advertisement


Bose - why the bad press?

Maybe not, but Naim et al aren't aiming their products at the man in the street, through advertisements in the Radio Times. They're specialists selling to a niche market, and interested people probably know how much the stuff is (I suspect the high prices are very often a sales incentive), or can easily find out. Bose's strategy appears to be to persuade people to audition(!) the equipment at home (presumably having taken their credit card details), and rely on inertia for the desired result.
 
having worked for both naim and b&o in the usa i find them similar but different. B&O have more cash but they lack in presentation. Naim have better presentation but lack in storefront dem. They both suck in there own regard. But both are after a different in who they pre sue. Life style crap. or Shit that sounds good. its all a decision.
 
Maybe not, but Naim et al aren't aiming their products at the man in the street...

Wait until the Unitiqute gets advertised to death then ;)

Bose's strategy appears to be to persuade people to audition(!) the equipment at home (presumably having taken their credit card details), and rely on inertia for the desired result.

If Bose were stitching up so many with such a crap product, why don't we hear about the complaints?
 
I just saw one on Ebay, actually in a link from the amazing old system listing, and it's being bid for like mad. Somebody must like them. I suppose it's fine if that's what you want. Personally, I couldn't imagine an audio system without many knobs to adjust, or without a turntable, mainly.
 
As suggested, I own up to:

901's
An original sooundock
A bose radio

I have also owned or own

Quad
Naim
Linn
Michell
SME
SRM
Bryston

etc.etc. etc.

Does this let me off the hook?
 
yeah, it's all about marketing (same with B&O)

I'm disappointed that the inevitable, but completely ridiculous "B&O is just like Bose" statement appeared as early as page 2..... :rolleyes:

Oh and as to the 901 speakers - I agree, theay are rather amusing, if not exactly the last word in accuracy.
 
Three reasons to dump on Bose:

1. Technical: their satellites are too small to properly mate with the subs, leaving a hole in the mid bass.

That was my assessment after listening to a mates BOSE sub-satellite system in the 90's. There was big hole somewhere and the music lost any groove. I think that's why the vicious attacks. What manufacturer knowlingly releases gear with such a tricked-up frequency response and carps on about it being great in all the magazines.
 
What manufacturer knowlingly releases gear with such a tricked-up frequency response and carps on about it being great in all the magazines.

Naim? :D

Although in fairness, they let other people carp on on their behalf.
 
To provide a little more depth to the discussion, I have used Bose extensively in a Pro Audio, sound reinforcement environment. Typically for live music and musical reinforcement.

Our staple was the Bose 802 which is a very robust moulded plastic box with 8 small drivers in it. Rather like a TT RIAA curve, they require a dedicated EQ box to get a flat(ish) response. Now they do not have the bass of a folded horn or the searing HF of dedicated tweeters (hence the cry "no high's, no low's, must be Bose"); But they did/do provide a very non threatening PA that does not scare local NIMBY's who want to shut down public performances because of the thudding bass. They were also very good for reinforcing acoustic performers such as Jazz and Folk music.

The 802's could also be augmented by the addition of the 302 sub which was required for Po and Rock music and if you needed a disco effect. The piece I liked best was that you could use it like LEGO, the louder you wanted it, just add more boxes.

In short they were great for PA work, very popular and virtually indestructible. I am sure that they have been used without the eq, when they sound horrible, no bass at all leading to some of the criticisms I am sure.

2x%20bose%20802%201x302_sm.jpg
 
Wait until the Unitiqute gets advertised to death then ;)



If Bose were stitching up so many with such a crap product, why don't we hear about the complaints?

Simple - it's because they don't know it's crap. What's more, they don't want to know. I go back to my 'buy a tv based on what it looks like when switched off' comment. There is also nothing wrong with this per se - if they are happy, then they are happy. They would not want to get involved in trading 'better' sound for 'worse' appearance or functionality. Horses for courses.
 
My GF's dada has a pair of the little cubes and the passive sub and frankly they sound lovely in their front room, nowt special, just very decent sound from crappy speakers a 25 year old sony cd player and an Akai amp.
 
I'd suppose some of the distaste for Bose stems from how the public has believed that they are the best, period.

Any ideas how they pulled that off? Was it just through magazine ads?
 
Some people like to believe what they're told. They're not discriminating enough to be sceptical when the person telling them something is great is the person selling it. I don't know how that happened. I do think the pseudo-science of advertising is one of the USA's least worthy exports.
 
Some people like to believe what they're told. They're not discriminating enough to be sceptical when the person telling them something is great is the person selling it. I don't know how that happened. I do think the pseudo-science of advertising is one of the USA's least worthy exports.
Much like exotic cabling and power cords then ...

James
 
You are all missing the point!!!
Customers who buy bose are not hi-fi geeks!!!
Bose customers buy bose because it sounds good enough,is easy to use,but more importantly,does'nt take over the room,ultimate sound quality is not a consideration.
However,a bose system set up correctly,can and does sound very good,it's just that for the same money one can buy better.
 
Customers who buy bose are not hi-fi geeks!!!
Bose customers buy bose because it sounds good enough,is easy to use,but more importantly,does'nt take over the room,ultimate sound quality is not a consideration.
Not geeks like us, true, but sufficiently delusional to think they are buying a very good system nonetheless.

However,a bose system set up correctly,can and does sound very good,it's just that for the same money one can buy better.
Actually, no it physically can't as Rusty has already pointed out. The sats don't go low enough to cover where the sub-woofer cannot reach. In this respect, it's all tits and arse, which would impress some more than others.

James
 
You obviously failed to read my post james!
Bose systems sound good enough to those hundreds of thousands of customers who buy them year on,year out.
Whilst you are correct in saying that the crossover points don't match up,again,people who buy Bose would not know/hear that,all they hear is,for most of them,one of if not the best systems they have ever heard.
I would go as far as to say that 95% of people who buy a bose system,will never have heard a "Proper" "Better" sounding system for the money,however even if the did/have they would probably buy bose anyway!!!
 
I wouldn't be surprised if a B&W Zeppelin was much better for the money. Looks better too if somewhat gaudy.

Most buyers believe they are getting the best there is, not the best sound in a small package or with any other qualifiers of that sort.
 
A Zeppelin is like the soundock-for playing your i-pod,wave products have radio and cd playback-they are bought buy people who don't want speakers.
Customers who want the best one box solution buy the Meridian F80/M80,its surprising how many people will pay a grand and a half for something with no wires and speakers,when a £300 micro from any of the japanese companies will outperform it !!!
 


advertisement


Back
Top