You can also do this for Ultimate Ears Canalphones; however it's quite pricey.

 

Just goes to show you that just because it is posted on the internet it doesn't make it so.

I love blanket statements like "Anyone who is a REAL audiphile will never be caught dead with Bose anything in their homes." That's akin to saying no real car person would drive a Honda.

YES. there are better SUPER HIGH END, highly expensive, equipment set ups that are better than Bose. But that doesn't change the facts that when you talk to the manufacturers they use Bose as the benchmark.

If manufacturers are to produce equipment that is better than the high end Bose they have to really struggle and they have to really throw the $$$ at it which, of course, makes it very expensive.

I have had super high end equipment since my tube Macintosh equipment and the sad truth is that no matter the equipment you buy the biggest issue in getting the best sound isn't the equipment but the listening environment.

Bose does an excellent job of tuning to and maximizing your environment. They have done the research and the science that many other manufacturers are using today.

Would I class them as the ultimate - no way! But they are still the gold standard that everyone else uses when they manufacture equipment which should tell you a lot about the quality of their sound.

They are still, by far the best equipment you can buy for their price point. Double or triple the price point and you can always find someone somewhere that will test out better than the competition. Unfortunately those types of tests can't be discerned by the naked ear, only on equipment so they have no validity in the real world.

Everyone should always buy the equipment that suits their listening tastes. If you go for muddy sound with elevated bass levels then by all means buy that equipment, but sound snobs go for clarity. The ability to sense the vibrato in a single violin or hear another instrument normally hidden in an orchestral arrangement that would otherwise not be heard in "inferior" equipment. Bose delivers by this definition.

Personally I prefer rock. I also appreciate the ability to actually be able to hear and discern the vocal. Bose delivers there also.

I know many, many audiophiles who own Bose equipment. For years their 901 series was usually owned only by audiophiles. They were too small and un imposing for people who were interested in showing off rather than actually listening to and enjoying the music for music's sake.

Of course if we are talking audiophile as in ones like the wine snobs who drink only because it is the "right' thing to do and want to amaze you with their ability to discern the "hint of rain that falls every day in the X region of France", well those people aren't really audiophiles at all. They simply are looking for someway to stand out in the crowd in their rather hum drum and boring lives.

Bose would be too commercial for them to ever admit was a good product. If it isn't obscure and only owned/known about by a select group then it can't be better than the rest. Just as Honda is too common for a REAL carguy.

 

I just happen to be one of those people.

 

[QUOTE=Wildncrazy,May 12 2007, 10:36 PM] Just goes to show you that just because it is posted on the internet it doesn't make it so.

I love blanket statements like "Anyone who is a REAL audiphile will never be caught dead with Bose anything in their homes."

 

[QUOTE=Wildncrazy,May 12 2007, 07:36 PM]
Bose does an excellent job of tuning to and maximizing your environment.

 

You mean like the 911 is the same car for the past 30 years?

It's the same with the 901s. It was revolutionary when it came out, now it has benefitted from more than 20 years of evolution.

Whether you like it or not, whether you believe it or not, it is easy to check. Talk to stereo manufacturer reps &/or their techies.

I've gotten straight from the horses mouth on several occassions.

Just as a reference point we are not talking the bottom end 301s.

 

I just don't see WHY they are said to be the benchmark.

Can you name one OBJECTIVE measurement that the Bose speakers excel at?

also, reps and techies are not considered credible sources in my book. engineers maybe, techies and sales goons, no.

 

[QUOTE=steven975,May 13 2007, 12:32 AM] I just don't see WHY they are said to be the benchmark.

Can you name one OBJECTIVE measurement that the Bose speakers excel at?

also, reps and techies are not considered credible sources in my book.

 

Just give up. He's arguing against every single one of us defending Bose.

My father has the Jewel Cube system, Wave Radio, and Acoustimass systems because he has unfortunately fallen for Bose marketing. He also has a yamaha 2 speaker home stereo set from the 80's. Guess which one sounds better? The old Yamaha. The Bose is muddy, lacks real bass (tries to make up for it with midbass), and has gaping holes in the mid range and high end. I'm not talking about ghetto thumping bass, I'm just talking about hearing the helicopter blades whirring in a movie. Think about it.. that 8 inch ported/bandpass (an already compromised solution) sub has to produce all of the mid bass along with the lower bass. How is it going to properly do that? Magic? I guess you could call it that, but Bose uses cheap techniques in order to produce decent sound. If any average listener would compare a Bose system to a normal system at the same price, I'd bet they'd choose the other system every time (with the exception of those who enjoy the tiny look of the Bose).

Just a quick example while we're on the subject of headphones. My friend purchased a set of the Bose over the ear headphones. I have an Echo Audio Indigo PCMCIA sound card with two amplified headphone outputs. I plugged his Bose set in, and plugged in a set of Grado SR60s ($60). He immediately admitted to enjoying the sound more from the Grados. You could easily spend $1000-$2000 bucks for a set of Grados but nope, the least expensive model beats out the Bose.

 

BOSE is the laughing stock of the audiophile world.


Buy
Other
Stereo
Equipment