Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Electronics Repair (sci.electronics.repair) Discussion of repairing electronic equipment. Topics include requests for assistance, where to obtain servicing information and parts, techniques for diagnosis and repair, and annecdotes about success, failures and problems. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Bose Wave Radio
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? |
#2
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Bose Wave Radio
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. |
#3
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Bose Wave Radio
"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 |
#4
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Bose Wave Radio
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 |
#5
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Bose Wave Radio
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. |
#6
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Bose Wave Radio
"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. |
#7
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Bose Wave Radio
"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. |
#8
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Bose Wave Radio
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 |
#9
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Bose Wave Radio
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 |
#10
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Bose Wave Radio
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 |
#11
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Bose Wave Radio
"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 |
#12
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Bose Wave Radio
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. |
#13
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Bose Wave Radio
"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. |
#14
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Bose Wave Radio
"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 $2500 ... And that's all I'm going to say on the matter for now. Except I knew 'reign' looked wrong when I typed it. Let's try 'rein' instead d;~} Arfa |
#15
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Bose Wave Radio
Hi!
The Wave system (which I've heard) is a profoundly mediocre product sold at a premium price. Premium price? Oh yeah. Absolutely. (At least to my way of thinking...) Mediocre product? Well, I suppose it depends on what you have in mind when you listen to music. The first time I had the chance to hear one was at a friend's house. I walked in the door, far away from the room in which it was playing and was immediately surprised. I didn't remember any big stereo ever being in the place, and one wasn't. The music was coming from this little Bose Wave player. I was astounded by the performance, but the price and the fact that new ones have only remote controls put me off of it. Tivoli Audio's little table radio sounds fairly good to me and the price was a lot better. The company was also good to deal with, although I wanted to keep the flood damaged unit I had and build a plywood cabinet for it, just to be funny. William |
#16
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Bose Wave Radio
"William R. Walsh" m
wrote in message news:i%CRi.160223$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. |
#17
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Bose Wave Radio
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 |
#18
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Bose Wave Radio
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. |
#19
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Bose Wave Radio
Several years ago there used to be a website called, "bosesucks.com"
which debunked all the Bose marketing hype. |
#20
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Bose Wave Radio
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 |
#21
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Bose Wave Radio
"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". |
#22
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Bose Wave Radio
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 $250. It is just not gonna happen. It's all in accordance with. Those who have purchased Bose will necessarily defend their purchase against Bose detractors. Those who purchase median-annual-income-for-family-of-four systems will necessarily defend their purchase against "audiophool" detractors. As far as I am concerned, I purchase what I like or what makes me curious or both. That is enough and requires no defense. And the price I might pay is irrelevant. We are kept by two Maine Coon cats, we keep a Scottie and a Golden, we drive European cars and live in a Victorian house, we mostly cook our own food each day and maintain a small vegetable garden... these are choices we make and work to support. Others make different choices and why it is that Baskin-Robbins has 32- or-more flavors. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
#23
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Bose Wave Radio
On Oct 18, 4:21 am, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: "William R. Walsh" m wrote in messagenews:i%CRi.160223$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. |
#24
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Bose Wave Radio
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 |
#25
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Bose Wave Radio
"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. |
#26
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Bose Wave Radio
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. |
#27
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Bose Wave Radio
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 |
#28
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Bose Wave Radio
"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. |
#29
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Bose Wave Radio
"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 |
#30
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Bose Wave Radio
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.) |
#31
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Bose Wave Radio
"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. |
#32
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Bose Wave Radio
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." |
#33
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Bose Wave Radio
"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. |
#34
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Bose Wave Radio
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? |
#35
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Bose Wave Radio
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. |
#36
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Bose Wave Radio
"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. |
#37
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Bose Wave Radio
"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. |
#38
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Bose Wave Radio
"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 |
#39
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Bose Wave Radio
"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.) |
#40
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Bose Wave Radio
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 |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
code #'s for bose wave radio remote? | Electronics Repair | |||
Bose Wave Radio 9kHz AM spacing? | Electronics Repair | |||
Bose Wave CD\Radio no sound | Electronics Repair | |||
I have a bose wave clock raido. I am having problems. | Electronics Repair | |||
Bose Aucostic WAVE | Electronics Repair |