PDA

View Full Version : Do Bose-Einstein correlations explain why Bose speakers are so expensive?



plant
2012-Apr-03, 12:55 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_correlations vs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose_Corporation#Opinions_about_Bose

NEOWatcher
2012-Apr-03, 01:42 PM
Not at all.
It's like saying that a Lincoln MKX is so expensive because Abraham Lincoln was a lawyer.

Two completely different things from completely different people that happened to have the same last name.
Amar G. Bose vs Satyendra Nath Bose

Jens
2012-Apr-04, 01:29 AM
There could be a connection though. They were bose made by very smart people.

Swift
2012-Apr-04, 01:59 AM
There could be a connection though. They were bose made by very smart people.
<groan>

Next, we'll explain how Einstein invented the bagel.

Tensor
2012-Apr-04, 04:03 AM
<groan>

Next, we'll explain how Einstein invented the bagel.

That's a hole separate argument.

Luckmeister
2012-Apr-04, 06:31 AM
A friend and I had a conversation about this and it torus apart.

Jens
2012-Apr-04, 06:59 AM
I donut believe you wrote that.

Nicolas
2012-Apr-04, 07:17 AM
Are Mercury cars a rare sight on European roads because Mercury is a rare earth metal?

Does the Mini Cooper have a raw exhaust sound because Alice Cooper also has a raw sound?

Does Jay Kay have expensive cars because Jay Leno does?

HenrikOlsen
2012-Apr-04, 07:34 AM
Does this thread belong in fun'n'games?

captain swoop
2012-Apr-04, 08:54 AM
It depends on what other speakers you are comparing Bose to. I don't think they are expensive.

HenrikOlsen
2012-Apr-04, 09:00 AM
Apparently the Clinton costs upwards of $250,000.

DoggerDan
2012-Apr-04, 11:55 AM
Here's a Tip: O'Neil charged a lot less than Clinton.

NEOWatcher
2012-Apr-04, 01:09 PM
Are Mercury cars a rare sight on European roads because Mercury is a rare earth metal?
It's also a problem with the EPA, which is probably why Ford dropped that brand.

HenrikOlsen
2012-Apr-04, 02:10 PM
Here's a Tip: O'Neil charged a lot less than Clinton.
But both are more expensive speakers than any Bose makes.

Seeya
2012-Apr-04, 02:23 PM
So then do Bose-Einstein condensates explain why my audiophile friend thought their speakers sounded over-attenuated?

nosbig5
2012-Apr-04, 02:35 PM
My Air Jordan speakers have lots of condensate in them after a tennis match.

redshifter
2012-Apr-05, 07:05 PM
Bose speakers are expensive because Bose is very good at marketing their products. Bose audio gear doesn't compare very favorably with its 'competition', at least the stuff targeted toward the home theater crowd. I can't comment on their other stuff. As for their home theater stuff, it's OK if you're looking for something expensive, compact, and 'stylish' but don't care a whole lot about sound quality (yeah, I probably just upset someone with that comment...). It has a lot of problems though -- small bandpass box for the 'subwoofer'; it won't go real low, but instead will boost certain frequencies to seem like it has strong bass - OK for movie explosion sound effects, terrible for music. And the little 'jewel cube' type speakers don't go low enough to take up where the bass module leaves off - resulting in a large hole in the frequency response. A leading audio magazine reviewed one of the Bose systems and was threatened with a lawsuit a while back; the Bose home theater systems don't review real well. It's also why you don't usually see Bose gear with other audio gear, it's almost always set off by itself. It's very easy to spend the same $ on other equipment and get a far superior sounding system, though that requires research on the consumers part, and most consumers in the market for a Bose theater systems just don't have that knowledge, they let the saleman tell them why Bose is 'the best'. An alternate system won't be as small as the Bose, but that's partly what they're selling (high SAF - Spouse Approval Factor). Of course, most home theater systems don't sound nearly as good as they could because of room acoustic issues which are no fault of the audio gear. Calling Bose 'hi end' would be like calling Wal-Mart a 'high class botique store'. BOSE = Better Off with Something Else. The good thing is that Bose products tend to have a high resale value because lots of people believe the marketing hype. OK I'm off my soap box...

Trebuchet
2012-Apr-06, 03:17 PM
I've gotten the impression that Bang and Olufsen products are in a similar situation -- highly styled, highly priced, but not really superior to the competetion. (Sorry, Henrik.) But I'm not an audiophile so am ready to be corrected.

swampyankee
2012-Apr-06, 03:52 PM
As my brother always said, "it's got no highs, it got not lows, must be Bose."

This brings back so much pain. I miss my Infinities.

Nicolas
2012-Apr-06, 04:09 PM
I must say that audiophiles tend to exagerate the problems with Bose acoustimass and project it onto the entire range. There are some nice Bose products, Acoustimass doesn't sound THAT bad in the correct setup (but neither does it sound really good), and yes it is overpriced. But so is a lot of other audio equipment.

Trebuchet
2012-Apr-06, 04:15 PM
But so is a lot of other audio equipment.

Just ask James Randi! He's had quite a feud going with the manufacturers of thousand-dollar speaker cables.

Nicolas
2012-Apr-06, 04:18 PM
There is nothing wrong with thousand-dollar speaker cables!


If they are at least 500 meters long...

profloater
2012-Apr-06, 04:19 PM
The expense to which audiophiles will go to listen to "best of the hits 1972" never ceases to amaze; in fact I think I will offer biodynamic loudspeakers (with condensates of course) (and quantum leaps) (oh and superconducting magnets) for a ridiculous (high) price and see who buys them. Confidentiality guaranteed by quantum state.

grapes
2012-Apr-06, 05:06 PM
Are Mercury cars a rare sight on European roads because Mercury is a rare earth metal?
But...but...mercury is not a rare earth metal.

I guess *that* explains it.

swampyankee
2012-Apr-06, 05:07 PM
The expense to which audiophiles will go to listen to "best of the hits 1972" never ceases to amaze; in fact I think I will offer biodynamic loudspeakers (with condensates of course) (and quantum leaps) (oh and superconducting magnets) for a ridiculous (high) price and see who buys them. Confidentiality guaranteed by quantum state.

Don't forget to use a non-contact laser stylus to play the LP (made from virgin vinyl, whatever that is) and vacuum tubes built from pre-atomic testing materials (so we have fewer detrimental effects from radioactive decay) for the amplifier.

Nicolas
2012-Apr-06, 06:23 PM
Don't forget to use a non-contact laser stylus to play the LP

that one exists. Very expensive and still sensitive to dust.

Tensor
2012-Apr-06, 08:05 PM
As my brother always said, "it's got no highs, it got not lows, must be Bose."

This brings back so much pain. I miss my Infinities.

I still have my Studio Monitor 152s. And they still sound great.

HenrikOlsen
2012-Apr-07, 02:57 AM
I've gotten the impression that Bang and Olufsen products are in a similar situation -- highly styled, highly priced, but not really superior to the competetion. (Sorry, Henrik.) But I'm not an audiophile so am ready to be corrected.
No need to apologize for saying the truth.

One thing they did (I haven't looked at that kind of electronics for a decade so I can't talk about the present) do better than the rest was simplicity of controls for consumer products.
While providing control of the same functions, they somehow managed to make a remote control with half the buttons of the rest.

swampyankee
2012-Apr-07, 04:17 AM
While I could never afford B&O systems, they easily had the best looks.

Trebuchet
2012-Apr-07, 02:16 PM
While I could never afford B&O systems, they easily had the best looks.

According to Wikipedia, that's because they actually had stylists designing the products instead of leaving it to the engineers. As an engineer, that bugs me! The large aerospace company I formerly worked for allowed their interior design company to dictate aerodynamic lines of their latest product. (Ok, Boeing 787!) That REALLY bugged me.

profloater
2012-Apr-07, 03:14 PM
I rise in defense, the term stylist should be relegated to the bin. A designer and an engineer should be able to get along, design is a holistic discipline. I think it is a generation since "stylists" were brought in after engineers made something work. I worked on HiFi design in the 1970s and designers and engineers worked together...sort of.. ...

HenrikOlsen
2012-Apr-07, 04:50 PM
That is one thing I've noticed about traveling abroad.
It's not noticeable in daily life until you get somewhere where it isn't true, but just plain everything in Denmark has been designed. Either by having a designer involved or simply by every engineer being aware that aesthetics are also relevant.
I suspect it worked because we have had a generation of designers who understand that function comes first and that design constrained by function will make a better product than function constrained by design.

Trebuchet
2012-Apr-07, 06:21 PM
I rise in defense, the term stylist should be relegated to the bin. A designer and an engineer should be able to get along, design is a holistic discipline. I think it is a generation since "stylists" were brought in after engineers made something work. I worked on HiFi design in the 1970s and designers and engineers worked together...sort of.. ...

I don't object to stylists per se. I do object to it when style overrides function and adversely affects the performance of the product.

kevin1981
2012-Apr-08, 04:14 PM
I have just brought some 600 Cerwin Vega speakers. My friend sold them to me for a very cheap price and they look brand new.
They sound great, a little bass heavy maybe, but i am very happy with them 8)

plant
2012-Apr-15, 01:19 PM
i did by a bose V30 system, plugged my TIVo and Blu-Ray player into it... instant home theater, with ONE REMOTE that works thru walls... pretty happy with the setup which allows you to HIDE all the equipment. If i had the money i'd buy B&O and have it out on display as 'conspicuous consumption'.
At the end of the day, i think 5.1 is overrated in the average home- unless you have a dedicated home cinema room or deaf children/neighbors. You've got to turn it up so high to hear the center channel dialog that the loud bass/special effects wake the kids! If i had my time (and money) again i would have gone for simple stereo: 2 big floorstanding B&W speakers and nothing else.

Nicolas
2012-Apr-17, 09:44 AM
I'm not a B&W fan. I don't like their sound. If I were you, I'd spend the money on other speakers (I agree with the general stereo argument if you have no dedicated home cinema room), but of course to each his own.

redshifter
2012-Apr-17, 09:05 PM
I've heard some great B & W speakers, they're very competitive. As far as not being able to hear center channel dialog unless the other speakers were turned WAY up, I'd guess either the speakers were not calibrated properly (if at all), or there was an issue with the acoustics in your room -- a very common occurrence. Or the center channel speaker (or amplifier, or decoder) was bad. Etc.

Nicolas
2012-Apr-18, 12:48 PM
As said, to each his own. For my taste, even the 802/803's don't "do it". In my opinion they don't sound as bright as a speaker should (I'm not talking about harsh here, nor that agressive-fresh "high end" sound). I know a guy who masters on 803's, and his masters are always on the (too) bright side because he compensates the lack of brightness of his B&W's.

I agree that even in a living room you should be able to hear your center speaker. Something must have been wrong there.