Bose

TheMARPATNinja7

Basically, a buddy of mine and myself are both home auidophiles. We both have great home setups, he has a Bose LifeStyle (26 or 27 Series?) and I have a fully customized 7.1 set-up (Denon Reciever, Sony SS-U501 Towers, Polk Csi3 Center Channel, Pioneer Surrounds). He always insists that his Bose sounds better just because it says "Bose" on it. I respectfully disagree. I put a lot of time and money into my system and find it strange how he thinks his is better since the sound quality of mine is so much more natural and dynamic. Anyways, is he right? Now I know you can't really say much without hearing them both, but what does Bose offer that makes their speakers "so superior?"

shiarua

Absolutely nothing. I think 99% of the users here would agree that Bose are overpriced for what they have to offer, and are mediocre speakers at best.

Someone posted this on the forums, I just had it bookmarked

http://www.intellexual.net/bose.html

ZOOPDOOP22

Bose offers what Ray-Ban offers for aviator sunglasses-An expensive name.


Tell him people who know say Bose means Buy Other Stereo Equipment.

TheMARPATNinja7

HAHAHAHAHA, wow I always thought Bose were systems that offered quality sound without a complicated or long install, I didn't realize this many people thought they were overpriced and only a brand name. I do agree though, I guarantee if the same system said "Pioneer," "Sony," etc it would sell for a lot cheaper.

shiarua

sdschwendener wrote: »

Bose offers what Ray-Ban offers for aviator sunglasses-An expensive name.


Tell him people who know say Bose means Buy Other Stereo Equipment.

buy other sound equipment, no highs no lows must be bose, or bose blows...take your pick

George Grand

I believe Ray-Ban was the designer, and original seller of "Aviator" style sunglasses during WW II. The military (to this day) issues Ray-Bans, albeit the less desirable rectangular model, as opposed to the Teardrop. Size small, black wire-frame, "Teardrop" Ray-Bans are to die for. Good glass up in the air and they don't hurt your head with a headset on.

janmike

The fact that he paid more for it would be critical in him assuming that it sounds better. To me, that is probably a general though for most people. And No, I do not own Bose.
Right fellows?

Montoya

Bose = Gross

TheMARPATNinja7

Oh absolutely but....he didnt pay for it. Believe me I read the article that was posted in the original response and it really sheads light on Bose in a way I've really never seen before. I'm glad I saw that, I never would have guessed after everything I've seen in advertisements about Bose but I guess thats how they get you. I'm really glad I never went with Bose.

Dennis Gardner

No disrepect, but 3 different types of speakers in your own system doesn't say "fully customized" to me, its says extremely mismatched..............I would think that his Bose system would at least sound smoother acrossed channels, being tonally matched, maybe even better balanced, regardless of how much I dislike the bloated bass and flat highs of Bose.

shack

sdschwendener wrote:

Bose offers what Ray-Ban offers for aviator sunglasses-An expensive name.

Ray-Ban makes some of the finest sunglasses today. Much better than 90% of the "trendy" stuff. I got turned on to them by my uncle who was an Air Force lifer who was a sniper/marksman. Its all he ever wore either when shooting or just casual wear. Ray-Bans are the only sunglasses that I will wear. I have tried several different brands and they don't compare.

George Grand wrote:

I believe Ray-Ban was the designer, and original seller of "Aviator" style sunglasses during WW II. The military (to this day) issues Ray-Bans, albeit the less desirable rectangular model, as opposed to the Teardrop. Size small, black wire-frame, "Teardrop" Ray-Bans are to die for. Good glass up in the air and they don't hurt your head with a headset on.

I have a couple of pairs of the ones you just mentioned...one with a black frame and one with a gold frame. I still have a couple of pairs of the original Wayfarers. Now if I ever want to read anything when wearing them, I need to get the glass replaced with prescription lenses.

shack

A Denon receiver and Sony tower speakers are a few notches below audiophile... Not that Denon receivers are bad (I have two of them) but they are a far cry from audiophile gear. Sony speakers are not even in the same solar system as audiophile.

Bose is overrated junk...and it sucks...but that is JMO.

Hang around for awhile and you will learn (much to the dismay of your wallet) what audiophile means. Tubes, vinyl, SACD, cables, tweeks, ribbon tweeters, planars, electrostatics, etc, etc, etc...

You have been warned...stay at your own risk.

acsubie

that article sheds light on my experience this past weeked. Was at the outlets and my buddy and i needed to burn some time while the GFs shopped, anyway went into the Bose store and browsed around, noticed they had a theater room and attendant asked if we want to sit down for the demonstration. I was actually pretty impressed by the sound, and during the whole demonstration i wondered how they sounded so well, after reading that article linked above i definitely feel as though we were "duped"!

Montoya

Kind of reminded you of the Wizard of OZ the scene when they found out about the great Oz? Yeah they got me also.:o

acsubie wrote: »

that article sheds light on my experience this past weeked. Was at the outlets and my buddy and i needed to burn some time while the GFs shopped, anyway went into the Bose store and browsed around, noticed they had a theater room and attendant asked if we want to sit down for the demonstration. I was actually pretty impressed by the sound, and during the whole demonstration i wondered how they sounded so well, after reading that article linked above i definitely feel as though we were "duped"!

CallingMrBenzo

i saw the bose posting and i had to read as an anti bose man myself......he says as he reads this thread on his laptop while on the can, listening to his Bose on ear headphones ahhaha




....but they were free from the parents, who had extra points to use up on their credit card before they canceled it whatever...its free

Upstatemax

shack wrote: »

Ray-Ban makes some of the finest sunglasses today. Much better than 90% of the "trendy" stuff. I got turned on to them by my uncle who was an Air Force lifer who was a sniper/marksman. Its all he ever wore either when shooting or just casual wear. Ray-Bans are the only sunglasses that I will wear. I have tried several different brands and they don't compare.



I have a couple of pairs of the ones you just mentioned...one with a black frame and one with a gold frame. I still have a couple of pairs of the original Wayfarers. Now if I ever want to read anything when wearing them, I need to get the glass replaced with prescription lenses.

No they don't... They are owned by Luxottica now and they are a huge pile of crap. Ray-Ban used to be a great brand and they have been downgraded to pure crap by the optical giant.

The same injustice happened to Persol and Revo.

inspiredsports

I'm not sure this is a fair fight in that most Bose systems are represented as and sold as home theaters in a box. They aren't by any means audiophile and I don't feel Bose is marketing them as such. They do cost more than Sony or Panasonic, etc., but in my opinion, they are easier to set up and sound better than other brands. Also, the 321 systems don't need wires to the back of the room because everything is up front. I have 1 room in my home where I would have loved to drop in Polk or Klipsch 5.1 speakers and a nice NAD amp, but it simply would not have worked space-wise. The Bose 321 was a perfect solution, the programmable remote is robust, the price was fair and the sound is very good.

shack

Upstatemax wrote:

No they don't....

Your opinion. Mine differs.

Upstatemax

shack wrote: »

Your opinion. Mine differs.

I am an expert in the field...

I guess you are not?

ZOOPDOOP22

Upstatemax wrote: »

No they don't... They are owned by Luxottica now and they are a huge pile of crap. Ray-Ban used to be a great brand and they have been downgraded to pure crap by the optical giant.

The same injustice happened to Persol and Revo.

As Mr. Grand pointed out Ray-Ban is in fact the first company to make the aviators.. However, if you want to argue that they are not overpriced be my guest.

I'm not saying they are bad sunglasses. I have owned since freshman year of HS probably 6 pairs of them because I keep breaking them on vacations and while drunk. They are the best.

They are not worth 100-130. 70-80 dollars is what they should retail for. luckly I had connections that got me employee pricing of a couple of the pairs. Oh ya +5 pts for Ray-Ban when I mailed in my broken caravans with a note saying "I'm sorry" and "forgive me" and received a new pair less than two weeks later.

Thats good business.
____________________________________
But this isn't about Ray-Ban. Its about hating on Bose. I hate Bose.

Upstatemax

sdschwendener wrote: »

As Mr. Grand pointed out Ray-Ban is in fact the first company to make the aviators.. However, if you want to argue that they are not overpriced be my guest.

I'm not saying they are bad sunglasses. I have owned since freshman year of HS probably 6 pairs of them because I keep breaking them on vacations and while drunk. They are the best.

They are not worth 100-130. 60 dollars is what they should retail for. luckly I had connections that got me employee pricing of a couple of the pairs. Oh ya +5 pts for Ray-Ban when I mailed in my broken caravans with a note saying "I'm sorry" and "forgive me" and received a new pair less than two weeks later.

Thats good business.
____________________________________
But this isn't about Ray-Ban. Its about hating on Bose. I hate Bose.

Lets get something straight... Ray-Ban is a Brand, not a company... They WERE owned by Bouch & Lomb (when they were good), now they are owned by Luxottica and are cheap chinese made crap.


They are not anything better than $25 Wal-Mart sunglasses now.

ZOOPDOOP22

Upstatemax wrote: »

Lets get something straight... Ray-Ban is a Brand, not a company... They WERE owned by Bouch & Lomb (when they were good), now they are owned by Luxottica and are cheap chinese made crap.


They are not anything better than $25 Wal-Mart sunglasses now.

Maybe I don't know the difference between brand and company but Ray-Ban is a subsidiary of luxottica now and has its own assets.

How is it not its own legal entity?.. or rather a company under a parent company?

I'm just in college, you are the expert.. plz enlighten.

Upstatemax

sdschwendener wrote: »

Maybe I don't know the difference between brand and company but Ray-Ban is a subsidiary of luxottica now and has its own assets.

How is it not its own legal entity?.. or rather a company under a parent company?

When the parent company is a crushing force that forces a brand to cheapen it's product to meet profit margins...

When Luxottica buys a brand, they fill in top level seats with their own and run a company how they think it should be run (MAX profits with quality as an after thought).

Oakley is in the same boat now.

shack

Upstatemax wrote:

I am an expert in the field...

I'm impressed....

Upstatemax wrote:

I guess you are not?

Well at least you are right there...I'm not really impressed.

Upstatemax

As for the eyewear... Ray-Ban is the same as Bose, expensive marketing to convince people they are better than they are.

Sherardp

Back on topic, I can promise you anyones system on here will blow away a BOSE setup any day of the week. Bose sucks, end of story. I learned the hardway using a pair of 161s for rears.

Some may offer different reviews, check out post 1 of these reviews

http://www.audioreview.com/cat/speakers/bookshelf-speakers/bose/161/PRD_129577_4290crx.aspx

TNRabbit

BOSE = Box Of Sh**ty Electronics

TheMARPATNinja7

For me Denon sounds ridiculous, and my Sony's aren't just any sony's they're semi classic (Early 90's, I think.) They're amazing for what I listen to, they also have two 10" drivers that have the perfect bass reflex for the kinds of music I listen too plus when I watch a concert on DTS it's easily better than being there. Don't hate on my Sony because believe me you'd be suprised would these bad boys are capable of.

Hobbyguy

Interesting and pleasing. I was looking for new speakers to replace my cheap best buy set. Was deciding between Bose 901 or Polk LIS-15. Well pulled the trigger for LSI-15 but also purchased SDA-1B and a set of 10Bs. Have the 10Bs now and they sound GREAT! Can't wait to get my LSIs and SDAs. This thread confirms my decision!

bobman1235

inspiredsports wrote: »

I'm not sure this is a fair fight in that most Bose systems are represented as and sold as home theaters in a box. They aren't by any means audiophile and I don't feel Bose is marketing them as such. They do cost more than Sony or Panasonic, etc., but in my opinion, they are easier to set up and sound better than other brands. Also, the 321 systems don't need wires to the back of the room because everything is up front. I have 1 room in my home where I would have loved to drop in Polk or Klipsch 5.1 speakers and a nice NAD amp, but it simply would not have worked space-wise. The Bose 321 was a perfect solution, the programmable remote is robust, the price was fair and the sound is very good.

The price was fair? Not to put too fine a point on it, but you're an insane person. Bose would be a fine solution if they cost 400 dollars for a system, because that's what they sound like. For 2000 dollars a system, they're a complete ripoff. There are a million small systems out there that you can get that sound infinitely better and cost significantly less. On top of that they're honest about their product, as opposed to Bose, who won't even publish specs for their products.

I understand that you spent 2 grand on something and thus have convinced yourself that you weren't swindled and sold a pile of garbage, but the truth hurts. My dad got suckered out of his money in the same way by their marketing, and bought one of those ridiculous "wave radios" that cost him almost 400 dollars. For a glorified boombox! It doesn't even have a CD player built into it, it's just a radio! It doesn't sound any better than an actual boombox that costs 40 bucks at Walmart, and that would have a CD player built into it! And now every time I go to his house he has it playing, insisting it sounds great, and I just have to smile and nod rather than tell him he's a sucker trying to justify his purchase.

Mike Kozak

My parents have the bose system in their house and they love the sound of it. I keep quiet about it when I visit them. Everybody wins!!!