Arfa Daily" wrote

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.

I understand that Bose company policy is to ensure that no possibility of a
proper A-B comparison can ever take place.

The spin they put on this is merely another example of what bull****ters they
are.

Graham

"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

On Oct 15, 8:33 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
Lynn wrote:
On Oct 15, 2:50 pm, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
Asking for assistance with a Bose product is asking for trouble.

The Wave system (which I've heard) is a profoundly mediocre product sold at
a premium price. This failure would be a good opportunity to listen around
for something better. You should be able to find a $200 "executive" system
at Costco with substantially better sound. It won't be a "single-piece"
system, but a single-piece system that delivered really good sound would be
large and unwieldy.

"Which I've heard". So if you haven't heard it first hand then how the
**** can you say for yourself whether or not it is a"profoundly
mediocre product solt at a premium price."

If you can read, the original poster was asking about his CD player
not functioning properly, not for an opinion about Bose products.

This is sci.electronics.repair, not rec.audio.opinion.

I've had enough of your **** and your off topic posts, a complant to
Comcast should teach you some manners.

It's not off-topic and your idea that a complaint is any way even remotely
acceptable or warranted is idiotic.

Comcast will merely laugh at you. I suggest you look at ANY ISPs terms and
conditions to look for the section that says annoying Lynn is a breach of the T's
& Cs.

Graham- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Get screwed, you pussy licker.

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...

Well, I guess that in the end, it all comes down to opinion...

No, it doesn't. As the elderly Chinese man says in "Gremlins"... "To hear,
one need only listen."


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.

I'm no fan of TEAC tape recorders. (I've owned one, and heard others,
including TASCAM.) They just don't sound very good. But some of their
stuff -- such as their executive systems -- are decent.


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.

Of course... They're your customers. How else would you feel about the
people who purchase the services that keep you in business?

My problem is that your/their description of the sound of the Wave is so at
odds with, not only what I've actually heard, but the obvious limitations of
two small speakers sitting almost on top of each other in a little box, that
it's simply unbelievable. You can't get good imaging out of speakers about a
foot apart.


Having owned your 901's, have you actually had much experience of their
other products on which to base your (apparently) heavily slanted
opinions?

"Heavily slanted" implies that my opinions are based on something other than
a resasonably objective view of the issues involved.

I've had experience with several Bose products (see below), none of which
even began to live up to the exaggerated claims made for it. They might have
other products that are of excellent quality. But Bose has a truly lousy
track record among serious listeners. When there is so much other "good
stuff" out there that costs the same or less, why bother with Bose.

About 20 years ago I bought a Denon DT-400. (I think that's the model.) This
was a two-piece table radio that sold for $400. The speakers were two-way,
and had excellent sound -- far, far superior to the Bose. Furthermore, you
could separate them for "real" stereo.

I recently retired it for some Lux components I pulled out of storage and a
pair of Mission speakers.


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?

Did you start out knowing everything? Has your judgement about things always
been correct?

I worked for a year in a photo/hi-fi store. Bose was one of our top brands.
I heard the 901s nearly every day, and brought in familiar recordings for
comparison. The 901s were better than anything else (including AR & KLH).
(We also sold the Bose 501s and 301s, which did not wildly impress me.)

I bought two pairs of 901s. (I had then, and still have, surround sound.)
When they arrived and I hooked them up, I was utterly surprised to discover
that they sounded (overall) NO BETTER than my KLH 11 FM portable. They were
not particularly clean nor transparent. It took me a year to figure out they
were junk. Sorry about my "slowness", but we're all ignorant or hide-bound
in various ways.

I replaced the 901s with DQ-10s. The Dahlquists delivered almost everything
the Boses only promised. They actually produced a plausible, layered image
in which you could hear the relationship of the ambient to the direct sound
(in good recordings, of course). The 901s, in contrast, generate a
artificial ambient "spew".

The only "honest" review of the 901s appeared in Stereophile. Bose waited
several years to send Gordon a pair, because they no doubt knew he would
trash them. He did. Indeed, he didn't criticize them enough. You owe it to
yourself to read the review. You can find a link in this Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose_Corporation

By the way, I altered the Wikipedia article to correct a misquote from the
Stereophile review, and added an additional quote.


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've never considered Yamaha or Technics "high-end". Pioneer used to sell
high-end components; I don't know if they still manufacture them. The idea
that Bose equipment is "high-end" is ludicrous beyond belief.

I have plenty of experience with live sound and live recording. If I thought
Bose 901s provided "the closest approach to the original sound", you can bet
I'd own them, despite the fact they aren't horribly expensive. They don't,
and I don't.


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?

Well, there are people who do that, but I don't think Dr. Bose was one of
them. Rather, I think Dr. Bose is a cloth-eared intellectual idiot who has a
poor understanding of the (proper?) philosophy of sound reproduction.

The first Bose product was the pricey 2201, a kind of sophisticated "Sweet
16". Each speaker system was an eighth of a sphere containing 11 full-range
Carbonneau (sic) drivers. They were driven by a Hammond Organ transistor
amplifier, and used active EQ to flatten the response.

Or more precisely, to shape it. You see, the gentleman who founded
Soundstream (I forget his name) worked with Dr. Bose to determine what a
"perfect" sound source radiating from a corner into eighth-space would sound
like. (I won't go into the technical details, but "on paper" their research
made sense.) They claimed that the sound of the 2201 was indistinguishable
from a perfect eighth-space radiator.

In other words, within the context of eighth-sphere radiation, the 2201s
were perfect. (This claim, which was covered in moderate detail in Bose's
early literature, was an influence on my purchase. I had not, at that time,
heard QUADs. Or Advents, for that matter.) I no more believe this than I
believe Emanual Velikovsky's writings. The only speaker I've ever heard that
sounds "live" was the Plasmatronics. Even the best non-ionic speakers lag
noticeably behind, and the 901s are light-years distant.

Part of the Bose design theory (which applies to a greater or lesser extent
to all their speakers) is that single overwhelming factor in a speaker's
sound quality is its omnidirectional power response. Though this theory
(which strongly inform's CU's speaker tests) has never been properly
discredited, it is patently absurd, as one can easily find speakers of
extremely high sound quality that have relatively poor omnidirectional power
response.

Just because someone has a PhD and comes from a country noted for its
intellectual achievements, doesn't mean he actually _understands_ anything.

By the way, the current Bose literature ignores the original claim of sonic
perfection. This is likely because they figure the non-audiophile reader
won't understand it, but it's also possible that such a claim would bring
the roof down on them.


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 [sic] 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.

There is at least one Website whose owner claims to have dissected Bose
speakers and discovered relatively cheap drivers of questionable quality, as
well as inferior cabinetry.

You are assuming that high-quality products will be commercially successful,
low-quality products won't, and their success or failure accurately reflects
their quality. 'tain't so, McGee. The easiest way to make money is to lie.
Bose doesn't tell the truth, and is also probably lying (ie, consiously
speaking an untruth).


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 naive enough
to post about one.

Because Bose speaks with forked tongue. Their products aren't very good, but
Bose claims there are none better. Only one other audio company makes such
claims -- QUAD -- but it has real justification for them.

People need to be told over and over and over again that Bose's claims are
simply not true. And if all they want is a single-box plug 'n play unit,
they're getting exactly what they deserve.

Bose products are the market equivalent of the fruitwood stereo console of
45 years ago -- convenient, attractive, and mediocre. But at least the
fruitwood console was cheaper than separate compoents. Bose products aren't.
The customer spends more and gets less.


They are certainly no worse sounding, or have any worse on-paper
specs than many other makes of high-end audio.

What in the name of heaven do you consider to be "high-end" audio? I have a
true high-end system (Apogee/Parasound), and I'd be delighted to put it up
against Bose. I have no doubt what your reaction would be -- you'd smash the
Boses with a sledgehammer.

I recently purchased a pair of (discontinued) Mission M71i speakers for my
bedroom. They listed for $250 when new. You could combine them with a modest
receiver and CD player for a total of less than $500, and get much, Much,
MUCH better sound than a Wave radio.

As for paper specs... 30+ years ago I decided to buy a cassette deck. The
TEAC 450 was new then, and had gotten rave reviews from Julian Hirsch. I
could buy the TEAC for $360 at Stereo Discounters, or a Nakamichi 700 for
$700. I went with the TEAC.

Big mistake. Though the TEAC had very low flutter and reasonably wide
response (for a cassette deck), it didn't sound very good. It was
grainy-sounding and "flattened" the acoustic space. (Naturally, JH mentioned
none of this in his review.) I replaced it with a Nakamich 700 II, which was
almost perfectly transparent dubbing records. (Live music was a different
matter.)


The differences between good and poor equipment are easily audible. Don't
take my word for it -- go out and listen for yourself.

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

Well, I guess that in the end, it all comes down to opinion...

No, it doesn't. As the elderly Chinese man says in "Gremlins"... "To hear,
one need only listen."


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.

I'm no fan of TEAC tape recorders. (I've owned one, and heard others,
including TASCAM.) They just don't sound very good. But some of their
stuff -- such as their executive systems -- are decent.


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.

Of course... They're your customers. How else would you feel about the
people who purchase the services that keep you in business?

My problem is that your/their description of the sound of the Wave is so
at
odds with, not only what I've actually heard, but the obvious limitations
of
two small speakers sitting almost on top of each other in a little box,
that
it's simply unbelievable. You can't get good imaging out of speakers about
a
foot apart.


Having owned your 901's, have you actually had much experience of their
other products on which to base your (apparently) heavily slanted
opinions?

"Heavily slanted" implies that my opinions are based on something other
than
a resasonably objective view of the issues involved.

I've had experience with several Bose products (see below), none of which
even began to live up to the exaggerated claims made for it. They might
have
other products that are of excellent quality. But Bose has a truly lousy
track record among serious listeners. When there is so much other "good
stuff" out there that costs the same or less, why bother with Bose.

About 20 years ago I bought a Denon DT-400. (I think that's the model.)
This
was a two-piece table radio that sold for $400. The speakers were two-way,
and had excellent sound -- far, far superior to the Bose. Furthermore, you
could separate them for "real" stereo.

I recently retired it for some Lux components I pulled out of storage and
a
pair of Mission speakers.


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?

Did you start out knowing everything? Has your judgement about things
always
been correct?

I worked for a year in a photo/hi-fi store. Bose was one of our top
brands.
I heard the 901s nearly every day, and brought in familiar recordings for
comparison. The 901s were better than anything else (including AR & KLH).
(We also sold the Bose 501s and 301s, which did not wildly impress me.)

I bought two pairs of 901s. (I had then, and still have, surround sound.)
When they arrived and I hooked them up, I was utterly surprised to
discover
that they sounded (overall) NO BETTER than my KLH 11 FM portable. They
were
not particularly clean nor transparent. It took me a year to figure out
they
were junk. Sorry about my "slowness", but we're all ignorant or hide-bound
in various ways.

I replaced the 901s with DQ-10s. The Dahlquists delivered almost
everything
the Boses only promised. They actually produced a plausible, layered image
in which you could hear the relationship of the ambient to the direct
sound
(in good recordings, of course). The 901s, in contrast, generate a
artificial ambient "spew".

The only "honest" review of the 901s appeared in Stereophile. Bose waited
several years to send Gordon a pair, because they no doubt knew he would
trash them. He did. Indeed, he didn't criticize them enough. You owe it to
yourself to read the review. You can find a link in this Wikipedia
article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose_Corporation

By the way, I altered the Wikipedia article to correct a misquote from the
Stereophile review, and added an additional quote.


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've never considered Yamaha or Technics "high-end". Pioneer used to sell
high-end components; I don't know if they still manufacture them. The idea
that Bose equipment is "high-end" is ludicrous beyond belief.

I have plenty of experience with live sound and live recording. If I
thought
Bose 901s provided "the closest approach to the original sound", you can
bet
I'd own them, despite the fact they aren't horribly expensive. They don't,
and I don't.


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?

Well, there are people who do that, but I don't think Dr. Bose was one of
them. Rather, I think Dr. Bose is a cloth-eared intellectual idiot who has
a
poor understanding of the (proper?) philosophy of sound reproduction.

The first Bose product was the pricey 2201, a kind of sophisticated "Sweet
16". Each speaker system was an eighth of a sphere containing 11
full-range
Carbonneau (sic) drivers. They were driven by a Hammond Organ transistor
amplifier, and used active EQ to flatten the response.

Or more precisely, to shape it. You see, the gentleman who founded
Soundstream (I forget his name) worked with Dr. Bose to determine what a
"perfect" sound source radiating from a corner into eighth-space would
sound
like. (I won't go into the technical details, but "on paper" their
research
made sense.) They claimed that the sound of the 2201 was indistinguishable
from a perfect eighth-space radiator.

In other words, within the context of eighth-sphere radiation, the 2201s
were perfect. (This claim, which was covered in moderate detail in Bose's
early literature, was an influence on my purchase. I had not, at that
time,
heard QUADs. Or Advents, for that matter.) I no more believe this than I
believe Emanual Velikovsky's writings. The only speaker I've ever heard
that
sounds "live" was the Plasmatronics. Even the best non-ionic speakers lag
noticeably behind, and the 901s are light-years distant.

Part of the Bose design theory (which applies to a greater or lesser
extent
to all their speakers) is that single overwhelming factor in a speaker's
sound quality is its omnidirectional power response. Though this theory
(which strongly inform's CU's speaker tests) has never been properly
discredited, it is patently absurd, as one can easily find speakers of
extremely high sound quality that have relatively poor omnidirectional
power
response.

Just because someone has a PhD and comes from a country noted for its
intellectual achievements, doesn't mean he actually _understands_
anything.

By the way, the current Bose literature ignores the original claim of
sonic
perfection. This is likely because they figure the non-audiophile reader
won't understand it, but it's also possible that such a claim would bring
the roof down on them.


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 [sic] 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.

There is at least one Website whose owner claims to have dissected Bose
speakers and discovered relatively cheap drivers of questionable quality,
as
well as inferior cabinetry.

You are assuming that high-quality products will be commercially
successful,
low-quality products won't, and their success or failure accurately
reflects
their quality. 'tain't so, McGee. The easiest way to make money is to lie.
Bose doesn't tell the truth, and is also probably lying (ie, consiously
speaking an untruth).


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 naive enough
to post about one.

Because Bose speaks with forked tongue. Their products aren't very good,
but
Bose claims there are none better. Only one other audio company makes such
claims -- QUAD -- but it has real justification for them.

People need to be told over and over and over again that Bose's claims are
simply not true. And if all they want is a single-box plug 'n play unit,
they're getting exactly what they deserve.

Bose products are the market equivalent of the fruitwood stereo console of
45 years ago -- convenient, attractive, and mediocre. But at least the
fruitwood console was cheaper than separate compoents. Bose products
aren't.
The customer spends more and gets less.


They are certainly no worse sounding, or have any worse on-paper
specs than many other makes of high-end audio.

What in the name of heaven do you consider to be "high-end" audio? I have
a
true high-end system (Apogee/Parasound), and I'd be delighted to put it up
against Bose. I have no doubt what your reaction would be -- you'd smash
the
Boses with a sledgehammer.

I recently purchased a pair of (discontinued) Mission M71i speakers for my
bedroom. They listed for $250 when new. You could combine them with a
modest
receiver and CD player for a total of less than $500, and get much, Much,
MUCH better sound than a Wave radio.

As for paper specs... 30+ years ago I decided to buy a cassette deck. The
TEAC 450 was new then, and had gotten rave reviews from Julian Hirsch. I
could buy the TEAC for $360 at Stereo Discounters, or a Nakamichi 700 for
$700. I went with the TEAC.

Big mistake. Though the TEAC had very low flutter and reasonably wide
response (for a cassette deck), it didn't sound very good. It was
grainy-sounding and "flattened" the acoustic space. (Naturally, JH
mentioned
none of this in his review.) I replaced it with a Nakamich 700 II, which
was
almost perfectly transparent dubbing records. (Live music was a different
matter.)


The differences between good and poor equipment are easily audible. Don't
take my word for it -- go out and listen for yourself.


OK. Well, I'm not about to argue this one into the ground with you. Long
long ago, I learned from participation in other groups that those who
perceive themselves to be audiophiles, push their views with a similar level
of evangelical fervour to that of Jehova's Witnesses, to the point where
they feel that they can justify ridiculously priced cables and amplifiers
which cost more than a small car. That said, I will address a few of the
comments that you have made.

No matter what the on-paper specs say, whether one piece of kit sounds good
to one person, and another does not, *is* a matter of their opinion, in much
the same way that any other comparison is - cars for instance.

With reference to the opinions of visitors to my workshop, I think you need
to take the time to read what I said a little more slowly. I was at pains to
point out that these were not punters off the street - what you have taken
to be my customers - but other service engineers. That is friends and
colleagues similarly employed as professional service engineers, and with
many years of experience in repairing the stuff. This does not necessarily
imply that they are pedantic audiophiles, but that they have a good enough
ear to know whether something sounds correctly functional, as designed.

When I am describing the sound from the Wave Radio, I am comparing it to
similarly sized portable or semi-portable units, not mini hifi systems. I am
talking the likes of Sharps and Sonys and Panasonics, which also have their
speakers a foot apart, and many of which employ similar 'fiddle factor'
phasing of the speaker signals, to make the speakers *appear* to be rather
more than a foot apart. When you do this sort of comparing apples with
apples, rather than your sort of comparing apples with oranges, the Wave
Radio leaves most of those other standing for both overall sound quality and
spatial definition. Maybe it does do this by artificial colouration of the
sound, and maybe that doesn't rest easy with a purist such as yourself, but
in my opinion - there's that word again - it does make it sound more
pleasing than most other *similarly sized* items, albeit for a price
premium.

I do believe that your view of Bose is slanted, because you seriously
believe them as a company, to be liars and cheats, so no matter what anyone
else may say or think, you and your audiophile chums will shout them down
with those beliefs. I don't know what you call that. I still call it
'slanted'.

Did I start out knowing everything ? Was my judgement never wrong ? No, of
course not on both counts, but I fail to see how your story of having worked
in a photo store listening to 901's every day for a year, thinking that they
were better than anything else in the shop, explains how you then bought
some, took them home, and found yourself horrified by their apparently poor
performance. And then took a further year to declare them "junk" ???

As far as what I consider to be 'high end' goes, I am talking everyday
brands, that are purchased by everyday folks, but which lie at the top end
of the price range, and tend to be sold more by hifi shops than electrical
warehouse barns. I'm talking Jaguar rather than Honda, but not Ferrari or
Lambo. Most output from the likes of Sharp and Sanyo and Philips and
Goodmans and Samsung and Toshiba and so on, does not fall into that
category. Much, although not all, of Technics does. Much, although not all,
of Yamaha does. Most of Pioneer's efforts do. Some Teac gear does and so on.
The stuff that you are referring to as 'high end', I and most ordinary
people, would refer to as super high end, where the prices are nothing short
of ridiculous for what you are getting. In fact I would say that it is a
perfect example of the law of diminishing returns. Many of the super high
end tube amps that I have seen for repair, are little different from a half
way decent amp that you would have found on the end of a tabletop radio, 40
years ago. And people are stupid enough to pay $2000 for them ... Now in my
opinion, the companies that make and market this sort of thing are the real
liars and robbers, and the people who buy them are the real audiophools ...

As far as the differences between good and poor equipment being clearly
audible, I would not dispute that. I am a service engineer - I mend the
rotten stuff for a living and have for 35 years - so I have a great deal of
experience listening to everything from Korean transistor radios, to the
most expensive amps you can buy. What I would dispute is that you can hear a
lot of difference between a Pioneer $500 rig and a Bloggs and Bollockchops
9000 series Mark 64 monobloc as recommended by Sebastion Cringeworthy-****
in Audiophile's Weekly, and costing $2500 ...

And that's all I'm going to say on the matter for now.

Except I knew 'reign' looked wrong when I typed it. Let's try 'rein' instead
d;~}

Arfa

Hi!

The Wave system (which I've heard) is a profoundly mediocre product
sold at a premium price.

Premium price? Oh yeah. Absolutely. (At least to my way of thinking...)

Mediocre product? Well, I suppose it depends on what you have in mind when
you listen to music. The first time I had the chance to hear one was at a
friend's house. I walked in the door, far away from the room in which it was
playing and was immediately surprised. I didn't remember any big stereo ever
being in the place, and one wasn't. The music was coming from this little
Bose Wave player. I was astounded by the performance, but the price and the
fact that new ones have only remote controls put me off of it.

Tivoli Audio's little table radio sounds fairly good to me and the price was
a lot better. The company was also good to deal with, although I wanted to
keep the flood damaged unit I had and build a plywood cabinet for it, just
to be funny.

William

"William R. Walsh" m
wrote in message news:i%CRi.160223$Fc.108524@attbi_s21...

The Wave system (which I've heard) is a profoundly mediocre product
sold at a premium price.

Premium price? Oh, yeah. Absolutely. (At least to my way of thinking...)

Mediocre product? Well, I suppose it depends on what you have in mind
when you listen to music. The first time I had the chance to hear one was
at a friend's house. I walked in the door, far away from the room in which
it was playing and was immediately surprised.

This has nothing to do with the quality of the Wave system. It's a
well-known psychoacoustic effect -- almost any audio system sounds better
_outside_ the room in which it's playing than in the room. I have theories
about this, but I won't speculate.


I didn't remember any big stereo ever being in the place, and one wasn't.
The music was coming from this little Bose Wave player. I was astounded
by the performance, but the price and the fact that new ones have only
remote controls put me off of it.

For what a Wave CD/radio system costs, you can buy high-quality components
with _much_ better sound. That's what makes the Wave system such a ripoff --
people think they're getting great sound and good value, when they're
actually getting mediocre sound and paying three times what it _should_
cost.


Tivoli Audio's little table radio sounds fairly good to me and the price
was
a lot better. The company was also good to deal with, although I wanted
to keep the flood damaged unit I had and build a plywood cabinet for it,
just to be funny.

I bought a Tivoli Model One when they first came out. It was Henry Kloss's
last product, so it must be great, right?

It wasn't. The bass was thick and thumpy. (Stuffing the port helps.) It
won't play very loud without sounding "gagged". And it One sounds better at
a distance.

I just sold two KLH Model Eight table radios. Despite the fact that the
Eight was designed 45 years earlier, the overall sound is much better. It
has a fullness and "projection" missing from the One.

Mpffff....

I have heard three (3) Bose "Wave Radios". One, quite recently as
purchased by our neighbor upstate, Pat, an 84 YO woman puchased it as
a treat to herself the week she moved back into her house that was
flooded and nearly destroyed 15 months ago.

In her tiny little and very busy little living room, it sounded
adequate (at best), but I am sure that for her vintage ears it sounded
just fine. She found the remote control with its (relatively) few
buttons met her needs, the radio took up a small footprint and no
floor space, so she was a happy camper. And she had a "NAME BRAND"
radio - something that meant something to her. I did not ask what she
paid, but I suspect it was over $300, as this one had the CD and so
forth.

For that same (just over) $300, I purchased over the last 15 months as
follows: Revox B251 integrated amp (already had the proper remote), AR
TSW 110 speakers, Yamaha CD changer, Harmon-Kardon H500 tuner. The
Revox had a sticky relay, easily corrected. The rest of it needed no
more than cleaning. This is what lives in our summer house down the
lane from Pat.

Bigger footprint, more complicated to set up, not something my 84 year
old neighbor would want, all vintage, no warranties - but far superior
sound.

Do I like Bose products? Not hardly, never did, never understood the
appeal. Do they do a super marketing job? You bet. Are they garbage?
Relative to what? To Revox? You bet! For an elderly woman living alone
who wants to treat herself and feel warm-and-fuzzy doing it? Nope.
They fill that need very well.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

wrote in message
oups.com...

Do I like Bose products? Not hardly, never did, never
understood the appeal.

They're small and easy to operatire.

Do they do a super marketing job? You bet. Are they garbage?
Relative to what? To ReVox? You bet! For an elderly woman
living alone who wants to treat herself and feel warm-and-fuzzy
doing it? Nope. They fill that need very well.

Of course, there's cheaper stuff that would meet her need. Of course, most
mini systems have -- for the average user -- relatively complex controls.

Several years ago there used to be a website called, "bosesucks.com"
which debunked all the Bose marketing hype.

In article . com, Ken Layton wrote:
Several years ago there used to be a website called, "bosesucks.com"
which debunked all the Bose marketing hype.


There is also a BOSE FAQ

greg

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...

OK. Well, I'm not about to argue this one into the ground with you.
Long, long ago, I learned from participation in other groups that those
who perceive themselves to be audiophiles, push their views with a
similar level of evangelical fervour to that of Jehovah's Witnesses,
to the point where they feel that they can justify ridiculously priced
cables and amplifiers which cost more than a small car. That said,
I will address a few of the comments that you have made.

What does the relatively low quality of Bose products have to do with
audibility of cables?

My "evangelical fervor" comprises two points: One, the purpose of
high-fidelity playback is to sound like the original sound. Two, a
well-chosen component system can provide much more musical enjoyment than a
"packaged" or "all-in-one" system.

It is the people who rush to defend Bose products that need to justify their
point of view -- because it's generally unjustifiable.


No matter what the on-paper specs say, whether one piece of kit sounds
good to one person, and another does not, *is* a matter of their opinion,
in much the same way that any other comparison is - cars for instance.

"Sounds good" is indeed a matter of opinion. But whether a piece of
electronics -- including tape decks -- accurately reproduces what's fed into
it can be determined with a high degree of objectivity. Furthermore, people
familiar with live sound -- preferably those who've recorded it -- tend to
be in general agreement about which speakers do or don't do a reasonably
good job.


With reference to the opinions of visitors to my workshop, I think you
need
to take the time to read what I said a little more slowly. I was at pains
to
point out that these were not punters off the street -- what you have
taken
to be my customers -- but other service engineers. That is friends and
colleagues similarly employed as professional service engineers, and with
many years of experience in repairing the stuff. This does not necessarily
imply that they are pedantic audiophiles, but that they have a good enough
ear to know whether something sounds correctly functional, as designed.

Yes, I did misread you. But there's a difference between something being
"correctly functional" (which I interpret as "working correctly") and being
a high-quality product.


When I am describing the sound from the Wave Radio, I am comparing it
to similarly sized portable or semi-portable units, not mini hi-fi
systems.

Why? That has nothing to with the issue. The Wave is NOT a "portable or
semi-portable unit". It is a plug-in table radio.

My memory of what you said was that the description was absolute, not
relative. Regardless, how you (or I) might feel about the Bose's relative
merits has little bearing on the fact that Bose claims their crappy little
table radio can stand direct comparison with much-more-expensive equipment.
IT CAN'T. Nor does it produce anything remotedly resembling "concert-hall
sound", as the ads imply.


I am talking the likes of Sharps and Sonys and Panasonics, which also have
their speakers a foot apart, and many of which employ similar 'fiddle
factor'
phasing of the speaker signals, to make the speakers *appear* to be rather
more than a foot apart. When you do this sort of comparing apples with
apples, rather than your sort of comparing apples with oranges, the Wave
Radio leaves most of those other standing for both overall sound quality
and spatial definition. Maybe it does do this by artificial colouration of
the
sound, and maybe that doesn't rest easy with a purist such as yourself,
but in my opinion - there's that word again - it does make it sound more
pleasing than most other *similarly sized* items, albeit for a price
premium.

But that isn't the point. You're deliberately (as I pointed out above)
ignoring Bose's _claims_ for their product. If Bose didn't make such
ludicrously ridiculous claims, we wouldn't be discussing this.

Bose doesn't claim the Wave is better than other, similar products -- they
claim that it's as good as much more expensive products from other
companies. AND IT ISN'T.


I do believe that your view of Bose is slanted, because you seriously
believe them as a company, to be liars and cheats, so no matter what
anyone else may say or think, you and your audiophile chums will shout
them down with those beliefs. I don't know what you call that. I still
call it
"slanted".

I call it the truth. If you would listen to Bose equipment -- particularly
the 901s -- using high-quality recordings of acoustic music (that is,
recordings that reflect some sort of acoustic reality) -- and compare them
with comparably priced conventional speakers, you would quickly hear the
difference.

I don't need to shout down people who disagree. All they have to do is
listen.

You ignored my remark about QUAD. Have you ever heard QUAD speakers?


Did I start out knowing everything? Was my judgement never wrong? No, of
course not on both counts, but I fail to see how your story of having
worked
in a photo store listening to 901's every day for a year, thinking that
they
were better than anything else in the shop, explains how you then bought
some, took them home, and found yourself horrified by their apparently
poor
performance. And then took a further year to declare them "junk" ???

Yes. Because human beings can be stupid, self-deceiving, and deluded. But of
course, those things don't apply to you, do they?

(By the way, the 901s were accomodation purchases. I could not resell them
for at least one year. How this affected my willingness to stick with them,
I don't honestly know.)

The principal reason I made this mistake was that I failed to make a direct
comparison of the Boses with other speakers. (As we've know, this is how
Bose insists its dealers demonstrate their products.) I wish I could have
heard them against KLH Nines. I couldn't have afforded Nines then, but the
comparison would have firmly driven home the problems with the 901s.

I forgot to mention that the coup de grace for the 901s was a direct
comparison with Double Advents, which cost about as much as the 901s ($456).
The Advents utterly clobbered the 901s.

Why do you insist on attacking everyone serious about good sound
reproduction as an "audiophool"? What equipment do _you_ own, anyway?
(That's not a rhetorical question.)

I just looked at the Martin-Logan site. They have a "budget" hybrid
electrostatic that retails for $2000 a pair -- about a third more than Bose
901s. I invite you to compare them and decide for yourself which sounds more
like live sound (or the recording) -- which are the _only_ valid criteria
for judging quality. If you're truly knowlegable about sound, there's no
question about which you'll choose.


Bose's marketing is brilliant. They know that most people know bupkes about
sound reproduction, and don't like making decisions. So they sell a product
that can be operated right out of the box (which is not in itself a bad
thing), while telling the customer a lie -- that they'd have to spend much
more money to get anything even slightly better. It just isn't true.

My experience is that most listeners (not all), when exposed to better
reproduction, will hear its superiority. This seems most often to be a
recognition of improved clarity and detail, while not generally noticing
improved timbre or imaging. When people buy Bose, they deny themselves the
pleasure of really good reproduction.


As far as what I consider to be 'high end' goes, I am talking everyday
brands, that are purchased by everyday folks, but which lie at the top end
of the price range, and tend to be sold more by hifi shops than electrical
warehouse barns. I'm talking Jaguar rather than Honda, but not Ferrari or
Lambo. Most output from the likes of Sharp and Sanyo and Philips and
Goodmans and Samsung and Toshiba and so on, does not fall into that
category. Much, although not all, of Technics does.

Technics is not currently sold in the US. When it was, it didn't strike me
as high-end.


Much, although not all, of Yamaha does.

I'm one of those people who has a generally poor opinion of Yamaha's hi-fi
efforts. It hasn't produced many great or "classic" products. (I'm in the
minority on this, though.)


Most of Pioneer's efforts do. Some TEAC gear does and so on. The stuff
that you are referring to as "high end", I and most ordinary people would
would refer to as super high end, where the prices are nothing short of
of ridiculous for what you are getting.

Not at all. The NAD 3070 receiver of 30 years ago was considered a high-end
product, though it sold for $300. Ditto for the Advent speaker, and a number
of other products. Although "high end" certainly implies "expensive", it
seems to be more applicable to attitude -- "high end" companies are those
trying to produce genuinely superior products.


In fact I would say that it is a perfect example of the law of diminishing
returns. Many of the super high end tube amps that I have seen for repair,
are little different from a halfway decent amp that you would have found
on
the end of a tabletop radio, 40 years ago. And people are stupid enough
to pay $2000 for them... Now in my opinion, the companies that make and
market this sort of thing are the real liars and robbers, and the people
who
buy them are the real audiophools ...

The people who designed the tube equipment you so quickly dismiss (such as
Peter Walker and David Hafler -- both deceased, by the way) would be equally
quick to dismiss the idea that it bears a close resemblance to the
amplifiers in table radios. Other than possibly being push-pull.

My (grossly overpriced) Apogee speakers are driven by $2000 Parasound
amplifiers. They're not cheap, but they've gotten rave reviews from critics
accustomed to reviewing $20K amps. They're one of the best amps I've ever
heard -- in fact, I wish I'd had them 30 years ago.


As far as the differences between good and poor equipment being clearly
audible, I would not dispute that. I am a service engineer -- I mend the
rotten stuff for a living and have for 35 years -- so I have a great deal
of
experience listening to everything from Korean transistor radios, to the
most expensive amps you can buy. What I would dispute is that you
can hear a lot of difference between a Pioneer $500 rig and a Bloggs
and Bollockchops 9000 series Mark 64 monobloc as recommended by
Sebastion Cringeworthy-**** in Audiophile's Weekly, and costing $2500...

If the latter is a tube amp, you probably _will_ hear a big difference, if
only because the latter is a tube amp.

The broad answer is... it depends. I've heard expensive speakers and
amplifiers that just don't sound very good, and modestly priced equipment
that's excellent.

But this doesn't directly address the issue we were arguing. Bose products
don't sound very good, and don't represent value for the money.

Bose likes to run a review from some unknown newspaper person who says the
Wave system is as good or better than systems costing up to five times a
much. Rubbish. Give me $2500, and I'll put together a system that utterly
outclasses the Wave.

And that's the issue. People buy Bose and think they're getting something
good at a fair price. They aren't. And this needs to be repeated over and
over and over and over and over again.


And that's all I'm going to say on the matter for now. Except I knew
'reign' looked wrong when I typed it. Let's try 'rein' instead d;~}

One of the marks of a good speller (seriously) is that he has a good
intuition about what "looks right".

On Oct 18, 9:54 am, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

Do I like Bose products? Not hardly, never did, never
understood the appeal.

They're small and easy to operatire.

Do they do a super marketing job? You bet. Are they garbage?
Relative to what? To ReVox? You bet! For an elderly woman
living alone who wants to treat herself and feel warm-and-fuzzy
doing it? Nope. They fill that need very well.

Of course, there's cheaper stuff that would meet her need. Of course, most
mini systems have -- for the average user -- relatively complex controls.

William:

I am trying to be gentle on Bose for Arfa's sake so he might relax a
bit and understand that the service person's point of view is quite
limited - nearly as limited as that of the audiophile.

It is my opinion that Bose stuff is pretty much the functional
equivalent of a polished turd as compared to its peers. But even
polished turds have their place in the world, the pleasure our
neighbor derives from her Bose - both because of the name and its very
real cachet and that it does actually meet her needs - forgives much.
I do not think she would have felt the same pleasure from a WalMart
Philips $69 special such as we have on the kitchen shelf.

Further, few individuals I know are put in as much harm's way as I am
when it comes to audio. I have two local dealers that shove their junk
my way (the source of the Revox and the Yamaha aforementioned), and I
have a reputation in the neighborhood and two radio clubs for bad
habits in audio. We do not have the space for Maggies or ML speakers
(my brother has my pair of Maggies) (although that will change in the
foreseeable future), I have an admitted habitual preference for
vintage stuff, and it sticks to me like lint. Through all of that, I
have never succumbed to the need to purchase a pair of Bose speakers.
And I have never been in a situation where such a pair has 'gotten my
attention' on a walk-by. And I did walk by a pair of 901s (with
equalizer) just the other day - asking $250. It is just not gonna
happen.

It's all in accordance with. Those who have purchased Bose will
necessarily defend their purchase against Bose detractors. Those who
purchase median-annual-income-for-family-of-four systems will
necessarily defend their purchase against "audiophool" detractors. As
far as I am concerned, I purchase what I like or what makes me curious
or both. That is enough and requires no defense. And the price I might
pay is irrelevant. We are kept by two Maine Coon cats, we keep a
Scottie and a Golden, we drive European cars and live in a Victorian
house, we mostly cook our own food each day and maintain a small
vegetable garden... these are choices we make and work to support.
Others make different choices and why it is that Baskin-Robbins has 32-
or-more flavors.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

On Oct 18, 4:21 am, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
"William R. Walsh" m
wrote in messagenews:i%CRi.160223$Fc.108524@attbi_s21...


I bought a Tivoli Model One when they first came out. It was Henry Kloss's
last product, so it must be great, right?

It wasn't. The bass was thick and thumpy. (Stuffing the port helps.) It
won't play very loud without sounding "gagged". And it One sounds better at
a distance.


and while the FM sensitivity is great, the AM is comparable of a
crystal radio set.

All right then. I've said it many times before, and I will now say it again.
The UK and America, are two nations separated by a common language. And by
that, I mean that sometimes, no matter how much either side of the pond
understands the individual words, the composite meaning of them somehow goes
west ...

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

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. 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.

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.

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.

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 fulfil a similar purpose. 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.

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

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.

Have a good weekend ;-)

Arfa

"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.

In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:

"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.

Sheesh. "Lush, room filling sound" is not a lie. It's advertising hype.
You talk as though you've never heard advertising hype before. So Bose
uses it to market a class of product (table radio, in this case) that
most other manufacturers don't. So what?

So you have a $50,000 stereo, and your mission is to make sure that the
"sonically illiterate" among us don't make the dreadfully stupid mistake
of buying an expensive table radio. No irony there, I'm sure.

Not everyone needs an $11,000 pair of speakers to enjoy music, and to
bring them up in a discussion about the Wave and then refer to yourself
as a "non-loony" audiophile is absurd. Why do I get the feeling that you
most likely have one of those $1100 gizmos to "burn in" your $3500
speaker wires before using them on your non-loony system?

Finally, as far as people being entitled to their position without being
able to justify it, they most certainly are.

These material objects are made and set out in front of us . Each object
is usefull or not usefull to different people .
None of it is worth harsh words toward another person .
A persons feelings are way more important than the quality of an object

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
Sheesh. "Lush, room filling sound" is not a lie. It's advertising hype.
You talk as though you've never heard advertising hype before. So Bose
uses it to market a class of product (table radio, in this case) that
most other manufacturers don't. So what?

Because it's a lie. Isn't it to everyone's advantage to point dishonesty,
whether it's in government or advertising?


So you have a $50,000 stereo, and your mission is to make sure that the
"sonically illiterate" among us don't make the dreadfully stupid mistake
of buying an expensive table radio. No irony there, I'm sure.

I have no objection to people buyng an expensive table radio. I object to
them buying an expensive table radio that's of much lower quality than they
could have gotten by buying a modest component system for the same price.


Not everyone needs an $11,000 pair of speakers to enjoy music, and to
bring them up in a discussion about the Wave and then refer to yourself
as a "non-loony" audiophile is absurd.

No, it's not. Some speakers are worth $11,000. Why don't you listen to the
current QUADs and decide for yourselft?


Why do I get the feeling that you most likely have one of those $1100
gizmos to "burn in" your $3500 speaker wires before using them on
your non-loony system?

My "non-loony" system is Apogee Divas and Parasond SA-21 amps. Care to tell
me what your "sensible" system is?


Finally, as far as people being entitled to their position without being
able to justify it, they most certainly are.

If you can't justify your position, then you're merely spewing. Harlan
Ellison agrees.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
. ..
"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.


Yes, ok, I know I said that I wasn't going to say any more, but I really
can't let a couple of the points go by. As far as I have ever seen on the
numerous occasions that I have visited your country, it is, much like mine,
one of fundamental free speech and thought. As such, any of us has an
absolute right to our opinions, without having to justify them to anyone.
Anybody who insists that in order for a person to hold a contrary opinion,
they must justify it to that person's satisfaction, is indeed very arrogant.
I have tried to explain why I hold the opinion that I do so that we may
better understand one another's position. Beyond that, I feel no further
need to expand upon it. I give you an absolute right to your opinion,
whether I totally understand it or not. Kindly do me the courtesy of
reciprocating, and if you really feel that you can't, then I would have to
place you in that 'arrogant' category of person.

I don't want to get into another ****ing contest about small speakers, but
have you ever taken the trouble to listen to some of the better 6 channel
home cinema systems that are now out there ? Many of them have very small
speakers - often little bigger than those in the Wave Radio - and they give
very creditable performance, both from the amount of air that they can
shift, and the overall sound. Of course they are not going to sound like the
18" speakers in the cinema, nor like your 'high end' music reproducing
system, but to say that small speakers cannot possibly reproduce anything
bordering on high fidelity, is simply not true.

Over the years, many reputable manufacturers have produced 'bookshelf'
systems - and I'm surprised that you claim to not understand that term -
with bookshelf speakers to match, that produce very reasonable results.
Again, I wouldn't seek to compare them with your system, although contrary
to your opinion, I think that the vast majority of the buying public really
would not be able to tell much difference at a similar volume level. But the
point I am making is that a small speaker is not necessarily a bad speaker
*for the vast majority of listeners*. It's really "horses for courses".

The fact that you say that you feel obliged to point out to a person how he
has wasted his money by buying a Bose, and by implying that he should
dispose of it and let someone like you pick out something better for him,
perfectly illustrates the point I made about Bose owners coming in for a
kicking, just because they have used their free choice to buy one.

When the poster first asked his question, which was about a perceived fault
and nothing at all to do with his Wave Radio's performance or sound, or in
any way implied that he was not satisfied with it, you immediately felt
obliged to jump in with

"Asking for assistance with a Bose product is asking for trouble".

Perhaps you would like to explain exactly what you meant by that - it's what
I've been trying to establish throughout this entire exchange. The poster
asked a perfectly valid repair question on a repair newsgroup. The fact that
it was about a Bose product was, in the repair context, neither here nor
there, but you made it an issue by jumping in within minutes of the post
appearing, to serve the owner with a pompous rebuke for daring to own the
offending piece of equipment. You then went on to suggest that as a result
of it having a problem, this should be just the excuse that he needed to
throw it away and buy an entirely different concept item from the local
electrical barn, which in your considered opinion, would be better than he
had. Now perhaps I'm missing something here, but that does not seem to me to
be a valid piece of repair assistance ...

Finally, as far as the Quad ESLs being the finest speakers ever made, I
would have to say that again, that is very much a matter of personal opinion
and taste. With the best will in the world, although they perform well, and
have a pleasing sound in the mid to upper registers, they distinctly lack in
bass, even when they are working correctly - and not many do after a few
years of use. For their original price, I would again say that the standard
of internal construction is often slap-dash, which is not what I would call
quality equipment. Nice idea, poor execution is how I would put it.

Arfa

In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
Sheesh. "Lush, room filling sound" is not a lie. It's advertising hype.
You talk as though you've never heard advertising hype before. So Bose
uses it to market a class of product (table radio, in this case) that
most other manufacturers don't. So what?

Because it's a lie. Isn't it to everyone's advantage to point dishonesty,
whether it's in government or advertising?


You, sir, don't know the English language. "Lush, room-filling sound" is
about as subjective and nebulous as a phrase can be. Therefore, it
cannot, by definition, be a lie.


So you have a $50,000 stereo, and your mission is to make sure that the
"sonically illiterate" among us don't make the dreadfully stupid mistake
of buying an expensive table radio. No irony there, I'm sure.

I have no objection to people buyng an expensive table radio. I object to
them buying an expensive table radio that's of much lower quality than they
could have gotten by buying a modest component system for the same price.

That is the right of every individual. I think my Toyota Avalon is a far
better automobile than your Mercedes, on every count, but I don't tell
you that you're an idiot for buying the car you choose to buy. Who made
you the protector of consumers?

Just so you know, I think the Wave is overpriced, too. But I don't give
a rat's ass if someone else buys one, and likes it. Many people see the
all in one compact design as an advantage. How does that impact me?



Not everyone needs an $11,000 pair of speakers to enjoy music, and to
bring them up in a discussion about the Wave and then refer to yourself
as a "non-loony" audiophile is absurd.

No, it's not. Some speakers are worth $11,000. Why don't you listen to the
current QUADs and decide for yourselft?

No thanks. I couldn't afford them even if I did like them. Either way,
they're hardly relevant to a discussion of table radios.



Why do I get the feeling that you most likely have one of those $1100
gizmos to "burn in" your $3500 speaker wires before using them on
your non-loony system?

My "non-loony" system is Apogee Divas and Parasond SA-21 amps. Care to tell
me what your "sensible" system is?

Why? So you can accuse me of being sonically illiterate? Music Reference
RM-5 and RM-9, and Vandersteen 2s. Oh, and my speaker wire came from the
audiophile department at Home Depot. I'm sure you'd be unhappy, but for
my naive ear, it's good enough.




Finally, as far as people being entitled to their position without being
able to justify it, they most certainly are.

If you can't justify your position, then you're merely spewing. Harlan
Ellison agrees.

(Then I guess you were spewing when you said that PCs are "superior in
every respect" to Macs, because I'm pretty damn sure that there isn't a
shred of evidence anywhere in the world to substantiate such a
ridiculous claim.)

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,

You, sir, don't know the English language. "Lush, room-filling sound"
is about as subjective and nebulous as a phrase can be. Therefore,
it cannot, by definition, be a lie.

I disagree that it's nebulous -- it has a fairly clear meaning -- but
nebulosity is a form of misrepresentation.


I have no objection to people buyng an expensive table radio. I object
to them buying an expensive table radio that's of much lower quality
than they could have gotten by buying a modest component system
for the same price.

That is the right of every individual. I think my Toyota Avalon is a far
better automobile than your Mercedes, on every count, but I don't tell
you that you're an idiot for buying the car you choose to buy. Who made
you the protector of consumers?

My superior knowledge did. And if I were about to buy a Mercedes and you
thought it was a poor decision, why _shouldn't_ you tell me how you feel?


No, it's not. Some speakers are worth $11,000. Why don't you listen
to the current QUADs and decide for yourselft?

No thanks. I couldn't afford them even if I did like them. Either way,
they're hardly relevant to a discussion of table radios.

They are when people claim that expensive products are rarely, if ever,
worth what they cost.


My "non-loony" system is Apogee Divas and Parasond SA-21 amps.
Care to tell me what your "sensible" system is?

Why? So you can accuse me of being sonically illiterate? Music Reference
RM-5 and RM-9, and Vandersteen 2s. Oh, and my speaker wire came from
the audiophile department at Home Depot. I'm sure you'd be unhappy, but
for
my naive ear, it's good enough.

I've never cared much for Vandersteens, because I find them (as I find many
audiophile speakers) insipid-sounding. But...

Did you buy the Vandersteens and the Music Reference electronics because
some unknown writer at Popular Science told you how great they sounded? Or
because you blindly believed the advertising literature? I doubt it. You
bought them because you sat down and listened carefully, COMPARING THEM WITH
OTHER PRODUCTS, and decided that this was the that it met your needs, and IT
was reasonbly priced for the sound it delivered. Right? It was a more or
less rational decision, not one (much) influenced by advertising hype or
lies about the products.

If someone had told you that there were other brands of speakers or
amplifiers you might like better, would you have listened to them before
making your final decision? You probably would have, because you no doubt
wanted to spend your money wisely. And it doesn't matter whether you're
spending $500, $5,000, or $50,000.

Do you think most Wave customers make their purchase on a similar basis?
What shouldn't they be told they're making a mistake? Do you _like_ seeing
people waste their money?



Finally, as far as people being entitled to their position without being
able to justify it, they most certainly are.

If you can't justify your position, then you're merely spewing. Harlan
Ellison agrees.

(Then I guess you were spewing when you said that PCs are "superior
in every respect" to Macs, because I'm pretty damn sure that there isn't
a shred of evidence anywhere in the world to substantiate such a
ridiculous claim.)

I said nothing of the sort. You read what you wanted to read.

There is an odd parallel between the Mac and the Bose, and Windows and
component systems. The former are pretty much closed systems, the latter are
far more "open". The main difference, though, is that when you buy a Mac,
you get a good computer at a reasonable price.

Windows machines, though, do offer a wider range of software and hardware.
This may or may not be a good thing, depending on your needs.

In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:



If you can't justify your position, then you're merely spewing. Harlan
Ellison agrees.

(Then I guess you were spewing when you said that PCs are "superior
in every respect" to Macs, because I'm pretty damn sure that there isn't
a shred of evidence anywhere in the world to substantiate such a
ridiculous claim.)

I said nothing of the sort. You read what you wanted to read.


I apologize for misquoting you. Your actual words we

"Windows-based computers are, overall, superior."

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:

If you can't justify your position, then you're merely spewing.
Harlan Ellison agrees.

(Then I guess you were spewing when you said that PCs are
"superior in every respect" to Macs, because I'm pretty damn
sure that there isn't a shred of evidence anywhere in the world
to substantiate such a ridiculous claim.)

I said nothing of the sort. You read what you wanted to read.

I apologize for misquoting you. Your actual words we

"Windows-based computers are, overall, superior."

No problem. I misread, too.

I ought to clarify what I meant (if I haven't already). The thing that makes
the Macintosh so appealing -- that it is, to some degree, a closed system --
is what works against it if the particular piece of software or hardware you
need isn't available for it. As a programmer-writer, I need and use software
that just isn't available for the Mac.

Windows is an open system -- too much, perhaps. It has to handle a wider
range of software and hardware, and Microsoft doesn't do enough to enforce
standards that would minimize or eliminate conflicts or crashes.

When the day comes that you can buy a Macintosh that runs Mac and Windows
software simultaneously, and allows for data interchange between Mac and
Windows software, I'll buy one. This seems extremely difficult to do, but it
seems both necessary and inevitable.

By the way, Microsoft is supposedly working on the next version of Windows,
which will have a complete rewrite of the Windows "core", modularizing it
and removing most of the software dependencies that cause so many problems.
This will (supposedly) grossly reduce its size, improve its stability, and
make it easier to add features.

By the way, Microsoft is supposedly working on the next version of
Windows,
which will have a complete rewrite of the Windows "core", modularizing it
and removing most of the software dependencies that cause so many
problems.
This will (supposedly) grossly reduce its size, improve its stability, and
make it easier to add features.




Haven't they said this about every version of Windows in the last 15 years?

In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:

If you can't justify your position, then you're merely spewing.
Harlan Ellison agrees.

(Then I guess you were spewing when you said that PCs are
"superior in every respect" to Macs, because I'm pretty damn
sure that there isn't a shred of evidence anywhere in the world
to substantiate such a ridiculous claim.)

I said nothing of the sort. You read what you wanted to read.

I apologize for misquoting you. Your actual words we

"Windows-based computers are, overall, superior."

No problem. I misread, too.

I ought to clarify what I meant (if I haven't already). The thing that makes
the Macintosh so appealing -- that it is, to some degree, a closed system --
is what works against it if the particular piece of software or hardware you
need isn't available for it. As a programmer-writer, I need and use software
that just isn't available for the Mac.

Windows is an open system -- too much, perhaps. It has to handle a wider
range of software and hardware, and Microsoft doesn't do enough to enforce
standards that would minimize or eliminate conflicts or crashes.

When the day comes that you can buy a Macintosh that runs Mac and Windows
software simultaneously, and allows for data interchange between Mac and
Windows software, I'll buy one. This seems extremely difficult to do, but it
seems both necessary and inevitable.

By the way, Microsoft is supposedly working on the next version of Windows,
which will have a complete rewrite of the Windows "core", modularizing it
and removing most of the software dependencies that cause so many problems.
This will (supposedly) grossly reduce its size, improve its stability, and
make it easier to add features.

Well, this is interesting. For my money, the *only* advantage a PC has
over a Mac, is program availability. In every other regard, the Mac is
*far* superior. You already can run windows on a Mac. Why do you want to
run both OSs simultaneously?

I wonder whether you'd say that a Beta VCR is better than a VHS machine,
or vice versa. Many on this forum would probably say that the Beta
machine was better engineered, by a significant margin. Yet, how useful
is it, if all the tapes you can find are VHS? So which is "better?"
Depends, obviously, on the nature of the parameters being compared.
(Please don't remind me that videotapes are like, totally, last century.)

Now let's take one more dip into the Bose thing. If you agree that VCRs
and computers can be evaluated on different aspects, why are you so
one-sided on this issue? You obviously believe that the *only* parameter
on which to judge a music system is sound quality gained per dollar
spent. Can you accept the idea that not everyone has the same agenda?

Some people hate the idea of separate components, taking up space, with
wires all over the damn place. And some people love the idea of having a
cute little radio with the name Bose on it. They don't care about
dynamic range or frequency response, and they wouldn't recognize spatial
imaging if they were sitting in a concert hall. I wonder why that's not
OK with you.

"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:w0PSi.313$aB2.168@trndny07...

By the way, Microsoft is supposedly working on the next version of
Windows, which will have a complete rewrite of the Windows "core",
modularizing it and removing most of the software dependencies that
cause so many problems. This will (supposedly) grossly reduce its
size, improve its stability, and make it easier to add features.

Haven't they said this about every version of Windows in the last 15
years?

No.

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
I ought to clarify what I meant (if I haven't already). The thing that
makes
the Macintosh so appealing -- that it is, to some degree, a closed
system --
is what works against it if the particular piece of software or hardware
you
need isn't available for it. As a programmer-writer, I need and use
software
that just isn't available for the Mac.

Well, this is interesting. For my money, the *only* advantage a PC
has over a Mac, is program availability. In every other regard, the Mac
is *far* superior.

Probably, but tell that to people whose needs aren't supported by the Mac.


You already can run Windows on a Mac. Why do you want to
run both OSs simultaneously?

For the reason I stated. I want Mac and Windows programs to be able to
cooperate. Otherwise, you might as well have separate computers. (Well...)


I wonder whether you'd say that a Beta VCR is better than a VHS
machine, or vice versa. Many on this forum would probably say that
the Beta machine was better engineered, by a significant margin.
Yet, how useful is it, if all the tapes you can find are VHS? So which
is "better?" Depends, obviously, on the nature of the parameters being
compared.

You're making my point for me. Beta was a superbly well-compromised consumer
product. VHS was crap.

For me, the answer was "LV". (I used Beta for time-shifting.)


Now let's take one more dip into the Bose thing. If you agree that VCRs
and computers can be evaluated on different aspects, why are you so
one-sided on this issue? You obviously believe that the *only* parameter
on which to judge a music system is sound quality gained per dollar
spent. Can you accept the idea that not everyone has the same agenda?

I don't understand exactly what you mean. Obviously not everyone can afford
to buy higher-quality equipment, which often costs more. There's room for
all kinds of equipment, to meet different needs.

My experience has been that when people are exposed to "better" things, they
recognized the superiority on their own, without having to be told or
"convinced". As the people in this group are generally much more
knowledgable about consumer electronics that the average person, are we not
obliged to inform them that they can spend less and get more, when that is
indeed the case?


Some people hate the idea of separate components, taking up space,
with wires all over the damn place.

Actually, a component system with a small receiver and an outboard CD player
requires only two power cords, two speaker cables, and one audio cable.
Hardly Laocoon-ish.

In my opionion, Bose's success is largely due to perfecting a "no-brainer"
interface, of the sort Band & Olufsen never got right. (If you know how to
operate a conventional audio system, a B&O product can be thoroughly
confusing.)


And some people love the idea of having a cute little radio with the name
Bose on it. They don't care about dynamic range or frequency response,
and they wouldn't recognize spatial imaging if they were sitting in a
concert
hall. I wonder why that's not OK with you.

It would perfectly okay with me if BOSE didn't so blatantly LIE about the
quality of their products.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
. ..
"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
I ought to clarify what I meant (if I haven't already). The thing that
makes
the Macintosh so appealing -- that it is, to some degree, a closed
system --
is what works against it if the particular piece of software or hardware
you
need isn't available for it. As a programmer-writer, I need and use
software
that just isn't available for the Mac.

Well, this is interesting. For my money, the *only* advantage a PC
has over a Mac, is program availability. In every other regard, the Mac
is *far* superior.

Probably, but tell that to people whose needs aren't supported by the Mac.


You already can run Windows on a Mac. Why do you want to
run both OSs simultaneously?

For the reason I stated. I want Mac and Windows programs to be able to
cooperate. Otherwise, you might as well have separate computers. (Well...)


I wonder whether you'd say that a Beta VCR is better than a VHS
machine, or vice versa. Many on this forum would probably say that
the Beta machine was better engineered, by a significant margin.
Yet, how useful is it, if all the tapes you can find are VHS? So which
is "better?" Depends, obviously, on the nature of the parameters being
compared.

You're making my point for me. Beta was a superbly well-compromised
consumer
product. VHS was crap.

For me, the answer was "LV". (I used Beta for time-shifting.)


Now let's take one more dip into the Bose thing. If you agree that VCRs
and computers can be evaluated on different aspects, why are you so
one-sided on this issue? You obviously believe that the *only* parameter
on which to judge a music system is sound quality gained per dollar
spent. Can you accept the idea that not everyone has the same agenda?

I don't understand exactly what you mean. Obviously not everyone can
afford
to buy higher-quality equipment, which often costs more. There's room for
all kinds of equipment, to meet different needs.

My experience has been that when people are exposed to "better" things,
they
recognized the superiority on their own, without having to be told or
"convinced". As the people in this group are generally much more
knowledgable about consumer electronics that the average person, are we
not
obliged to inform them that they can spend less and get more, when that is
indeed the case?


Some people hate the idea of separate components, taking up space,
with wires all over the damn place.

Actually, a component system with a small receiver and an outboard CD
player
requires only two power cords, two speaker cables, and one audio cable.
Hardly Laocoon-ish.

In my opionion, Bose's success is largely due to perfecting a "no-brainer"
interface, of the sort Band & Olufsen never got right. (If you know how to
operate a conventional audio system, a B&O product can be thoroughly
confusing.)


And some people love the idea of having a cute little radio with the name
Bose on it. They don't care about dynamic range or frequency response,
and they wouldn't recognize spatial imaging if they were sitting in a
concert
hall. I wonder why that's not OK with you.

It would perfectly okay with me if BOSE didn't so blatantly LIE about the
quality of their products.



I pretty much agree with the points that Smitty has made here and, with
respect, you still haven't answered my question as to what exactly you meant
by replying initially to the OP with the statement

"Asking for assistance with a Bose product is asking for trouble"

The only reason that I can see for you saying that is that by admitting to
owning a Bose, he is putting himself up for unwarranted derision and abuse.

Perhaps if you so passionately believe that Bose as a company, are
fundamentally liars - not just advertising hype users, or statement
embellishers, but out and out liars - you should put this to their corporate
legal department and see if they are prepared to defend their position.

Arfa

Arfa

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...

You still haven't answered my question as to what exactly you meant
by replying initially to the OP with the statement

"Asking for assistance with a Bose product is asking for trouble".

I did respond, but I'll repeat it -- that the poster is likely to be
assaulted with suggestions that he get rid of the Bose and buy something
cheaper and better.


Perhaps if you so passionately believe that Bose as a company, are
fundamentally liars - not just advertising hype users, or statement
embellishers, but out and out liars - you should put this to their
corporate
legal department and see if they are prepared to defend their position.

Why? I can't sue Bose because I haven't been directly harmed by their lies.

"We", on the other hand, are in a position to spread the truth. Why
shouldn't we? (That's not a rhetorical remark.)

William Sommerwerck wrote:
By the way, Microsoft is supposedly working on the next version of Windows,
which will have a complete rewrite of the Windows "core", modularizing it
and removing most of the software dependencies that cause so many problems.
This will (supposedly) grossly reduce its size, improve its stability, and
make it easier to add features.

If they're working on it now, I'll expect to see the result in saleable
(read: Microsoft's usual beta software) around 2019.

--
One meter, to within 0.0125% accuracy (off by just under .005 inches):
Three feet
Three inches
Three eights of an inch