Bose founder, Amar Bose, has died at 83(web.mit.edu)
web.mit.edu
Bose founder, Amar Bose, has died at 83
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/obit-amar-bose-0712.html
165 comments
Well put. One addendum:
> but I had Dr. Bose as a professor in college and he was a fantastic instructor
Most folks knew him from the audio course. Less known was how long his history of teaching, eg his network theory book in the late sixties. That book was how I learned some of the more exotic transformations. (Most folks know parallel and series. It turns out that there are things like pi-delta/wye-delta and friends.)
RIP.
> but I had Dr. Bose as a professor in college and he was a fantastic instructor
Most folks knew him from the audio course. Less known was how long his history of teaching, eg his network theory book in the late sixties. That book was how I learned some of the more exotic transformations. (Most folks know parallel and series. It turns out that there are things like pi-delta/wye-delta and friends.)
RIP.
Do you have any links to lecture notes or the like?
It's funny, back in those days the equivalent archive of such things were that people would write a book for use in the class.
http://www.amazon.com/Introductory-Network-Theory-Amar-Bose/...
http://www.amazon.com/Introductory-Network-Theory-Amar-Bose/...
Anechoic pointed me to his 1956 MIT thesis on non-linear systems some time ago. It can be downloaded here, http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/38918#files-area
It's my impression that everyone who has known him in a professional context (beyond just having heard of Bose products) has a quite high opinion of him. It's a shame to see talented engineers (and/or marketers, depending on how you want to look at it) pass away.
"In 2011, to fulfill his lifelong dream to support MIT education, Dr. Bose gave to MIT the majority of the stock of Bose Corporation in the form of nonvoting shares. Under the terms of the gift, dividends from those shares will be used by MIT to sustain and advance MIT’s education and research mission. MIT cannot sell its Bose shares, and does not participate in the management or governance of the company."
Wow. Respect.
Wow. Respect.
Sorry to hear. One of Bose's greatest contributions may be the Bose Suspension, which (to my knowledge) hasn't been put into production yet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSi6J-QK1lw
That's like the tank cannon stabilization system on modern MBTs, applied to an entire vehicle. Wow.
That's amazing. Upvoted.
It has been put into production: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=940wGYCeQ68
I hadn't seen that, very cool. Though I'm not sure this is a licensed version of the Bose system or an all-new system. It looks like the Mercedes system uses computer vision -- no mention of cameras or CV on the Bose website.
right.. notice the video says "active" (not "bose active suspension")..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_suspension
And in this article, Bose says they won't license the tech:
Bose is seeking a partner to help in these areas and take the product to market, but the company doesn't want to just license its technology to a suspension supplier or car company. Bose wants to stay in this business for the long term as the supplier of its system.
http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/a-surprising-new-active-...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_suspension
And in this article, Bose says they won't license the tech:
Bose is seeking a partner to help in these areas and take the product to market, but the company doesn't want to just license its technology to a suspension supplier or car company. Bose wants to stay in this business for the long term as the supplier of its system.
http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/a-surprising-new-active-...
Cool -- nice find with that article. Tesla / Elon, are you reading this? ;)
Bose got a bad rap.
In the 80's, everyone agreed Bose products were pretty but overpriced. Unfortunately that reputation stuck.
These days, we all gladly pay extra for good aesthetic design (see: Apple, and almost every electronic gizmo on Kickstarter).
Bose was ahead of their time.
In the 80's, everyone agreed Bose products were pretty but overpriced. Unfortunately that reputation stuck.
These days, we all gladly pay extra for good aesthetic design (see: Apple, and almost every electronic gizmo on Kickstarter).
Bose was ahead of their time.
Nothing epitomizes Bose so well as their minicube home-theater-in-a-box systems.
Somewhat expensive. Tiny and easy to live with (I believe the audiophile term is "wife-friendly"). Not very good sound quality.
Good audio requires some tradeoffs. A tiny box with tiny drivers and not a lot of power simply can't reproduce lower frequencies well. There just isn't enough cone displacement. Likewise, putting those little cubes in places that are convenient to live around rarely results in placement that makes the most of what little you have! Well placed speakers are usually in the way. These minicube systems were designed for people who consider sound quality to be of secondary importance to unobtrusiveness, and they serve that market well.
Bose realized that not everyone is an audiophile. Some people want to have sound that's "good enough" without huge tower speakers placed several feet away from their walls waiting for children to tip them over. Of course, these people don't want to feel like they're compromising. If you sell them cheap cubes that are marketed as being "good enough", they'll stay away in droves! If you market those "good enough" speakers as audiophile grade and charge a proportionate amount for them, people will buy them. Even more amazingly, they'll be happy with them. Audio is one of those rare sectors in which you can actually make people more satisfied by overcharging them. Bose realized this.
Prioritizing convenience over sound quality and charging premium audiophile prices for compromise-making products is something Bose does indeed have in common with Apple. Mp3's are in no way a step up in sound-quality over CD's, but mp3 players were a tremendous improvement in convenience over portable CD players. There were mp3 players before the iPod, but the iPod was the first "premium" mp3 player. The first iPod's and their crappy buds cost more than a top of the line Sony discman with some rather nice cans, and people bought them in droves!
So, I agree that Apple has taken a page out of Bose's playbook, but I disagree with your statement than Bose was ahead of his time. Bose's timing was perfect and his company was wildly successful as a result.
Somewhat expensive. Tiny and easy to live with (I believe the audiophile term is "wife-friendly"). Not very good sound quality.
Good audio requires some tradeoffs. A tiny box with tiny drivers and not a lot of power simply can't reproduce lower frequencies well. There just isn't enough cone displacement. Likewise, putting those little cubes in places that are convenient to live around rarely results in placement that makes the most of what little you have! Well placed speakers are usually in the way. These minicube systems were designed for people who consider sound quality to be of secondary importance to unobtrusiveness, and they serve that market well.
Bose realized that not everyone is an audiophile. Some people want to have sound that's "good enough" without huge tower speakers placed several feet away from their walls waiting for children to tip them over. Of course, these people don't want to feel like they're compromising. If you sell them cheap cubes that are marketed as being "good enough", they'll stay away in droves! If you market those "good enough" speakers as audiophile grade and charge a proportionate amount for them, people will buy them. Even more amazingly, they'll be happy with them. Audio is one of those rare sectors in which you can actually make people more satisfied by overcharging them. Bose realized this.
Prioritizing convenience over sound quality and charging premium audiophile prices for compromise-making products is something Bose does indeed have in common with Apple. Mp3's are in no way a step up in sound-quality over CD's, but mp3 players were a tremendous improvement in convenience over portable CD players. There were mp3 players before the iPod, but the iPod was the first "premium" mp3 player. The first iPod's and their crappy buds cost more than a top of the line Sony discman with some rather nice cans, and people bought them in droves!
So, I agree that Apple has taken a page out of Bose's playbook, but I disagree with your statement than Bose was ahead of his time. Bose's timing was perfect and his company was wildly successful as a result.
> A tiny box with tiny drivers and not a lot of power simply can't reproduce lower frequencies well.
I'd like to expand on this. The tradeoff has three variables: enclosure size, amplifier power output, and low frequency response. The reason is because as the audio frequency goes below the resonant frequency, the speaker efficiency drops (and eventually you run into Xmax limitations too). Resonant frequency scales with enclosure size.
Low frequency noise sounds good so a lot of speakers have deep resonances that exaggerate a specific low frequency at the expense of accuracy. Cheap, and impressive in the showroom, as long as you don't listen too carefully.
One speaker designer took the tradeoff in a completely different direction: mount a 10" speaker in a small cube, and use a very high-power amplifier to drive it below its resonant frequency. The speaker had to be specially designed with extremely high excursion (Xmax) and a voice coil that won't melt. The amplifer had to be specially designed to absorb a powerful back EMF as the moving speaker sent current back to the amplifier.
Apparently, the result was a subwoofer that satisfied not only the designer but his wife, who didn't want more "furniture".
I'd like to expand on this. The tradeoff has three variables: enclosure size, amplifier power output, and low frequency response. The reason is because as the audio frequency goes below the resonant frequency, the speaker efficiency drops (and eventually you run into Xmax limitations too). Resonant frequency scales with enclosure size.
Low frequency noise sounds good so a lot of speakers have deep resonances that exaggerate a specific low frequency at the expense of accuracy. Cheap, and impressive in the showroom, as long as you don't listen too carefully.
One speaker designer took the tradeoff in a completely different direction: mount a 10" speaker in a small cube, and use a very high-power amplifier to drive it below its resonant frequency. The speaker had to be specially designed with extremely high excursion (Xmax) and a voice coil that won't melt. The amplifer had to be specially designed to absorb a powerful back EMF as the moving speaker sent current back to the amplifier.
Apparently, the result was a subwoofer that satisfied not only the designer but his wife, who didn't want more "furniture".
Interesting
On the premise of Bose equipment being "good enough" it should be measurable (in real units, not "audiophile unicorn units"
Makes me wonder if it would be possible to have a better bass response exploiting non-linear effects and doing some "magic" (that is, some heavy signal processing and feedback loop including a mic)
On the premise of Bose equipment being "good enough" it should be measurable (in real units, not "audiophile unicorn units"
Makes me wonder if it would be possible to have a better bass response exploiting non-linear effects and doing some "magic" (that is, some heavy signal processing and feedback loop including a mic)
> Makes me wonder if it would be possible to have a better bass response exploiting non-linear effects and doing some "magic" (that is, some heavy signal processing and feedback loop including a mic)
Non-linear effects of what? Speakers? Air? What would the microphone do? (Keep in mind that sound has to travel through air, which takes time, before it reaches the mic.)
You can already get better bass response by equalizing the signal fed to the amplifier, but the trade-off here is that it requires a bigger amplifier (and a speaker with higher Xmax).
Non-linear effects of what? Speakers? Air? What would the microphone do? (Keep in mind that sound has to travel through air, which takes time, before it reaches the mic.)
You can already get better bass response by equalizing the signal fed to the amplifier, but the trade-off here is that it requires a bigger amplifier (and a speaker with higher Xmax).
How about using the little microphones on a Google Glass like device to provide information for negative feedback distortion cancellation? That would work better for lower frequencies. For higher frequencies, have a program adjust the audio signal in response to the user's position in the room.
"Non-linear effects of what? Speakers? Air?"
Air. Like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_from_ultrasound
(yes, the article is not very good)
Air. Like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_from_ultrasound
(yes, the article is not very good)
That requires a large amount of power, so you'd still have a big amplifier.
Well, not really.
See how big automotive amplifiers are for a given power. What makes home appliances big is usually a huge transformer inside (which for audio quality is good, even though switched power sources are getting better) AND the feeling that light/small is not good
A modern consumer audio system is around 80% empty space inside.
See how big automotive amplifiers are for a given power. What makes home appliances big is usually a huge transformer inside (which for audio quality is good, even though switched power sources are getting better) AND the feeling that light/small is not good
A modern consumer audio system is around 80% empty space inside.
With the right room you could probably take advantage of modes to boost the bass response of smaller speakers at specific frequencies but, ultimately, to achieve a reasonably flat frequency response down to 20-30 Hz you're simply going to need the ability to move some air. There's no getting around that. What you're suggesting is a bit like trying to turn a 4-banger into a V10 by tweaking the spark-plug and fuel injection parameters.
I generally agree but the iPod argument really downplays the effort apple puts into industrial design and UX. At the time of the 3rd gen iPod and being a high school studeny I could only afford one of the few of its competitors, the HDD-powered Creative Nomad, and its infuriatingly unintuitive and inconsistent UI. I'm not even talking some kind of "attractive" UI like the rather useless cover flow view introduced later. The Nomad was literally a pain to use where a little wheel had to be rotated to scroll between the many albums. in hindsight, the clickwheel UI would've been worth more than a few extra gigs of space.
something of an aside, but atc scm7 speakers are comparatively small, have no ports (so can be placed near walls), come in a variety of finishes, and look clean and modern. if you're looking for an "easy to live with" set of speakers we found these to be a pretty decent compromise...
Bose was ahead of his time as they sold overpriced products before Apple did. Why this is worth celebrating is questionable.
If they were overpriced then why did people buy them? Why was the market willing to bear such a price?
Clearly people saw some kind of value in the products yes?
It's akin to Beats by Dre. People value aesthetics and Beats are the best looking headphones out there so people are willing to pay a premium for that.
It's not overpriced if that's the price that people value the product at. It's certainly not inexpensive, and we can have a discussion about the sound quality, but "overpriced" is a term that I think is thrown around too loosely.
Clearly people saw some kind of value in the products yes?
It's akin to Beats by Dre. People value aesthetics and Beats are the best looking headphones out there so people are willing to pay a premium for that.
It's not overpriced if that's the price that people value the product at. It's certainly not inexpensive, and we can have a discussion about the sound quality, but "overpriced" is a term that I think is thrown around too loosely.
Because the market is not a perfectly efficient discriminator of quality. In a more extreme way, why do homeopathic products exist?
The real question here is whether customer satisfaction is a fully sufficient criterion to determine whether or not something is a "ripoff".
For medical goods the answer is a fairly universal "no". For everything else it's more controversial. Is it correct to shortchange your customers as long as they don't know about it and are happy with their purchase? Are Bose's products actually shortchanging their customers, or is it simply satisfying a different set of priorities?
I don't think we'll ever come to anything resembling consensus on the above.
The real question here is whether customer satisfaction is a fully sufficient criterion to determine whether or not something is a "ripoff".
For medical goods the answer is a fairly universal "no". For everything else it's more controversial. Is it correct to shortchange your customers as long as they don't know about it and are happy with their purchase? Are Bose's products actually shortchanging their customers, or is it simply satisfying a different set of priorities?
I don't think we'll ever come to anything resembling consensus on the above.
I think it's satisfying a different set of priorities.
That's a very good way to put it, now that you mention it. I think Apple fits this category pretty well too.
That's a very good way to put it, now that you mention it. I think Apple fits this category pretty well too.
I like the way Warren Buffet explains markets: in the short term, they're a popularity contest. In the long term, they're a weighing machine.
How would you say the quote explains the context of Bose products?
What exactly is "quality", and in what sense does it exist outside of human perceptions?
Overpriced = the mark up of the price over costs is very high. Then, you can think that mark-up pricing isn't a good reference point - or even possible, for non-physical goods - but the meaning of the word in that context is clear.
With all due respect to Dr. Bose, that reputation stuck because it stayed true. To be fair though, Bose gets away with their premium cost because they fill a very important market hole in home audio: they produce top-notch products backed by good design and actual science.
There are a slew of companies slinging absolute crap, and a bunch of other companies selling pseudoscientific nonsense. Audio is a very difficult field for untrained people to judge product quality on the showroom floor--and in this sense, it's somewhat different from Apple's marketing task.
I don't own any Bose products, but hats off to Dr. Bose for blazing his own trail, haters be damned.
There are a slew of companies slinging absolute crap, and a bunch of other companies selling pseudoscientific nonsense. Audio is a very difficult field for untrained people to judge product quality on the showroom floor--and in this sense, it's somewhat different from Apple's marketing task.
I don't own any Bose products, but hats off to Dr. Bose for blazing his own trail, haters be damned.
Bose Pro Audio (where I worked for a summer at MIT) was always awesome -- we were doing audio radiosity calculations to simulate audio systems in CAD mockups of existing or planned buildings (stadiums, etc.) with various speaker placement, from arbitrary listener positions. Their speaker arrays were rugged, well engineered, etc. -- no one worries about "audiophile" stuff for venue audio or PA.
They also have a great reputation for car audio, where everything is essentially custom designed to the vehicle.
They also have a great reputation for car audio, where everything is essentially custom designed to the vehicle.
I for one, WISH, people would worry about audiophile stuff for "venue audio or PA".
Man, some of the s* setups I have heard in my time.
Man, some of the s* setups I have heard in my time.
There's a difference between "caring about sound quality" and "audiophile 0.001% improvement". The first priority of pro audio is mechanical stuff and reliability, then sufficient coverage with adequate quality, then it becomes a tradeoff of budget (and hassle) vs. improvements in audio quality. I don't think anyone would really have a problem with "normal mid-range (~$500-1000?) home system quality sound" at a sports stadium as an upper bound of quality, which is hard to achieve for every seat.
(the other funny thing about the pro group is we all had sennheiser or beyerdynamic or grado headphones at our desks, and mostly stuff like Martin Logan/Paradigm/PSB/NHT/Magnepan or (for me, since I was a poor college student) a reuse (mit dumpster-diving equivalent) Klipsch La Scala from the 1970s setup at home.)
Bose Aviation headsets also rock; I like the Dave Clark for the military standardness but the Bose were the first ANC I think.
(the other funny thing about the pro group is we all had sennheiser or beyerdynamic or grado headphones at our desks, and mostly stuff like Martin Logan/Paradigm/PSB/NHT/Magnepan or (for me, since I was a poor college student) a reuse (mit dumpster-diving equivalent) Klipsch La Scala from the 1970s setup at home.)
Bose Aviation headsets also rock; I like the Dave Clark for the military standardness but the Bose were the first ANC I think.
>(the other funny thing about the pro group is we all had sennheiser or beyerdynamic or grado headphones at our desks, and mostly stuff like Martin Logan/Paradigm/PSB/NHT/Magnepan or (for me, since I was a poor college student) a reuse (mit dumpster-diving equivalent) Klipsch La Scala from the 1970s setup at home.)
This doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Just because you make products that you wouldn't necessarily choose yourself doesn't mean you aren't an excellent audio engineer. This same principle applies to the brewmasters at macro breweries. The fact that they make a difficult to brew beer extremely consistently shows how good they are, but they still wouldn't choose to drink it.
This doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Just because you make products that you wouldn't necessarily choose yourself doesn't mean you aren't an excellent audio engineer. This same principle applies to the brewmasters at macro breweries. The fact that they make a difficult to brew beer extremely consistently shows how good they are, but they still wouldn't choose to drink it.
On your point about brewmasters at macro breweries:
Light beer may be easy to drink, but it's hard to make. Here's why the weakest brews deserve more applause.
It's common to disparage light beers. As craft beers have elbowed their way into American refrigerators and taps, light beers have become punch lines. What few drinkers know, however, is that quality light beers are incredibly difficult to brew. The thin flavor means there's little to mask defects in the more than 800 chemical compounds within. As Kyler Serfass, manager of the home-brew supply shop Brooklyn Homebrew, told me, "Light beer is a brewer's beer. It may be bland, but it's really tough to do." Belgian monks and master brewers around the world marvel at how macro-breweries like Anheuser-Busch InBev and MillerCoors have perfected the process in hundreds of factories, ensuring that every pour from every brewery tastes exactly the same.
http://www.mentalfloss.com/article/12940/scientific-reasons-...
Light beer may be easy to drink, but it's hard to make. Here's why the weakest brews deserve more applause.
It's common to disparage light beers. As craft beers have elbowed their way into American refrigerators and taps, light beers have become punch lines. What few drinkers know, however, is that quality light beers are incredibly difficult to brew. The thin flavor means there's little to mask defects in the more than 800 chemical compounds within. As Kyler Serfass, manager of the home-brew supply shop Brooklyn Homebrew, told me, "Light beer is a brewer's beer. It may be bland, but it's really tough to do." Belgian monks and master brewers around the world marvel at how macro-breweries like Anheuser-Busch InBev and MillerCoors have perfected the process in hundreds of factories, ensuring that every pour from every brewery tastes exactly the same.
http://www.mentalfloss.com/article/12940/scientific-reasons-...
Edward Tufte has a good thread going back years, "Public performances: music always too loud?"
http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0...
Tufte actually consulted for Bose and has said it was a great experience. He still uses Bose gear for all his tour stops.
Also, in New Orleans, if you're smart, go to the Marginy. Frenchman St. Find the places where the players just play. No amplification at all. That city produces enough fresh music to supply three local stations 24 hours a day.
I'd tell you some exact spots, but no. No I won't. Sorry.
http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0...
Tufte actually consulted for Bose and has said it was a great experience. He still uses Bose gear for all his tour stops.
Also, in New Orleans, if you're smart, go to the Marginy. Frenchman St. Find the places where the players just play. No amplification at all. That city produces enough fresh music to supply three local stations 24 hours a day.
I'd tell you some exact spots, but no. No I won't. Sorry.
That thread is awesome. Is everything on his site like that, or is it a huge outlier?
I know a fair number of speakers who bring their own mics (either to a recording studio or a live venue). Bringing the whole kit is pretty serious though.
I know a fair number of speakers who bring their own mics (either to a recording studio or a live venue). Bringing the whole kit is pretty serious though.
He very actively culls low-quality content from his site. You might find this thread interesting, "Moderating internet forums"
http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0...
http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0...
I wish some of these "DJs" at colleges these days understood what distortion is. And what is with the trend where volume has to always be at 100% even when you're playing in a small room? It's nuts out there.
You have obviously never experienced the pain of a prolonged car trip with Bose. I never knew what ear fatigue was prior to the unfortunate experience of owning Bose car audio.
Thankfully, most car manufacturers have stopped using Bose.
Thankfully, most car manufacturers have stopped using Bose.
I have a Bose system in my A4, and it's not bad at all. I still prefer my headphones at home, but for a car audio system of the mid-2000s, it's pretty good. I thought manufacturers mainly stopped using it over license fees.
It is obnoxious that it's a 2ohm system where everyone else uses 4ohm, so you can't add/upgrade/modify easily.
It is obnoxious that it's a 2ohm system where everyone else uses 4ohm, so you can't add/upgrade/modify easily.
I have a Chevy Volt with a low-power Bose system, and honestly, it sounds fucking amazing.
Not sure of the reputation of Bose in the US but over here in the UK 8/10 people would know Bose as a high end, high quality audio company.
I'm not sure any other audio company could make such a claim in the UK.
Every electronics megastore has an elegant Bose section showcasing the hardware in an Apple-esque way.
I'm not sure any other audio company could make such a claim in the UK.
Every electronics megastore has an elegant Bose section showcasing the hardware in an Apple-esque way.
Same rep in the US. It is just the audiophile hipsters who can't wait to show how much they know by bashing Bose.
>It is just the audiophile hipsters who can't wait to show how much they know by bashing Bose.
Are you implying that Bose headphones and speakers are a great value and quality?
Otherwise you are basically trying to paint a group of people as hipsters for what is seemingly an illogical reason.
Are you implying that Bose headphones and speakers are a great value and quality?
Otherwise you are basically trying to paint a group of people as hipsters for what is seemingly an illogical reason.
Their reputation in the US, as far as I've observed, is that they produce the best designed (in the UX sense) and highest quality (in terms of sound) audio equipment in the consumer price range, albeit at the high end of that price range.
As others in this thread have stated, their reputation online seems to be much less positive. There seem to be two main groups of people who contribute to that less positive reputation: (1) those with expertise in audio equipment who state things like Bose doesn't have nearly as good range of sound as professional equipment and (2) those who don't provide an explanation beyond "Bose sucks" (analogous to the anti-Mac vitriol that was widely seen until the late 2000s).
stonemetal presumably labeled the latter group as "audiophile hipsters" because their behavior appears to be the result of thinking it's cool to criticize products that are popular among mainstream consumers but which they believe to be deemed inferior by experts.
As others in this thread have stated, their reputation online seems to be much less positive. There seem to be two main groups of people who contribute to that less positive reputation: (1) those with expertise in audio equipment who state things like Bose doesn't have nearly as good range of sound as professional equipment and (2) those who don't provide an explanation beyond "Bose sucks" (analogous to the anti-Mac vitriol that was widely seen until the late 2000s).
stonemetal presumably labeled the latter group as "audiophile hipsters" because their behavior appears to be the result of thinking it's cool to criticize products that are popular among mainstream consumers but which they believe to be deemed inferior by experts.
> Bose doesn't have nearly as good range of sound as professional equipment
It's not about "range of sound", it's about producing sound accurately. A more accurate frequency response won't sound exciting, but you'll hear slightly more of your music because nothing is hyped. It's a matter of personal taste and suitability to the task. I wouldn't mix a song on any Bose equipment, but I wouldn't be frothing at the mouth if I went to a friend's and they had a Bose system. I'd still prefer a £300 pair of studio monitors over an equivalent Bose setup, but that's my opinion.
It's not about "range of sound", it's about producing sound accurately. A more accurate frequency response won't sound exciting, but you'll hear slightly more of your music because nothing is hyped. It's a matter of personal taste and suitability to the task. I wouldn't mix a song on any Bose equipment, but I wouldn't be frothing at the mouth if I went to a friend's and they had a Bose system. I'd still prefer a £300 pair of studio monitors over an equivalent Bose setup, but that's my opinion.
They produce decent quality gear outside of my price range. Is there better gear out there, sure. Is there gear out there that is both unequivocally better quality and better priced not to my knowledge. Bose is competitive with other high end consumer grade audio gear.
When it comes to Bose I have only come across two opinions pretty good but expensive or utter crap let me tell you how my hand built tube setup is so much better.
When it comes to Bose I have only come across two opinions pretty good but expensive or utter crap let me tell you how my hand built tube setup is so much better.
Are you saying it is not?
I would. At least not as good as their price point would indicate. In general you can get superior products for less money for most of what they sell.
Could you please list those better quality and less expensive alternatives for my edification? :) Especially active noise-cancelling headphones that are better quality and cheaper than QuietComfort. The Audio Technica ATH-M50s mentioned in this thread look like a pretty good less expensive alternative if you don't need low-frequency cancellation, but I'd love an affordable pair of active cancellors for flights.
They're not cheaper, but I think the PSB M4U2 ($400) sounds much better than the QuietComfort 15. The noise cancellation isn't quite as good, though.
The PSB is nicely designed, too -- for instance, the cord unplugs at both ends, and can be plugged into either side of the headphone.
The PSB is nicely designed, too -- for instance, the cord unplugs at both ends, and can be plugged into either side of the headphone.
Corrective upvote since you answered half the question. XD But yeah, I wonder if Bose's consumer-level reputation of having no competitors that are both better and cheaper is deserved. Hopefully Eikenberry can answer that.
Heheh, thanks.
I've never liked the Bose sound, but I recognize that they do some things well; those just aren't the things I care about the most. I wouldn't say they're overpriced, though -- it's hard to argue that when their products sell so well. Maybe some of the others are underpriced ;-}
I've never liked the Bose sound, but I recognize that they do some things well; those just aren't the things I care about the most. I wouldn't say they're overpriced, though -- it's hard to argue that when their products sell so well. Maybe some of the others are underpriced ;-}
I have a pair of on-ear Bose headphones that I bought when I didn't know any better. In hind sight they don't sound great.
BUT, they are the most comfortable on-ears I have ever owned and possibly the most durable headphones I've owned. The model was recently updated, and I think the changes are improvements.
In that light, if you want a really comfortable, quite durable pair of portables, They are a reasonable choice.
BUT, they are the most comfortable on-ears I have ever owned and possibly the most durable headphones I've owned. The model was recently updated, and I think the changes are improvements.
In that light, if you want a really comfortable, quite durable pair of portables, They are a reasonable choice.
Anything half the price will outperform what Bose has to offer. It’s all based on deception and marketing. For example, in store Bose displays have to be set far away from other speakers so you can’t make a fair comparison and the demos are played very loud to mask the thin sound quality.
You have to stand in awe of their excellent capability to convince so many that their cheaply made 1000% markup junk is worth the money.
You have to stand in awe of their excellent capability to convince so many that their cheaply made 1000% markup junk is worth the money.
> Anything half the price will outperform what Bose has to offer.
So, if "anything half the price" is supposed to outperform Bose, would you be willing to point out something half the price of an equivalent Bose product and show me some kind of unbiased test that demonstrates it?
I feel like I hear this kind of sentiment a lot, but I almost never see any evidence to back it up.
Bose doesn't cater to the high-end audiophile market. They don't sell big, bulky, expensive equipment that audiophiles go for. Instead, they sell small stuff that's expensive for it's size but cheap compared to audiophile equipment. And I think that it it does pretty well for its size and price. Sure, you can get better sound quality out of bigger, bulkier, more expensive equipment. And you can get reasonable audio quality out of other small, cheaper gear. But I'm wondering if you can get gear that beats it in every way; smaller, cheaper, and better?
I have never done any kind of blinded experiments, or measurements of frequency responses, or other such scientific comparisons, so I can't say for sure. And that's why I'm asking if you know better. Is there something out there, at a similar size and price point, that is better than what Bose offers? Do you have good evidence for this?
So, if "anything half the price" is supposed to outperform Bose, would you be willing to point out something half the price of an equivalent Bose product and show me some kind of unbiased test that demonstrates it?
I feel like I hear this kind of sentiment a lot, but I almost never see any evidence to back it up.
Bose doesn't cater to the high-end audiophile market. They don't sell big, bulky, expensive equipment that audiophiles go for. Instead, they sell small stuff that's expensive for it's size but cheap compared to audiophile equipment. And I think that it it does pretty well for its size and price. Sure, you can get better sound quality out of bigger, bulkier, more expensive equipment. And you can get reasonable audio quality out of other small, cheaper gear. But I'm wondering if you can get gear that beats it in every way; smaller, cheaper, and better?
I have never done any kind of blinded experiments, or measurements of frequency responses, or other such scientific comparisons, so I can't say for sure. And that's why I'm asking if you know better. Is there something out there, at a similar size and price point, that is better than what Bose offers? Do you have good evidence for this?
At the constraints you provided (same size) the whole notion of "better" is extremely subjective. Small speakers can only reproduce a certain range of frequencies (think of it like trying to make 10 m high waves with a spatula) so they will all produce "colored" sound i.e. distort the signal. People perceive some coloration as being better than another and Bose's technology is all about making their coloration pleasant for most people. However, "most" is not "all" and some people don't like their coloration. Not to mention that any set of big speakers produces orders of magnitude less coloration.
Jellyfish won't be able to give you such a product because they don't exist. Your comment is 100% accurate. Bose is not the absolute best, but the absolute best is 10x or even 50x the price.
I would maybe agree that Bose has cultivated a reputation among ordinary consumers as "the best" which is not accurate. There are other equally good brands with a similar price point that don't get as much attention. There's also audiophile gear which is much better, but also much more expensive. What does not exist, though, are products superior to Bose as half the price. (Assuming you're not factoring in used gear or some kind of blowout sale) That goes for any brand, though.
I would maybe agree that Bose has cultivated a reputation among ordinary consumers as "the best" which is not accurate. There are other equally good brands with a similar price point that don't get as much attention. There's also audiophile gear which is much better, but also much more expensive. What does not exist, though, are products superior to Bose as half the price. (Assuming you're not factoring in used gear or some kind of blowout sale) That goes for any brand, though.
I've never put on a pair of Bose so I can't attest to the sound quality, but I have held a few pairs and it bothers me that headphones in that price range can feel so fragile. There's this cheap plastic feel to it. My Sony MDR-V6 feels like a tank compared to them and these are plastic too.
I love my sony's over my boses. The sonys have survived 3 years of being sat on, run over by the chair, yanked on and off, cable tied around me and dragging my aeron across the room and out the door, etc. And you CAN get replacement parts for them. Heck they come with a diagram of how to take them apart and replace parts.
My bose QC's lasted 6 months of mild air travel and then the headband broke in half. Only way to fix em was buy a new pair. Also I could wear my QC's for about 4 hours and then my ear would hurt. I can wear the sonys for 12+ hours no issue. But that's just my freakish shaped head so it's personal.
That said I don't really give a crap about the sound quality. They sound good to me and they're a good price. My previous pair lasted 10 years.
All the audio engineers I've ever asked have a set of the sonys because they're supposed to be a good representation of a middle of the road system that everyone has. They're good but not amazing. But that's what you want when mixing. A representation of the middle and one of the high end. Most people will be listening on the crap to good stuff.
My bose QC's lasted 6 months of mild air travel and then the headband broke in half. Only way to fix em was buy a new pair. Also I could wear my QC's for about 4 hours and then my ear would hurt. I can wear the sonys for 12+ hours no issue. But that's just my freakish shaped head so it's personal.
That said I don't really give a crap about the sound quality. They sound good to me and they're a good price. My previous pair lasted 10 years.
All the audio engineers I've ever asked have a set of the sonys because they're supposed to be a good representation of a middle of the road system that everyone has. They're good but not amazing. But that's what you want when mixing. A representation of the middle and one of the high end. Most people will be listening on the crap to good stuff.
Hmm, interesting. My wife has a pair of the noise canceling headphones. They seem fairly sturdy to me.
Those Sonys are great phones designed to be tough. They're mean to be used in a studio, get sat on from time to time. Have the cables yanked, etc. They don't have noise canceling and they don't run on batteries, so I consider them a different piece of gear from the Bose noise canceling phones. But I have no doubt they're probably tougher than most phones, Bose included.
An audiophile tube amp is not going to take abuse either - it's meant to be treated in a delicate way. The tradeoff for that is that it will deliver pristine quality. The Bose stuff is not quite that fragile, not quite that good either. But the point is that all gear is designed for a certain purpose and comes with certain tradeoffs.
Those Sonys are great phones designed to be tough. They're mean to be used in a studio, get sat on from time to time. Have the cables yanked, etc. They don't have noise canceling and they don't run on batteries, so I consider them a different piece of gear from the Bose noise canceling phones. But I have no doubt they're probably tougher than most phones, Bose included.
An audiophile tube amp is not going to take abuse either - it's meant to be treated in a delicate way. The tradeoff for that is that it will deliver pristine quality. The Bose stuff is not quite that fragile, not quite that good either. But the point is that all gear is designed for a certain purpose and comes with certain tradeoffs.
B&W MT Series, Kef Eggs, Orb Audio, Anthony Gallo, Focal Dome, the list is enormous, but most people don't get to hear (and see) them because they are not always sold in box shifting electronics stores and they don't have the Bose marketing budget. But all of them better designed and sound better.
Bose in-car and Bose noise cancelling headphones are a different matter, as their noise cancelling is first rate.
There is plenty of evidence.
Bose in-car and Bose noise cancelling headphones are a different matter, as their noise cancelling is first rate.
There is plenty of evidence.
Thanks! I haven't heard of most of these.
> There is plenty of evidence.
What are good sources for this kind of evidence? I'm actually interested; I find it hard to find good information on audio quality, because there's so much audiophile garbage out there.
> There is plenty of evidence.
What are good sources for this kind of evidence? I'm actually interested; I find it hard to find good information on audio quality, because there's so much audiophile garbage out there.
Spoken like someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. I worked at the Stanford Bose store for a year. On many occasions we'd let customers bring in other products and put them side by side with Bose. Bose won every time. This was especially true for the Wave Radio and SoundDock. It was also an outdoor mall so if the door to the store was open, which it almost always was, there was a ton of background noise. Didn't matter. Bose always won.
Bose is completely overpriced. As is Apple, Monster and a ton of other "high end" electronic brands. But there is no better audio equipment for the average person than Bose. For a home theater or headphones or bedside radio, Bose wins every time....if you're willing to pay. And like I said, I worked in the store, A LOT of people are willing to pay for that quality.
Bose is completely overpriced. As is Apple, Monster and a ton of other "high end" electronic brands. But there is no better audio equipment for the average person than Bose. For a home theater or headphones or bedside radio, Bose wins every time....if you're willing to pay. And like I said, I worked in the store, A LOT of people are willing to pay for that quality.
Let's not get all crazy and start acting like you get anything for your money with Monster (at least the cables, I can't speak to the headphones).
My experience, not working in retail, but about Bose speakers and SoundDocks is somewhat different, I say also check X and Y, and Bose usually is dropped.
In fact I don't know anyone that has bought Bose (apart from coming in their car or for headphones in noisy environments) that has done serious listening to other systems.
In fact I don't know anyone that has bought Bose (apart from coming in their car or for headphones in noisy environments) that has done serious listening to other systems.
The over-ear Quiet Comfort 'noise canceling' headphones are one exception, and I gnaw my own liver whenever I have to replace a pair I donated as a "seat back prize" to the passenger on the next flight.
That's something I've always wondered about. It seems like at some point it became trendy to hate on Bose - hence almost every online discussion about them having a dozen people show up to say they're overpriced and sound like crap, yet I don't think I've ever seen one of those threads where someone actually names speakers that are better AND cheaper.
To my (granted mostly non-audiophile...though I am the type who insists that vinyl sounds better...) ears, they've always sounded pretty good and aren't that expensive compared to most high end offerings.
To my (granted mostly non-audiophile...though I am the type who insists that vinyl sounds better...) ears, they've always sounded pretty good and aren't that expensive compared to most high end offerings.
>That's something I've always wondered about. It seems like at some point it became trendy to hate on Bose - hence almost every online discussion about them having a dozen people show up to say they're overpriced and sound like crap, yet I don't think I've ever seen one of those threads where someone actually names speakers that are better AND cheaper.
In my experience every thread which criticizes Bose offers better alternatives. This is true at least for reddit's r/audiophile.
In my experience every thread which criticizes Bose offers better alternatives. This is true at least for reddit's r/audiophile.
I would not say they sound like crap, but they do not possess a 'transparent' sound or offer a flat audio response curve that most audiophiles love. Also, the use of noise canceling technology does degrade sound quality to some extent.
Of course, these are all audiophile nitpickings that a casual user would almost never consider.
Of course, these are all audiophile nitpickings that a casual user would almost never consider.
> Also, the use of noise canceling technology does degrade sound quality to some extent.
So does the use of a jet engine a few meters away. ;)
I don't use headphones with noise canceling but I semi-regularly wish I did.
So does the use of a jet engine a few meters away. ;)
I don't use headphones with noise canceling but I semi-regularly wish I did.
The obvious solution here is to just spend so much on the best available audio gear that you can no longer afford to fly.
My mom got a wave radio several years ago and honestly I was really underwhelmed by the sound quality given the price of the device. She liked it though so whatever.
I don't really understand the hatred because, compared to true audiophile gear, Bose is absolutely dirt cheap.
There's a boutique audio store down the street from me that sells RCA cables which are more expensive than a Bose iPhone dock. An entire "audiophile" system is easily in the 6 figure range. If you're into that kind of gear then obviously Bose must be low end equipment for you.
For the rest of us, though, I think you pay a little more for Bose and, for that, you get a little bit better sound. It's one step above consumer gear, but still well below audiophile gear. I think it's priced appropriately.
There's a boutique audio store down the street from me that sells RCA cables which are more expensive than a Bose iPhone dock. An entire "audiophile" system is easily in the 6 figure range. If you're into that kind of gear then obviously Bose must be low end equipment for you.
For the rest of us, though, I think you pay a little more for Bose and, for that, you get a little bit better sound. It's one step above consumer gear, but still well below audiophile gear. I think it's priced appropriately.
i generally agree with you, but when you look at the details it's a bit more complicated:
i was surprised when i saw the (low) price of some of their stuff (i have never bought bose, but i looked on amazon to see what people were comparing to). but, at least in the uk, there's quite an industry of small firms producing "budget audiophile" gear that is comparable to more expensive equipment. eg mission, creek, music fidelity value series. and there are new chinese builders like audio-gd who are trying to get in on the market too.
also, they are most famous for their headphones, i think, and those tend to be more mainstream (there are not so many boutique headphone manufacturers - i guess you could call grado one, but otherwise sennheiser, beyer etc are pretty mainstream). headphones are common and easy to compare - when you do, bose headphones appear expensive, poorly made (maybe that's not the right description, but they seem "delicate" compared to the sennheiser HD25s i use for travelling) and not that great-sounding. but then their noise cancelling is good, which is what they are charging for. so it's true when people say the sound quality is relatively poor, but also true when people say they are hard to beat for noise cancelling.
finally, their music systems seemed to be aimed at "home theatre" (ie tv) while much of the audiophile scene is music-oriented, and the sounds are quite different (especially at lower prices). audiophiles typically care most about mid-range detail, while home theatre is all about the bass.
so it seems largely to be comparing apples to oranges and / or people with specialised knowledge being able to find better (but relatively obscure) value, which is often true.
[edit: listening to good music on good equipment is a real pleasure. as i said above, you can find this kind of thing at bose prices, if you look around. try asking at audiophile shops - they're not idiots, they know that the top end stuff is not for everyone, and they may well have some lower priced kit too (which they probably sell to their friends, since people who work in retail typically can't afford high end audiophile gear anyway....)]
i was surprised when i saw the (low) price of some of their stuff (i have never bought bose, but i looked on amazon to see what people were comparing to). but, at least in the uk, there's quite an industry of small firms producing "budget audiophile" gear that is comparable to more expensive equipment. eg mission, creek, music fidelity value series. and there are new chinese builders like audio-gd who are trying to get in on the market too.
also, they are most famous for their headphones, i think, and those tend to be more mainstream (there are not so many boutique headphone manufacturers - i guess you could call grado one, but otherwise sennheiser, beyer etc are pretty mainstream). headphones are common and easy to compare - when you do, bose headphones appear expensive, poorly made (maybe that's not the right description, but they seem "delicate" compared to the sennheiser HD25s i use for travelling) and not that great-sounding. but then their noise cancelling is good, which is what they are charging for. so it's true when people say the sound quality is relatively poor, but also true when people say they are hard to beat for noise cancelling.
finally, their music systems seemed to be aimed at "home theatre" (ie tv) while much of the audiophile scene is music-oriented, and the sounds are quite different (especially at lower prices). audiophiles typically care most about mid-range detail, while home theatre is all about the bass.
so it seems largely to be comparing apples to oranges and / or people with specialised knowledge being able to find better (but relatively obscure) value, which is often true.
[edit: listening to good music on good equipment is a real pleasure. as i said above, you can find this kind of thing at bose prices, if you look around. try asking at audiophile shops - they're not idiots, they know that the top end stuff is not for everyone, and they may well have some lower priced kit too (which they probably sell to their friends, since people who work in retail typically can't afford high end audiophile gear anyway....)]
I am an audiophile, and you're sorely mistaken. You can get _really_ good sound quality for very 99% less than what you claim. A 6 figure sound system is a high end system. I don't believe in those expensive cables or directional ethernet cables, or power conditioners. But, like most things there is a sliding scale and diminishing returns. A 6 figure audio system would be a 100% of what you could achieve but for 2-3000$ you can get 90+% of the 6 figure system.
I can't remember what magazine it was, but a couple of years ago competing against very expensive gear, a ~300$ NAD amplifier beat out other 5 figure amps for sound quality. and 2000$ speakers were the runner up up 40.000$ speakers.
I can't remember what magazine it was, but a couple of years ago competing against very expensive gear, a ~300$ NAD amplifier beat out other 5 figure amps for sound quality. and 2000$ speakers were the runner up up 40.000$ speakers.
You don't even have to go quite that far up the scale. A small NAD integrated amp (or even the 7225 BBE receiver if you really want a tuner) paired with, say, a pair of Paradigm Titans (or the equivalent-range PSBs or similar) and the sources of your choice would be quite satisfactory at about the same price as the Acoustic Wave with CD changer. The problem is that now you have to pay attention to placement to extract what the system has to offer. That, in a nutshell, is where the Bose all-in-ones make their living — they're nearly oblivious to placement. Imaging? Not great by any stretch of the imagination, but as long as you'r in the same room as the system, it has some. There's no sweet spot, but there isn't a sour spot either. Same deal with interference suck-out.
$5K-ish, spent the right way and set up properly, will give you a system that will let you imagine you can tell whether or not the stand-up bass player had a beard. But to really get to that level, even with an unlimited budget, you really have to care about the system as much as the music it plays. Placement matters. The room matters. And I'm as willing to play that game as anybody (nobody who isn't would ever have bought a Basis Debut Gold Standard turntable with a Wheaton Triplanar tonearm mounting a Koetsu cartridge back when it mattered), but I understand that arranging your speakers, your furniture and your life around the requirements of a stereo system isn't for everybody. Frankly, a Bose box (or, in a time long past, a set of 901s instead of "real" speakers) gives better results in most cases when placement is an afterthought (if it's ever a thought at all). Does it cost more than it "should"? The markup over materials may be high, but it sells well enough at the price that nobody's been inclined to reduce prices, so I'd say not.
$5K-ish, spent the right way and set up properly, will give you a system that will let you imagine you can tell whether or not the stand-up bass player had a beard. But to really get to that level, even with an unlimited budget, you really have to care about the system as much as the music it plays. Placement matters. The room matters. And I'm as willing to play that game as anybody (nobody who isn't would ever have bought a Basis Debut Gold Standard turntable with a Wheaton Triplanar tonearm mounting a Koetsu cartridge back when it mattered), but I understand that arranging your speakers, your furniture and your life around the requirements of a stereo system isn't for everybody. Frankly, a Bose box (or, in a time long past, a set of 901s instead of "real" speakers) gives better results in most cases when placement is an afterthought (if it's ever a thought at all). Does it cost more than it "should"? The markup over materials may be high, but it sells well enough at the price that nobody's been inclined to reduce prices, so I'd say not.
You completely missed the point. For what Bose products cost you can buy something with better quality sound or you can buy something with equivalent sound for less. Audio Technica, Beyerdynamic, Sennheiser, Sony, and others make better products for less money.
No they don't. The other brands make equal products for similar price, but they also make cheaper products for less money. Bose just doesn't have the cheap product line. You can buy a piece of junk Sony stereo or you can buy an expensive, high quality Sony system that is as good as Bose or any other consumer brand. With Bose you can only buy their top-of-the-line version, which is "pro-sumer" level stuff. They don't offer cheap products, and they don't offer audiophile products either.
Now if you want to debate about sound quality, yes Bose has a very distinct sound that may or may not be desirable. Particularly audiophiles do not want the signal processing that Bose stuff tends to give you.
Now if you want to debate about sound quality, yes Bose has a very distinct sound that may or may not be desirable. Particularly audiophiles do not want the signal processing that Bose stuff tends to give you.
Hipster argument is already a tired meme-argument.
Bose sucks...because they suck. I'm not an audiophile, but Bose makes some seriously bad sounding products.
Yamaha makes some seriously good sounding kit at a good price.
Bose sucks...because they suck. I'm not an audiophile, but Bose makes some seriously bad sounding products.
Yamaha makes some seriously good sounding kit at a good price.
The reputation in the US: a company that runs infomercials. The "fill the room with sound" ads are on par with Snuggie and Big Mouth Billy Bass.
[deleted]
To give myself as a one man sample:
Bose is the only high quality audio company I can think of.
Bose is the only high quality audio company I can think of.
Here's a small list of companies that make better audio gear in the same price range: AKG, Audio Technica, Beyerdynamic, Etymotic, Grado, PSB, Sennheiser, Shure, Sony, Ultimate Ears (Logitech now). There are plenty of others I've missed.
How about Bang & Olufsen?
Bose is what you might call "pro-sumer". Bose products to not hesitate to alter and color the sound of the output, if Bose considers the result pleasing. Audiophiles and audio professionals are generally more interested in high fidelity.
Bose products are kind of like Toyota Prius. It is a car for people who do not like driving. Except that Bose products are much more overpriced than Prius.
I'd compare Bose to a full-size sedan, something like a Toyota Avalon. Toyota designed the Avalon to provide a smooth and calm ride in a luxurious package. So the Avalon's suspension/steering/engine are all tuned for a smooth ride, which is the exact opposite of what car enthusiasts want. An active driver would be happier with a BMW or a Subaru. But if my grandparents drove a Subaru WRX, they'd hate the same qualities that make it enjoyable to the enthusiast.
Bose actively processes the input, which does improve the sound quality to the casual listener. It's exactly what those kind of listeners want. Audiophiles want exact reproduction of the original source, so it's not a good choice for their preferences. But by dissing Bose, audiophiles are doing a disservice to the casual listener, the same way as if I pushed my grandparents toward a WRX.
Bose actively processes the input, which does improve the sound quality to the casual listener. It's exactly what those kind of listeners want. Audiophiles want exact reproduction of the original source, so it's not a good choice for their preferences. But by dissing Bose, audiophiles are doing a disservice to the casual listener, the same way as if I pushed my grandparents toward a WRX.
this is unfair. most people don't buy cars for the pleasure of driving. bose is like most cars - trying to appeal to "normal" consumers, giving them something "special" (small speakers with big sounds, or noise cancelling, say - things that are easy to demo) within a price.
audiophile equipment is more like the ariel atom - an awesome car to drive, but no-one normal would get one. where would you put the kids? or the shopping?
and i say this as an "audiophile" - i love messing around seeing which dac pairs best with which speakers/amp (or hanging rugs on walls...). but i know that makes me not-normal.
audiophile equipment is more like the ariel atom - an awesome car to drive, but no-one normal would get one. where would you put the kids? or the shopping?
and i say this as an "audiophile" - i love messing around seeing which dac pairs best with which speakers/amp (or hanging rugs on walls...). but i know that makes me not-normal.
I love driving but I hate commuting. A loud manual shifting two-seater is great for recreational driving in the twisties or a track, but not so great for stop & go commutes and 3+ hour road trips. A Prius is perfectly fine for the latter two and I've been subjected to a number of worse cars with sloppy suspension and jerky slush boxes.
> Bose is what you might call "pro-sumer"
No, the bottom, entry level of their line up is accessible at the prosumer level.
http://worldwide.bose.com/pro/en_us/web/home/page.html
No, the bottom, entry level of their line up is accessible at the prosumer level.
http://worldwide.bose.com/pro/en_us/web/home/page.html
> I'm not sure any other audio company could make such a claim in the UK.
Sennheiser? Personally I'd never heard of Bose until recently, when they started advertising in UK cinemas.
Sennheiser? Personally I'd never heard of Bose until recently, when they started advertising in UK cinemas.
B&O and Bowers and Wilkins both spring to mind, both make much better products
What? Bose has long been notoriously low-quality for the price. They were the Beats by Dr. Dre of the 1980s, not Apple.
So goes the old saying: "No highs? No lows? Must be Bose!"
While that saying might be a tad unjustified, I find that their products are often purchased by people who don't do adequate research into other headphones that might suit them better. I often see people wearing the "QuietComfort" brand headphones in situations where they gain no benefit from active noise cancelling, although for all I know they could be heavy travelers and only own a single pair of headphones. But honestly, a comparable pair from another brand would run them $200 less...
While that saying might be a tad unjustified, I find that their products are often purchased by people who don't do adequate research into other headphones that might suit them better. I often see people wearing the "QuietComfort" brand headphones in situations where they gain no benefit from active noise cancelling, although for all I know they could be heavy travelers and only own a single pair of headphones. But honestly, a comparable pair from another brand would run them $200 less...
I have several sets of high end headphones. For a period of times, wearing a headset was a part of my profession (tactical action officer for a Navy battle group). Training is an MD with a BS in physics.
Bought some QC15s at 2 am in the Atlanta airport on a cross-country-twice-in-48-hours trip. Probably the best $300 ever spent. Slept like the dead. No one bothers you with those headphones, and they aren't nearly as heavy as a lot of fancier stuff, or as insulated, so your ears don't sweat.
Those are my go-to ears at all times. I even got a carabiner so I can clip them to my bag (also a superb product: http://www.saddlebackleather.com/Classic-Briefcase-Thin)
Bought some QC15s at 2 am in the Atlanta airport on a cross-country-twice-in-48-hours trip. Probably the best $300 ever spent. Slept like the dead. No one bothers you with those headphones, and they aren't nearly as heavy as a lot of fancier stuff, or as insulated, so your ears don't sweat.
Those are my go-to ears at all times. I even got a carabiner so I can clip them to my bag (also a superb product: http://www.saddlebackleather.com/Classic-Briefcase-Thin)
That's usually what it is. I bought a pair of the QuietComfort after getting to use it on an international business flight on AA. It made a huge difference with plane noise so I bought it for travel, and now I use them most of the time since I haven't gotten around to buying another pair of headphones.
Almost all startup offices I've been in have high levels of low frequency noise. I have other headphones (including the ATH-M50s), but I've taken to using noise canceling headphones more often than any of my others. You may be underestimating their benefit.
What would you recommend as an alternative? I tried some Sony ones but the electronics added some other noise.
No clue regarding active noise cancellation. If you're okay with passive (aka, they go on your head and keep sound out just by virtue of surrounding your ear), a few popular low-cost options include the Audio Technica ATH-M50s and Sennheiser HD280Pros. Everyone in the audio world has their own opinions on this sort of stuff, but I've owned a pair of each of those and, despite their small flaws, both are decent pairs of cans.
The only time you really want the active stuff is when you're traveling and there exists a lot of low-frequency noise, such as on a train or airplane. Looking around on Hydrogenaudio confirms that the QC are okay if that's all you need, and also that alternatives exist, such as IEMs, which might have a wider range of use as they simply have very heavy passive isolation.
The only time you really want the active stuff is when you're traveling and there exists a lot of low-frequency noise, such as on a train or airplane. Looking around on Hydrogenaudio confirms that the QC are okay if that's all you need, and also that alternatives exist, such as IEMs, which might have a wider range of use as they simply have very heavy passive isolation.
I brought a pair of Sennheiser PXC-450s - they are nice in that you can turn off the noise cancellation and use them without batteries (and get a boost to the sound quality by doing so), but if you are on a plane or just have loud neighbors in the office I can turn it on and cut down on the outside noise. The cancellation itself isn't quite as good as the QuietComfort ones but it's close enough.
The only time you want ATH-M50s is when you're cold and want to feel your ears sweat. I break them out on occasion for close listening to something or other, but holy crap, they're miserable. The Bose QC-15s go for hours at Starbucks while studying. I'll probably buy a pair for each of my kids when they go to college.
Shure is fantastic. I've owned countless pairs across various price levels and have never been disappointed. While I find that their top of the line SE535 break easily at the gym, their warranty service has been exception and lighting quick -- usually next day servicing.
Not sure why you got downvoted for this, other than brand snobbery. That's also been my experience with Shure. As well as Sennheiser HD650 & Fostex T20RP, I own pairs of Shure e5c and e215 in-ear phones. The e5c are getting on a bit, and are perhaps fragile, but I had custom ear molds made for them. Out of the lot, the e215 are the best bang-for-buck I've come across.
The e5c's main problem is they are SO sensitive they are completely unforgiving about the amplifier used - almost anything with a gain block after a volume control is going to have too high an intrinsic noise floor for them to not show it up.
The e5c's main problem is they are SO sensitive they are completely unforgiving about the amplifier used - almost anything with a gain block after a volume control is going to have too high an intrinsic noise floor for them to not show it up.
I recommend the Bose for flying. I also had the Creative Aurvana for a while until they broke, which were decent too, but not quite as good. For just walking around town, I like my Etymotic in-ear phones, but those are uncomfortable on a long plane trip. When plugged in though, they have great isolation.
Here's what the wirecutter says about it: http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-noise-canceling-headph...
At home I also have the Sennheiser HD 600. I usually use the Bose -- the noise cancelling is nice even if you're not in a plane.
Here's what the wirecutter says about it: http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-noise-canceling-headph...
At home I also have the Sennheiser HD 600. I usually use the Bose -- the noise cancelling is nice even if you're not in a plane.
An open headphone like the HD 600 (which I'm wearing now) is really unfair to compare against noise canceling; I use Beyerdynamic DT770 for "closed", and in-ear from etymotics or ultimateears, rather than active noise canceling -- the only active noise canceling headphones I have are Pro Ears and MSA Saladin (shooting/military ear protectors which take radio input).
I'd be upset if my home environment were loud enough to warrant noise canceling, though.
I'd be upset if my home environment were loud enough to warrant noise canceling, though.
If you are willing to go with in-ear headphones then a good deep seating pair of passive noise isolating headphones will kick the pants off any active noise cancelling pair.
In terms of pure isolation, Etymotic makes some of the best out there (>30dB isolation), and I think they sound absolutely brilliant.
In terms of pure isolation, Etymotic makes some of the best out there (>30dB isolation), and I think they sound absolutely brilliant.
1. Bose products in the 80s were ugly too.
2. Not all electronics were ugly in the 80s. Bang & Olufsen and Quad would completely blew Bose away as far as style.
2. Not all electronics were ugly in the 80s. Bang & Olufsen and Quad would completely blew Bose away as far as style.
Don't overlook the Braun Atelier systems. Those products are art.
Bose aviation headsets are amazing.
That rap was accurate. Better sound through marketing and douche-baggery IP / anti-competitive behavior.
Bose implementations used cheap parts and cut corners, but charged premium prices by being the original MonsterCable. Bose stifled competition and innovation with pre-existing art IP. He also dicked people around with trademark because he was an asshat.
He was only one step better than a patent-troll in terms of his effects on the industry (because he actually did deliver a product). Fuck him and his Beats by Dre bullshit sucker-identifying crap.
Bose was drowning start-ups in the bathtub, let alone badgering any real competition. It's an affront to HN for his death to be atop the list without him being pilloried as a pariah.
Bose implementations used cheap parts and cut corners, but charged premium prices by being the original MonsterCable. Bose stifled competition and innovation with pre-existing art IP. He also dicked people around with trademark because he was an asshat.
He was only one step better than a patent-troll in terms of his effects on the industry (because he actually did deliver a product). Fuck him and his Beats by Dre bullshit sucker-identifying crap.
Bose was drowning start-ups in the bathtub, let alone badgering any real competition. It's an affront to HN for his death to be atop the list without him being pilloried as a pariah.
Indeed. Let's not forget that Bose sued Consumer Reports in 1971 for publishing a review that described a Bose system as one that "tended to wander about the room" [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Reports#Bose
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Reports#Bose
His last lecture here for those interested
http://video.mit.edu/watch/dr-amar-g-bose-last-lecture-of-fa...
As a ex sound engineer and now self described audiophile, I deeply admire and respect Bose products. Though expensive, I loved my Bose speakers till they fell off my computer desk onto the floor. The small cube satellite design with the sub on the floor, filled the room considering there such small size. They were good enough for me to mix and master with for my friends projects.
RIP Dr. Bose
RIP Dr. Bose
Nobody in audio respects Bose products, though. They're overpriced and low-quality.
What about the sound engineer you just replied to?
Being a sound engineer doesn't mean you have good ears or produce good work, etc. It means someone is paying you to do a job. I post on HN because I'm a founder. I've founded 3 companies. None of which lasted more than 2 years. I use BIC ballpoint pens. Their clear plastic never failed me.
[deleted]
If you're going to argue by appeal to an unnamed authority like "everyone" it's just as easy to refute your argument using the inverse appeal.
So basically all your words are meaningless.
So basically all your words are meaningless.
Well, the 'sound engineer' should take a look at some frequency response charts.
Wow, someone dies and there's so much negativity about headphones.
--
I should leave it there, but since everyone is talking about headphones, I'll play too...
I love the QuietComfort headphones. This is true, even though they are expensive and I've broken a number of them. They are simple, so my bluetooth Sennheiser headset remains on the shelf. They are light and comfortable: I often wear them for 12 hours in a day. They have good sound. They have contributed to so many coding and writing zones over the past ten years I've lost count. They're probably the single most important productivity tool I own. They don't leak sound (unlike open headphones -- I had a pair of really great Sennheiser headphones that made my cubicle neighbours crazy years ago, as Portishead apparently sounds like torturing cats when listened to on open headphones). They are great for air travel. Hell, when you combine them with earplugs they even make float plane trips passable.
So, thanks Dr. Bose for one of your company's products.
--
I should leave it there, but since everyone is talking about headphones, I'll play too...
I love the QuietComfort headphones. This is true, even though they are expensive and I've broken a number of them. They are simple, so my bluetooth Sennheiser headset remains on the shelf. They are light and comfortable: I often wear them for 12 hours in a day. They have good sound. They have contributed to so many coding and writing zones over the past ten years I've lost count. They're probably the single most important productivity tool I own. They don't leak sound (unlike open headphones -- I had a pair of really great Sennheiser headphones that made my cubicle neighbours crazy years ago, as Portishead apparently sounds like torturing cats when listened to on open headphones). They are great for air travel. Hell, when you combine them with earplugs they even make float plane trips passable.
So, thanks Dr. Bose for one of your company's products.
Never took venture capital or IPO'd; gave his company to MIT.
The Bose trio is an inspiration to many in India
1) Jagadish Chandra Bose
2) Satyendra Nath Bose
3) Amar Bose
Subhas Chandra Bose too; albeit not in sci/tech context.
Now, see, that's a useful comment. I learned!
Bose.com have a pretty nice tribute running right now:
http://www.bose.com/remember/index.html
http://www.bose.com/remember/index.html
RIP.
Are there any other faculty members (not necessarily at MIT) who have managed to start their own companies which became successful, and yet have stayed on as a faculty member? That itself seems to be a rare achievement.
Are there any other faculty members (not necessarily at MIT) who have managed to start their own companies which became successful, and yet have stayed on as a faculty member? That itself seems to be a rare achievement.
MIPS was started by Stanford people including Hennessy whose CPU architecture book (Computer Organization and Design: the Hardware/Software Interface) is famous: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_L._Hennessy -- since then he returned, and is now Stanford's president.
Tom Leighton of Akamai - http://people.csail.mit.edu/ftl/
Prof. Phil Sharp [1] received the Nobel Prize and founded Biogen, one of the earliest biotech companies. He remains on the faculty at MIT as an Institute Professor, the highest distinction awarded to MIT faculty.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_Allen_Sharp
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_Allen_Sharp
Ron Rivest (RSA Security) would be a great example of that, although he wasn't CEO of RSA (for long, I think).
[deleted]
Barry Nalebuff of Honest Tea is a professor at Yale. I didn't really know anything about him or his company until I saw him speak yesterday, but both are quite impressive!
Barry is a Professor at the Yale School of Management. He seems to be one of the few business school faculty (i.e. not a technologist) to have founded a successful product company. As opposed to a consulting company, of which there are many examples.
I remember when CK Prahalad took a leave from Michigan to start Praja, but I don't think it was very successful.
I remember when CK Prahalad took a leave from Michigan to start Praja, but I don't think it was very successful.
I cannot edit the parent comment, so posting as a reply: I learnt about some great people today. Thanks to all those who replied.
Let's see. There's one called "Y Combinator". I think they have a website, but I can't find it at the moment.
I had a set of Bose 901 speakers in the 1980s. They were a really innovative design, and certainly not "wife-friendly" with their requirement that the wall behind them be a certain size and distance away.
It had 8 smaller drivers facing towards the wall, angled to reflect off it and produce a more ambient sound. And one driver facing towards the listener to provide the direct sound needed for vocals. The speakers (heavy, heavy speakers, btw) had an earlier version of their waveguide technology, which channeled the back pressure of all the small drivers and combined them to provide the bass that a larger driver would have produced.
In order to correct some of the bad behavior of the small drivers & enclosure, there was an external electronics box that you inserted between your preamp and amp, or in a tape loop if you had a receiver (it had pass-thru capability) to get the speakers to sound right. Once DSPs became affordable, they changed over to them, instead of the analog components the series of 901 that I had used.
I think I paid $1300 at the military exchange for the pair, and the (essentially required) Bose stands were another $200 or so. Which was a lot of money at the time (CD players were still $500). But I had bragging rights until I got written-up by playing them too loudly. The 901s definitely preferred a high-current amp -- I used a Hafler 200 watt MOSFET amp. A Sony integrated-circuit based receiver went into shutdown trying to drive them.
It had 8 smaller drivers facing towards the wall, angled to reflect off it and produce a more ambient sound. And one driver facing towards the listener to provide the direct sound needed for vocals. The speakers (heavy, heavy speakers, btw) had an earlier version of their waveguide technology, which channeled the back pressure of all the small drivers and combined them to provide the bass that a larger driver would have produced.
In order to correct some of the bad behavior of the small drivers & enclosure, there was an external electronics box that you inserted between your preamp and amp, or in a tape loop if you had a receiver (it had pass-thru capability) to get the speakers to sound right. Once DSPs became affordable, they changed over to them, instead of the analog components the series of 901 that I had used.
I think I paid $1300 at the military exchange for the pair, and the (essentially required) Bose stands were another $200 or so. Which was a lot of money at the time (CD players were still $500). But I had bragging rights until I got written-up by playing them too loudly. The 901s definitely preferred a high-current amp -- I used a Hafler 200 watt MOSFET amp. A Sony integrated-circuit based receiver went into shutdown trying to drive them.
I'm glad to see this article at the top of Hacker News. It is easy to not realize how big audio was in consumer electronics all the way up until the early 80s.
Many of the great engineers of their day worked in audio, and I find myself continually attracted to their creations. Many who work in software today, may have been building amplifiers and speakers in the 60s.
Many of the great engineers of their day worked in audio, and I find myself continually attracted to their creations. Many who work in software today, may have been building amplifiers and speakers in the 60s.
His Acoustics class was arguably the best course I took at MIT. His numerous anecdotes about hard work, perseverance, and applying thought process to every challenge we face really stuck with me. The end-of-semester field trip left a long lasting impression. He made me a better person I am today. I'll really miss him.
He obviously was a tremendous achiever, but the current Bose products I have heard are terrible sounding.
The signal processing they add to create the "spacy"effect destroys the mix, the balances of the instruments, the placement, it's all lost in a hazy phase fog of sound. I don't get it.
To my ear, even many of the cheap desktop systems from companies like Logictech sound better.
If you're looking for decent sound at a low price, there are many low cost powered studio monitors that sound pretty good, like these from M-Audio:
http://www.m-audio.com/index.php?do=products.family&ID=studi...
I don't think they are good as professional monitors, but for everyday listening pretty damn nice.
The signal processing they add to create the "spacy"effect destroys the mix, the balances of the instruments, the placement, it's all lost in a hazy phase fog of sound. I don't get it.
To my ear, even many of the cheap desktop systems from companies like Logictech sound better.
If you're looking for decent sound at a low price, there are many low cost powered studio monitors that sound pretty good, like these from M-Audio:
http://www.m-audio.com/index.php?do=products.family&ID=studi...
I don't think they are good as professional monitors, but for everyday listening pretty damn nice.
He was an inspiring speaker but I avoided his company's products. Due to no fault of his own, the company that bears his name turned into a marketing driven company rather than engineering driven.
Any audiophiles here know if we'll ever witness Bose or Sonos type speakers(sound) built into our mobile devices?
Full disclosure - We created a web app that plays audio in sync across multiple Internet devices (http://SpeakerBlast.com) & are curious about the advances being made in this field.
Could our IP devices used alone or in harmony ever produce the same sound quality of a Bose or Sonos speaker?
Full disclosure - We created a web app that plays audio in sync across multiple Internet devices (http://SpeakerBlast.com) & are curious about the advances being made in this field.
Could our IP devices used alone or in harmony ever produce the same sound quality of a Bose or Sonos speaker?
Bell, Morse, Land, Kurzweil, Bose, ... the list of Boston associated inventors is never ending. Then again Polaroid or Bose corporation can't compete with the limelight of the web world.
Most audiophiles buy stuff very few people have heard off, and Bose products themselves are on the fence of trying to be audiophile, yet popular ... a tricky space to be in.
Most audiophiles buy stuff very few people have heard off, and Bose products themselves are on the fence of trying to be audiophile, yet popular ... a tricky space to be in.
I remember being blown away by Bose active suspension, and wondering why Bose was doing it. Seems like a Google play in a way: make a bunch of money in one area (audio/ads) and do awesome stuff in another (active suspension / cars, glass).
Video of active suspension: http://youtu.be/q8sVDenpPOE
Incredible company. He'll be missed.
Video of active suspension: http://youtu.be/q8sVDenpPOE
Incredible company. He'll be missed.
Interesting that in the spirit of the usual startup discussions here on Hacker News, no one has mentioned that this is/was a single founder company. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose_Corporation
Kudos to Dr. Bose.
Kudos to Dr. Bose.
Dr. Amar Gopal Bose, you will always be remembered. Thank you for the inspiration. R.I.P.
A short biographical sketch: http://flic.kr/p/f8wZ6R
Another write-up: http://flic.kr/p/f8wZee
A short biographical sketch: http://flic.kr/p/f8wZ6R
Another write-up: http://flic.kr/p/f8wZee
This is a great loss, a man that I only recently learned about through reading "Autobiography of a Yogi", which mentions his great achievement as an eastern scientist, breaking out into a western world.
I hope Hacker News black lines today out of respect for this man.
I hope Hacker News black lines today out of respect for this man.
My name is Amar too. A sad day for innovators named Amar. Shine On buddy, thank you for the contributions to audio technology that has enriched millions of lives. :)
damn, i loved my dad's 380ZX soundsystem. its what turned me onto hi fidelity. neat to know it was named after someone and that he went to MIT. peace
Silence.
deadreturns(1)
When he arrived he was clearly still recovering (he had difficult walking and needed time to collect his thoughts before speaking), but he was still able to make a barn-burner of an acceptance speech. Afterwords, he took the time to speak to anyone who wanted to talk to him, including me.
I know audiophiles and enthusiasts have a low opinion of Bose products and their litigation strategies (some of which I share), but I had Dr. Bose as a professor in college and he was a fantastic instructor (even without the free ice cream during tests!). Students would often challenge him based on audiophile beliefs, and he would always use sound engineering arguments to refute them. And he was the only MIT prof I have saw who regularly ate meals at the Lobdell Food Court.
RIP Dr. Bose.
camera-phone picture of James Barger, Dr. Bose, Christopher Jaffe and Eric Unger at the aforementioned reception: http://twitpic.com/d2amd3
edit: bose.com has a memorial up: http://www.bose.com/remember/index.html