Customers Gleefully Mock Best Buy's $1,095.99 HDMI Cable

[DREDIOCK]

Rooms have nothing to do with an inferior product.   If you think I haven't listened to Bose, you'd be sadly mistaken.   I have personally gotten 20+ friends/people out of that crap and into something superior and easier on the wallet.  

   

Completely dissagree. Improper placement of speakers in a room can have a dramatic difference in how well a system sounds good product or inferior.

[DREDIOCK]

when we were selling loudspeakers we would often have Bose systems set up side by side so people could hear the difference. NEVER have I heard a Bose system compete one on  one like that. They are marketed well, period. I had a guy who had bought a wave radio, more to the point, he bought into their claims that it sounded as good as a full size system. I let him bring it in and it fell flat on it's face when compared to even the cheapest, smallest studio reference speakers we had. He returned it, after a nightmare of an experience with their cutomer service people.

I'll agree on the Wave. It doesnt sound as good as a full sized system. Dont know if I'd go so far as to say as good as the cheapest. That would depend on what the cheapest ones you had were. I know I've heard better then the wave from even cheaper setups. But I also know I've heard alot worse from comparably priced systems too.

And not saying thats what you do/did. but I also know stores have a knack for intentionally setting up systems to sound better then others to try and push an item.

[Masherbrum]

Completely dissagree. Improper placement of speakers in a room can have a dramatic difference in how well a system sounds good product or inferior.

You missed my point.   My point is that Bose are crap to begin with, it doesn't matter where you put them.    The bass sucks because of the 6 1/2" drivers.    That statement was ONLY FOR BOSE, so you would be correct with any other speaker manufacturer.

But with Bose, it does not matter.   

[DREDIOCK]

You missed my point.   My point is that Bose are crap to begin with, it doesn't matter where you put them.    The bass sucks because of the 6 1/2" drivers.    That statement was ONLY FOR BOSE, so you would be correct with any other speaker manufacturer.

But with Bose, it does not matter.   

My ears dont agree. But then again I dont listen to much "thumpa thumpa thumpa" music

[Masherbrum]

My ears dont agree. But then again I dont listen to much "thumpa thumpa thumpa" music

I don't either.   Bass is present in the majority of Recorded Music.    Bose sucks at any close accurate reproduction of it.   Factually speaking, since Bose has a frequency range gap from 202Hz to 280Hz, their Bass is atrocious.  If you think that doesn't account for much, don't bother replying.

[TnDep]

If someones a millionaire they spend 1/1000 of their net worth on the cable.  Say for me I got a couple grand in the bank 1/1000 of my net worth is $2 that would be the comparison from a millionaire buying the 1000 dollar cable to someone like myself.  It's still crazy to buy a cable that expensive when you can get it for $5 

[DREDIOCK]

I don't either.   Bass is present in the majority of Recorded Music.    Bose sucks at any close accurate reproduction of it.   Factually speaking, since Bose has a frequency range gap from 202Hz to 280Hz, their Bass is atrocious.  If you think that doesn't account for much, don't bother replying.

Nope.
But I will say the more you type. The more you sound like your going by what you've read. Then what you've actually heard.
Is Bose over priced for the quality of sound it produces. Yea, I'll agree with that. You can get comparable or better sound quality for the same price or less.
But I wont agree they they produce a completely crappy quality sound. Nor would I agree their bass sounds all that atrocious. And most certainly not to The extent that the Bose haters make.

And it is my understandign that that frequency gap isnt all that uncommon particularly in sat systems. which I am assuming you are referring to.

[Masherbrum]

Nope.
But I will say the more you type. The more you sound like your going by what you've read. Then what you've actually heard.
Is Bose over priced for the quality of sound it produces. Yea, I'll agree with that. You can get comparable or better sound quality for the same price or less.
But I wont agree they they produce a completely crappy quality sound. Nor would I agree their bass sounds all that atrocious. And most certainly not to The extent that the Bose haters make.

And it is my understandign that that frequency gap isnt all that uncommon particularly in sat systems. which I am assuming you are referring to.

I've heard them plenty of times and they are horrible, from the 901's, on down to the Acoustimass Series.  Bose is the only system with this gap (Satellite Systems do not compare to the inferior Acoustimass), because they cannot/do not use a Subwoofer.   They use cheap, $5 5.5" drivers (5.5" drivers are a Mid-Range driver, not even 3 of them should be used for "Bass"), so the Bass produced is INFERIOR to even an 8" Subwoofer which is weak as it is for even a 1000 sq. ft. room.   Bose is the only manufacturer that will not post their specifications on any document, which is a piss poor business practice in the field.    They know what is the risk, but don't care because they prey on the uninformed.

"Haters".   LMFAO.   That explains it now.   The mere fact they rely on "reflected sound", is the fact they KNOW the Frequency Gap exists and try to "mask it".    But keep drinking from that sales pitcher.    

[DREDIOCK]

I've heard them plenty of times and they are horrible, from the 901's, on down to the Acoustimass Series.  Bose is the only system with this gap (Satellite Systems do not compare to the inferior Acoustimass), because they cannot/do not use a Subwoofer.   They use cheap, $5 5.5" drivers (5.5" drivers are a Mid-Range driver, not even 3 of them should be used for "Bass"), so the Bass produced is INFERIOR to even an 8" Subwoofer which is weak as it is for even a 1000 sq. ft. room.   Bose is the only manufacturer that will not post their specifications on any document, which is a piss poor business practice in the field.    They know what is the risk, but don't care because they prey on the uninformed.

"Haters".   LMFAO.   That explains it now.   The mere fact they rely on "reflected sound", is the fact they KNOW the Frequency Gap exists and try to "mask it".    But keep drinking from that sales pitcher.    

Sorry but Im not believing your ears. Or the times no matter how plenty you claim.
Kinda reminds me of the old Ford Vs Chevy and vise verse  arguments  I used to see back in the day. Or most this vs that arguments for that matter. One side always hates the other without ever having driven or owning one. They hate the company or product for the sake of hating the company or product. Chimes of "anything but" are pretty common in those types of debates. Which is about where we are at now.

Im not drinking from any sales pitcher. The only Bose I own or have ever owned are nearly 40 years old and sitting in my attic and currently not hooked up to anything. But I do get to hear all sorts of sound systems every week of every year simply because of the sheer number of different houses I am in. I've heard high end systems that sounded both great or crappy from house to house and Bose systems that have sounded both great and crappy. So Im going by actual real world situations rather then simply a sound room in a store where things can be set up to sound pretty much any way you want them to sound based on what your trying to sell that week.

I've pretty much conceded that there are better systems out there that can be had for as much or less. I'll even concede that Bose sells on the sales pitch more then true sound quality dollar for dollar. People are buying into the name.
I just wont agree that they sound nearly as terrible as you claim because I know from real world situations that that it simply isnt true either.

You can continue turning this into a pzzing match if you want so you can feel like you won.

 For me. Im out. Its just not worth where the argument is going to end up

[katanaso]

Back in 1983-1984, I went with my Dad to a high end audio store and they had Bose 901's displayed amongst their McIntosh items. 

The store primarily sold McIntosh, and my main memory is these:
More details at: http://www.roger-russell.com/xrt18.htm

No real point except that they sold Bose 901's there, and the McIntosh stuff was jaw dropping in how it sounded.   

[Masherbrum]

Sorry but Im not believing your ears. Or the times no matter how plenty you claim.
Kinda reminds me of the old Ford Vs Chevy and vise verse  arguments  I used to see back in the day. Or most this vs that arguments for that matter. One side always hates the other without ever having driven or owning one. They hate the company or product for the sake of hating the company or product. Chimes of "anything but" are pretty common in those types of debates. Which is about where we are at now.

Im not drinking from any sales pitcher. The only Bose I own or have ever owned are nearly 40 years old and sitting in my attic and currently not hooked up to anything. But I do get to hear all sorts of sound systems every week of every year simply because of the sheer number of different houses I am in. I've heard high end systems that sounded both great or crappy from house to house and Bose systems that have sounded both great and crappy. So Im going by actual real world situations rather then simply a sound room in a store where things can be set up to sound pretty much any way you want them to sound based on what your trying to sell that week.

I've pretty much conceded that there are better systems out there that can be had for as much or less. I'll even concede that Bose sells on the sales pitch more then true sound quality dollar for dollar. People are buying into the name.
I just wont agree that they sound nearly as terrible as you claim because I know from real world situations that that it simply isnt true either.

You can continue turning this into a pzzing match if you want so you can feel like you won.

 For me. Im out. Its just not worth where the argument is going to end up

You are the only one arguing.   For me, there is no argument.  Bose sucks and there is better out there for less.

I will take my KEF's over them any day of the week.  My ears are great, that is why I don't and will never own Bose.

[icepac]

Most bose 901 speaker systems were compromised by people not running the bose equalizer.

You can argue that the equalizer is a crutch but all speakers have some sort of device that alters the incoming sound.

It's called a "crossover" and there is no device within the enclosures of the 901 because bose chose to supply the "device that alters the incoming sound" into a separate component.

Sure, they are missing the crazy low bass of my cerwin vega D9s but they do outperform my old magnaplanars and were designed and built in 1969 when the frequency spectrum of music production was far different.

Many here are arguing from a position of ignorance based on lack of experience.

[Krusty]

I did sound reinforcement for just shy of a year and a half. I worked with a team of 4 or so and our supervisor who was a big tech head on the side of SR, electrical theory and all the science behind it that I didn't fully understand. For analog signals the cables make a difference only so far as the electrical resistance of the wires themselves. Some run quad wires to cancel out interference and noise that gets through the shielding, but mostly the only differences are going to be:

Signal carrying metal material
sheilding method
connecting points (quality of soldering, etc)
external material (not important for signal, but for longevity of cable)

$1000 cables are a farce. They're making $990 profit. I've built cables myself, soldered the connection points, had to open up cables with shorts and foud how poorly they were put together. No fault of the wire itself, just the person attaching the end plug onto it.

I had to strip the old bad-quality connectors off a few perfectly fine cables and added on better ones with fresh connections because I'd do it better than whoever made them in the first place.

So yes, the quality of a cable can vary, but not THAT much. Not $1000 worth. Also, the quality of a digital cable is totally different, as well. Different electircal requirements.

[Masherbrum]

Many here are arguing from a position of ignorance based on lack of experience.

I do not have to argue and I have a lot of experience with many high-end brands. 

[icepac]

Me too....and it goes back to 1972.