Bose Acoustic Wave music system II is garbage

Not at all..........

They make some quite decent sounding speakers, at reasonable prices. Why would you even ask a question such as that? Are you aware of Polks history and their entire line of speakers?

Their top line models have gotten rave reviews, and from the ones ive heard, are quite equal to many very high end speakers. I own a pair of vintage RTA-11T and find them still quite good sounding even being 20 years old.

 

This thread got me thinking about my Bose experience.

When I was in college, I wanted to buy my first component home theater/stereo system. I was obviously on a tight budget. The speakers I bought were the Bose 301's, which were very popular (then later the center and a small pair for surrounds). I thought they were good. I was a typical Bose customer in that I had not heard real high-end loudspeakers or been in a hi-fi shop. An even bigger mistake was the Sony receiver I bought. At least the 301's sounded better when I bought a Yamaha a couple of years later.

For people who don't know any better or just want to impress their friends, Bose is it.

I will say the 301's are not as bad as other Bose products. Their all boom and sizzle but at least through up a huge (if vague) soundstage and they are very efficient. I dreamed at the time of having the Lifestyle 901 system someday. LOL.

A hi-fi shop that sold me a pair of NHT Super Zeros a couple of years later cured me of Bose syndrome.

As far as the wave radios go, I like the CSW radios some of you mentioned. They cost less and sound better than Bose. I bought my Father a CSW after he'd had a Bose for a while. Much happier. The Bose is very boomy and there's no way to tame the bass.

 

I am not a Bose fan overall either. I impress my friends showing off my separate component system and quality bookshelf speakers.

 

Not in my opinion.

Though I do think most of Polk's entry-level loudspeakers sound - to my ears - much too bright/analytical for music. Other than that I have no problem with Polk's stuff.

 

I don't understand either.

 

I don't think they're really comparable. Just about any proper loudspeaker will be better from a sound quality perspective than the tiny speakers that Bose manufactures.

That being said, Bose does well to maximize the amount (though not necessarily the quality) of sound that can be generated out of a speaker with virtually no footprint.

If sound quality is more important than the space considerations though, one would probably be doing their ears and their wallet a favor by opting for a system with proper loudspeakers.

 

No, that has a couple of real psychological names:

Post-Purchase Rationalization

Choice-Supportive Bias

Gee, that never happens around here, when somebody spends a lot of money on something, then spends dozens of messages desperately defending their decision...

Car advertising is full of these tricks, designed to give you the illusion of happiness after you buy it. The sad reality is that all these things are temporary -- nothing you buy is gonna be great or even good forever, nor will it necessarily make you feel better.

The Bose stuff is not all horrible, but a lot of it is intended to create a psychological impression more than it is good sound. There's a lotta hype and a lot of cosmetic crap going on with their products. And I think Bose spends far more money on advertising than they do R&D.

I have heard the Acoustic Wave, and to me, it sounds over-EQ and bloated. Also, as part of Dr. Amar Bose's design intent, there's no balance controls and no tone controls on most of these products.

 

You could have just saved space and titled the post "Bose is garbage".

 

i know some on this forum that feel the same way about
PIONEER's finest efforts, which IMHO, is COMPLETELY
uncalled for.

i'll agree, however, that, in most meaningful respects,

BOSE BlowsTM

however, each to their own passion in the audio world.
after all, one man's junk quite often is very much
another man's treasure...

 

Ive seen several posts on the forum where some members that own "high priced botique stuff" which they refer to as "high end", meaning virtually nothing in reality, refer to very well respected common middle priced regular good components refer to them as junk, mediocre, or low resolution and many other unflattering terms. Dont worry over it, I feel its more a need to show that what they spend mega-bucks on was somehow worth it to them and everything else below that is not worthy.

The reality is a bit sobering. A lot of so called "high end" stuff barely sounds all that much different than typical top quality mid priced stuff. The extra dough spent on it, "usually" is justified by the very small scale of production, not tons of research or ungodly great parts and drivers as we all assume happens.

This of course doesnt apply to all high end stuff of course, but a lot ive listened to over the years, does not even begin to justify its price being a huge percentage higher that it is. The law of diminishing returns starts quite low in audio stuff. Thats not to say a lot of higher end stuff isnt great, but that its price it WAY out of line for what you get. But thats mostly because of the tiny scale of operations on some of that stuff.

Its considered Cool to have a Lexus ES-350, but not the nearly identical camry. Ive driven both extensively and they are so similar I can almost imagine they are identical. (( They are basically the same exact car on the same exact platform with basically a few options and different tail and head lights and some visual clues )) Try telling a Lexus owner that, and see how they get all flustered and offended, and even try to tell you Lexus has nothing to do with Toyota even...its almost comical!

 

I've bought a used Bose Sounddock (which is smaller and a bit cheaper than the Wave radio) and a Cambridge Soundworks Radio 740 just to try them out and see for myself. I preferred the Bose. It had a smoother midrange, better overall sound. The CSW could play louder and more more bass and treble extension, but the treble was rougher. The Bose was more natural, although its bass limitations were apparent as I turned it up, even in a bedroom.

You can see in this review here: http://www.hometheater.com/hometheaterinabox/807camb/index2.html that the CSW has a gigantic hole in the lower midrange, and peaky bass. I wasn't really impressed by it. I think audiophiles tend to recommend it because Henry Kloss was associated with the company.

I sold both, but I'd take the Sounddock over the CSW radio. It's overpriced, but it's also tiny so you can easily move to different rooms, as opposed to a regular system that you generally leave in place. You could easily get better sound for the price from a receiver or minisystem with a pair of bookshelves, but that would mostly be fixed in one room.

 

In that review of the Cambridge Soundworks radio, it seems like whether there's a gigantic hole in the lower midrange would be a question of how you look at it. I would've thought it is rolling off its range of frequency response and there's a bass hump added by the woofer. Do you know of a similar test done on the BOSE Sounddock? Perhaps it's similar, but without the hump.

 

Well, I can say one good thing about Bose, though I have to go back in history to do it.

The old original 901, and especially the 901 Series II, were great products. Not very efficient because of the 6 db bass boost applied by the EQ - but those things could sing with wonderful tonal balance and and a phenomenal soundstage. For those of you old enough to remember, at that time they stood the industry "on it's ear" to a large degree. And they were well-made, with rugged drivers and walnut top and bottom construction.

All that changed starting with Series III - and by Series IV the 901's were a hollow-sounding mess. Corners were cut with materials and design changes were made to increase efficiency as time went on. I could not believe how awful the Series IV sounded compared to my old Series II. And it was all downhill from there.

I sold my mint-condition Series II when I moved and didn't have the space for them, what with all the wall clearances they required. Then later I moved again and had the room for them, but they were long gone. Anyway, it's too bad a company that started so auspiciously has turned into a factory making rather cheaply-made stuff at inflated prices. Yes, they're making $$$, but in both the sound and quality departments, they're just not the same company.

 

As I've mentioned here elsewhere, the only Bose speakers I feel truly comfortable recommending to others are their conventional models, the 201 and 301 bookshelfs; and the 901s if the user has the right room and an amplifier potent enough to drive them properly.

 

The older model range of the 501 and 601 werent bad, but werent really great either.....basically respectable. The 201 and 301 are okay, but use somewhat cheap tweeters, crossovers and cabinets. Still for what they are not bad, for an entry level speaker.
The cube speakers, while quite easy to place and so on, truly use cheap cone drivers to cover a spectrum wider than they are designed for. They end up losing some upper bass and not having wide dispersion at the high end. Their truly high end is rolled off also. The cones in the cube speakers are very low quality and the actual replacement driver can be found for literally under $10.00 a lot of times.

 

Time to revive this golden oldie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCBe7-6rw4M

 

well thats what all their ads tell everyone...I'm always being told they are "the best".

Anyway, I had one of these in a hotel room I recently stayed in...It sounded alright, but I'd never recommend it to someone at that price point, it looks hideous IMO.

 

Now that was funny!

And it perfectly portrays the mind-set that has been ingrained into people through an effective marketing campaign.

Regarding the cardboard tube being touted as an advanced feature, I am reminded of an ad I saw many years ago from an electronics manufacturer that bragged about the "electrolytic" caps in the power supply.

 

these threads never get old.

 

An interesting poll would be which character (male or female) people think is more of a jerk. I go with the guy. Something about someone pompously trying to edumacate someone else about things the victim just sees as getting in the way of their enjoyment reminds me of a long, uncomfortable and now closed thread in the Music forum...

 

Hmmm... That's a rather polarized view of what that video portrayed. I didn't think either of the characters was being a jerk.

From my perspective, it was simply the collision of two very different mind-sets. Neither one right, nor wrong, just different.

.

 

The 901 pro PA set up was v effective
But needed a eq'd amp of battleship size and weight
I used 6 cabs for playback with the LSO in Westminster and Royal Festival Halls
The Musical Directer particularly liked it
Other wise Dr A Bose fails to thrill me.

 

While I have nothing against the Bose Waves, an interesting alternative for about the same (or less?) money would be a NAD C717 DVD/CD/ receiver, paired with Paradigm Atom speakers. I'm guessing that'd provide great sound for a small space like a studio apt. or office/den, like what the Bose is aimed at.

 

It's actually more interesting than most topics in the hardware section. At least it is a piece of equipment that is somewhat modern and doesn't have speakers that require me to think of my dad's stereo in 1975.

This is a very nice piece of midfi equipment and should be appreciated here. I believe even SH himself liked the piece and wanted to acquire one some time back. I'm sure if he endorsed a model, you'd see a queue for them