Talk:Bose (audio)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bose (audio) article.

This article is within the scope of the Professional sound production WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the technology, equipment, companies and professions related to professional sound production. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.


Archive
Archives
  1. /Archives 1 (2004 Sep. 19) to (2006 July 20)

Contents


[edit] Archive 1

Last archived by — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 22:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC) (Reason: Talk Page TOO HUGE)

[edit] Headphone competitors

How come the Coby brand is even a competitor to Bose? Coby products are of very low quality and aimed at budget buyers.

[edit] POV Content

This article is very fanboyish, and has way too much ad-speak.

One of the problems is that a handful of people keep deconstructing the "Opinions about Bose" section. There's the 'pro' part of the article, which mentions the market studies. For the opposing view (which is pretty widespread) I tried condensing the arguments made in a NPOV manner. Yet every time I do, I come back a few weeks later and it's been taken away. It always ends up as a one-sentence statement that some people don't like it, followed by several sentences of the company's response. Hell, the only description of the opposition, that audio forums are filled with "neverending arguments", is weak - audio forums are 90% opposed, so it's hardly much of an argument. Considering there is a significant faction that opposes Bose products, there needs to at least be equal coverage afforded to the pro and anti side of things. Any criticism keeps getting whitewashed by proponents of the company, and I just don't have the energy to keep up. --Zambaccian 23:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I sympathise with your lack of energy, Zambaccian, but I don't understand your recent edit (→External links - if you're taking the intellexual link out because it's outdated, surely a 1975 review is too). The review is relevant because it applies to Bose's flagship product, which is still on the market (albeit several revisions later); the review goes into some detail about the design philosophy behind said product; the review was written by one of the most celebrated reviewers (perhaps the most celebrated) in the history of audio journalism; and it provides clear evidence that high-end journalism has not always ignored Bose products. Not sure what the intellexual link was and am too lazy at present to comb through the page history looking for it, but I'm not the one who removed it. My only meaningful edit of the Bose page to date was to make one factual correction (it was stated that neither Stereophile nor TAS had ever reviewed a Bose product—I fixed that statement and introduced the link to prove it). Rivertorch 05:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
With respect, Zambaccian, I'm not sure what your concern is. I see two paragraphs in the "Opinions" section. The first says that (according to independent, verified market data) the Bose brand is popular and well-respected. The second says that many audiophiles disagree, and that the company refuses to publish specifications or respond in a way that might satisfy their concerns. Are you concerned that the size and significance of the "opposing" faction is underrepresented by this? If so, I for one would welcome some data that verifies that, beyond the anecdotal. I think that would be a good NPOV addition. 71.232.230.39 11:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
This article does basically read like an ad; as mentioned, there is a bit of a NPOV problem, a lot of commercial links, and few links to the external sites that discuss Bose products (other than Bose.com links). --Matthew K 00:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
As a starting point, I am going to remove all the different national bose sites and make them into a single link to global.bose.com from there anyone looking at the site can find the applicable country's site and there will be less clutter on the page. --Matthew K 00:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
It would probably be helpful to include links to other external sites; the first ones I found to contrast with the ones already here include [1], [2]. Doubtless there are others; I just see a need to cut through the hype here. --Matthew K 01:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Matt, I appreciate your work on trying to improve this article. However, your two links are forum posts and are therefore not verifiable in the Wikipedia sense. Quoting from the verifiability standard: "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy ... Sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight." As a result, I don't think these links should go in the article. 71.232.230.39 10:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions about Bose

On 12 Oct 2006, Rivertorch made some excellent comments in his edit note. He only went so far as to remove the {fact} tags, but I think actually his suggestion indicates the removal of those statements:

"Not all audiophiles like Bose." This is a meaningless statement, as it is surely the case for anything that not all people like it.

"Bose refuses to publish specifications." and "Some audiophile publications have not reviewed Bose." As negative statements, these are not verifiable (can't provide citations for a negative) and should be removed.

I recognize that these changes will disappoint those that feel the article is already "fanboyish". Hopefully they will encourage this group to find verifiable sources to support their contention that there is some sort of large or significant group that does not like Bose. 71.232.230.39 10:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The statements may not be verifiable per se, it's true, but that shouldn't necessarily merit their removal. Let's look at them individually.
"Some audiophile publications have not reviewed Bose" is probably unworthy of the article because the same applies to lots of other manufacturers, including other mass merchandisers like Pioneer and Sony; there's nothing exceptional about Bose's failing to attract scrutiny from the high-end press.
"Not all audiophiles like Bose" is self-evident but not exactly meaningless: if Bose products were really as wonderful as the company's omnipresent ad copy would lead one to believe, then presumably only tin-eared (or at least strangely perverse) audiophiles would dislike them. That is not the case, however. It is a significant understatement that "not all audiophiles like Bose," but since no one has provided citations for quantifying audiophile opinions on Bose, it seems a reasonable compromise that the statement remain as is.
"Bose refuses to publish specifications" also is significant because they're one of the few audio manufacturers to have such a policy. Inconveniently, there's no corporate Bose memo stating categorically "we will not publish specifications" online to link to, but neither—obviously—are there any Bose specifications to link to. So the statement is valuable to the article.
The latter two statements, which I think should have remained, could use rewording. It's not exactly my number-one wikipriority, but if no one gets to it first I'll take a stab at reinserting them in a better-worded form. The article is far from NPOV at present and in places reads almost like ad copy. Rivertorch 19:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
There is a significant need for verifiable information here. A good start would of course be citations for all of our statements. Another helpful action would be for all of the Wikipedians with a desire to edit this page and delete content to create personal usernames and quit hiding between IP addresses located in the immediate vicinity of Boston (and Bose-US headquarters). --Matthew K 14:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry bout that, that 71.232 address is me. Sometimes I don't bother to log in before making changes. No desire to hide. Edsmedia1 16:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Trying to be collegial, I thought I'd post rather than revert. I don't see that your recent citations actually verify the statement they annotate, which is that "Internet audio forums" are "filled" with "never-ending arguments" "whether or not to favor Bose." Taking these points in order:
Only one of your citations (Speaker Asylum) points to an audio forum; the other points to a review site (CNet).
Your citations point to single posts, which do not bear on whether the forums are filled with never-ending arguments.
Your citations point to criticisms of the 901 speaker, not to discussion of whether or not Bose makes generally good products.
The best that your citations could support is a statement such as "People sometimes post negative reviews of the Bose 901 to Internet sites," which is too weak for my taste. Unless you have a different point of view, I think this change should be reverted. -- Edsmedia1 16:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay; how about links to 'search' pages with long lists of threads arguing for and against Bose. Does that fit the bill? Google rec.audio.opinion, and Audioasylum. There are doubtless others. I have one more but it might be inappropriate here... it links to reviews for specific products (and isn't just a link to 'Bose' in general. Audioreview.com. --Matthew K 18:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I made the changes mentioned above (linking instead to the google groups search and audioasylum, and changed the sentence to read "On the other hand, some internet audio forums are filled with never-ending arguments for and against Bose Corporation and Bose products." Does this look acceptable to everyone? The aim is to make the language as neutral as possible regarding Bose itself, the forums, and those that dispute about Bose. --Matthew K 16:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why add intellexual.net?

I had to soft-remove the link for now because I want a full explanation on why it deserves to be here before it is in this article, as I feel that the intellexual link tends to be too extremist (and if I had the chance, I would flame that webmaster). Give me a couple of reasons why it should be even in the article, why the link is warranted for, what information you think is useful in that page, and why it deserves to be recognized in this article, as that web page I found out has been outdated and has not been updated since a slew of new Bose products made it to store shelves. Unless I see a newer version of this page, then I will have no choice but to hard-delete the intellexual.net link. I won't hard-delete it right now (but I did a soft-delete) because I want a discussion why it should be here before I do anything. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 19:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The link may be a few years out of date, but wake up! You're presenting extremest views by supporting Bose. In that link, they tested the speakers and provided specifications, along with providing true information. I think that it is no different than viewing Bose's website which promotes its website. I encourage you to visit a few websites, such as audioholics.com, avsforum.com, or remotecentral.com and find out what people there think.
I realize that some people like Bose. However, Bose only sounds good because it sounds better than car or computer speakers...that's what we are used to listening to. Try putting a Bose in a room and then a Denon or Yamaha, with some Polk Audio speakers. It'll be cheaper, and a whole lot better sounding.
If Bose intends to be a high end company, they can at least release speaker specs. But, if you refuse to see both sides of the argument, than so be it.
Check out these sites:
--Andrewwski 23:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • They do make a point of showing their bias there at intellexual.net, don't they? Considering oneself "part of a small sect of audio enthusiests [sic] who loathe ... Bose Corp." puts them on the other side of where we want to be in relation to NPOV. If we use the information there at all, we would probably do well to find their sources, evaluate their accuracy and then use just those sources here. --Matthew K 01:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, that may be a little bit biased. But, it all holds true. Do me a favor and google "truth about Bose" or "Bose bashing" and find out what Bose really is. I think this is one of those articles hard to make neutral, due to the fact that some people have been drawn into Bose's advertising scheme and some who look at the facts of what really is happening. Give me some scientific or technological reasons why Bose is good. Andrewwski 01:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


All of you make valid points. Let's try to keep in mind that we're working on an encyclopedia article. It needs to be factual, any debatable statements must be backed up with citations, and it must present a NPOV. It is a fact that many audiophiles dislike Bose (to put it mildly), and I could easily round up fifty audiophiles on any day of the week who would cheerfully tell me "Bose sucks" and why—but that would be original research. Another bit of verboten original research I could do would be to haunt my local big-box electronics megastore, where I have no doubt I could find fifty non-audiophiles who either own or aspire to owning Bose products. Are the anti-Bose audiophiles' opinions worth more than the pro-Bose non-audiophiles' opinions? In my opinion, yes, but according Wikipedia's NPOV ideals, no.

I have to agree, btw, that neither blatantly biased web sites (whether Bose-bashing or Bose-boosting) nor discussion boards seem like very good sources to cite. The former are not where one might reasonably expect to be referred from an encyclopedia, and the latter suffer from a complete lack of editing, not to mention equal space afforded both to experts and to trolls. (While much of what it says may remain valid, the intellexual.net article is rather outdated.) If we can't find relatively objective references, and if these various statements and links are bound to provoke continual dissent, how about thinning out the article to a bare-bones just-the-facts entry—i.e., where Bose is located, who founded them and when, types of products they manufacture, etc., with no allusions whatsoever to their failings (or to their alleged technological successes)? Does that seem reasonable? Believe me, I have very definite opinions about Bose, but I suspect that Wikipedia articles are not good places to air them. Perhaps I'm naïve. Rivertorch 04:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

intellexual is not a valid one to use in this article since this article is talking about a company while intellexual is talking about a specific product (that is over 6 years old btw). This debate is exactly the same as computer geeks have over Microsoft vs Linux. If you search around and ask computer geeks which is the better OS all of them will say Linux but that holds no real weight in the real world where over 90% of the computers out there have Windows installed on it. Using Geeks or specialists in any sort of field as the basis of what is the best is not a good way to rank a company because even they can never agree on what is even the best. Any product that becomes popular automatically becomes unpopular with the eletes just look at the iPod as another example of that. Dont forget that there are many different versions of Linux out there as there are many different audio companies out there. -- UKPhoenix79 05:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
We're agreed on the intellexual link. I don't believe that the OS debate is parallel, however, since there's far less difference in terms of quantifiable factors among operating systems than there is among speaker systems. (Speaking as a Mac user!) Also, it is worth pointing out that Bose speakers were derided by numerous audiophiles as poorly rendered applications of deeply flawed design principles in the '70s, long before they became the popular best-sellers status they now enjoy. At any rate, I feel we must draw the line at the high-end categorization. No matter how good you think they are and how much you like them, Bose products are by definition not high end. They're not sold by any high-end retailers—none. They receive no positive mention in any high-end publication—none. They don't even claim in their own advertising to be high-end. To claim otherwise by attempting to confer high-end status on them is clearly to inject POV. Rivertorch 16:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain why the intellexual link is considered outdated, yet the 1975 review of 901's isn't? If there isn't a coherent argument to be made we need to have both or none. --Zambaccian 11:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This has already been discussed on this page and a coherent argument made, but here is a more thorough answer to your question. The review of the 901's is worthy of linked inclusion because it was written by the preeminent audio reviewer and published in a reputable magazine, its subject was Bose's flagship product whose unique design still forms the basis of their flagship product three decades later, and it discusses the product in a framework of objective inquiry. In contrast, the intellexual.net review is unsigned and is published on what appears to be an unknown individual's personal web site, its subject was a technologically unremarkable product which is long defunct and whose performance may bear little relation to that of its successors, and it discusses the product in a gleefully negative framework that is anything but neutral and unbiased and is thus of dubious value as an encyclopedic link. If you want to stir the pot, by all means—restore the link. (I happen to agree with most of the content of the AM-15 review, after all.) But I strongly suggest that doing so would be needlessly inflammatory. Besides, if that stale and biased review is the most credible link that we skeptics can come up with, I'd say that's pretty sad. Rivertorch 15:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing the "Opinions about Bose" section

OK, fine. Whatever. But I think the addition of that "Furthermore..." sentence makes the article a Bose-boosting one. If we don't balance out the two points of view in that section, it's not neutral. Andrewwski 16:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you on the "Furthermore..." statement. I don't think it's encyclopedic. But your statement puts the finger on something that concerns me about this whole topic (the audiophile controversy around Bose). It's described in the NPOV section under "Undue weight"; that is, that :Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all". I am concerned that this whole audiophile issue is an attempt to air grievances held by a very small (though highly vocal) minority. The NPOV article uses the example of the [Flat Earth Society], which is not (and should not be given) equal time in articles about plate tectonics, orbital mechanics, etc.
What would make me feel better is a verifiable citation that suggests that the audiophile viewpoint on Bose is both monolithic -- that is, that most audiophiles agree -- and common -- that is, significant enough to be part of the Bose "story." A lot of the discussion here (for example, in Rivertorch's comment above) simply cites "numerous audiophiles" or the "community" as though the writer has done, or is aware of, a survey. 71.232.230.39 03:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I do agree with you that it must be NPOV. However, I find supporting Bose is not agreeing with NOPV. Bose caters to the uninformed, uneducated community. Ask anyone who is enthusiastic about audio systems and they will tell you not to get Bose. I realize my statement that you removed might not be neutral, but I'd like to revise it in some way with a legitimate citation, while still retaining NPOV. Because you'll be suprised to find how many people don't like Bose. It's not only audiophiles. You don't have to spend a lot of money to get something better sounding than Bose, and the difference will be noticable to the average ear. The reason that Bose is so popular is all of the advertising they do. Think about it, how often do you see advertisements for Denon or Yamaha systems in everyday newspapers and magazines? Not often. But I'll bet you see Bose advertisements all over. I think that ny "Bose boosting" the article looses all of its NPOV.Andrewwski 19:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Andrew. I'm really glad that we seem to have gotten this thread above the typical "Bose sucks" "no it doesn't, Bose rules", thread. I am totally in support of finding a quality citation for the statement that "lots of people" or "lots of audiophiles" don't like Bose. Quoting again from the NPOV article: "Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone... The reference requires an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name." So the concern to me is: to what objectively quantifiable population can we attribute the opinion of not liking Bose? Are you aware of any survey results that report this? Edsmedia1 23:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to aplaud this conversation for trying to work together to get a real conversation on this topic. Just thought that I'd make 2 points. The 1st point is that Bose does make High end products if you were to check out their car speaker systems some of their pro-line equipment and especially their Amps you'll see what I mean. It seams that Bose has moved away from pro equipment for the home but not for everything else. (Yet their Lifestyle systems such as the 48 is amazing I have tried to piece together a system that can sound as good and do all that it can and I have been quoted twice the price of the 48 system! Now that is amazing.) So I hope it dosen't upset anyone that I reinserted that part :) Also if you check out the Forrester Research report it will show that Bose has an excelent reputation. Now not all might agree on why but I think that we can agree that people do think highly of Bose! That being said I do think that this section needs to be solid just so that we can finally lay this topic to rest!-- UKPhoenix79 06:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but Wikipedia editors' opinions shouldn't form the basis of articles. You have presented no evidence that the term "high-end" is appropriate to describe Bose products. Links to the manufacturer's own web site don't cut it. Neither do surveys from companies that do market research. Pro audio and high-end audio are definitely not synonymous and, in fact, rarely overlap. I take no great issue with your "premium/luxury" descriptor but am removing the "high-end" one. With all respect, it goes beyond POV and into the realm of fiction. Rivertorch 17:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I have no ... reliable source for this, but it seems that Bose UK sells a slightly different product (for about 30-50% more money)... in fact there was a lawsuit about some US resellers selling the American version of some Bose products overseas. A lot of the people posting on forums claim that the automotive speakers are manufactured by other speaker companies (Infinity comes to mind). Doubtless irrelevant on this page, just interesting to note how difficult it is to really gather information about companies in general: they consider it trade secrets and the public might find some of the activities rather unethical. Sometimes marketing practices really are quite irritating. Anyway, published articles are what we need here. --Matthew K 17:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Rivertorch. I don't think that that point can be argued any longer.Andrewwski 17:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New link

Someone decided to create a see also linking to Bosaphilia. I don't really see that this is useful or appropriate, especially considering that the linked page doesn't exist. Since it was a small edit and could easily be re-done if supported and explained here. --Matthew K 17:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Edits

I'm forseeing a heated dispute for some apparent reason and from this point, I'm probably going to be really keeping an eye on this article. The last few edits might be a sign that there could be disagreements between the editors and based on its edit history, disputes here are no diffrent than what I have seen in the past. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 03:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that such a scenario is brewing yet. I think that the edit taking out the "Bose asserts" part is actually helping to preserve NPOV. If you could find a citation, it'd be more valid. It seems that the article is slightly geared towards Bose-favoring, and I think it's more neutral now. Andrewwski 04:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Specifications

I don't think it's correct to say "Bose does not provide specifications." If you look on any product page on Bose.com, you will clearly see a section there labeled "specifications." For example, [3]. Although I suspect others might mean something different by "specifications", that will quickly get us into an authority-of-definition issue. In any case, user Andrewwski claims that this is a "fact", and so at the least, it doesn't belong in the "Opinions about Bose" section. As a result of these two concerns, I'm reverting this edit. Edsmedia1 11:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You are apparently misunderstanding the purpose of the "Opinions about Bose" section. It is not to provide Wiki editors' opinions about Bose but rather to provide factual information about opinions widely held by members of the public, such as audiophiles, owners of Bose equipment, etc. Therefore, it makes perfect sense for factual information to be included in this section. As for the definition of specifications, one need only surf on over to the Web site of any other major manufacturer of home audio equipment and compare the difference with the "specifications" at the link you provide. The only thing you'll likely find they have in common is data on dimensions and weight. By "specifications", those in the audio community almost always mean specs relating to the electric or acoustic properties of equipment—measured data relating to performance, in other words. This has been common usage for decades, and it is an exercise in absurdity to pretend that there are authority-of-definition issues involved. The usage was quite appropriate to the context. I'm going to hold off on making any changes to the page to allow more discussion, but I am inclined to revert the revert tomorrow if no one does so first. Rivertorch 17:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The statement I removed was "Bose does not publish specifications relating to its speakers or receivers, as almost all other low and high end audio companies do." This is not a statement about an opinion, but a purported statement of fact. And in fact, Bose does claim to publish specifications. I suppose we could claim--as you do--that certain people hold that they are not publishing the right specifications. That would put us back to a statement of opinion, but I think that it would need citation then. Since it is in common usage, perhaps you have one? Edsmedia1 21:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you may be overanalyzing it a little. I made no such claim. It's not a question of "right" or "wrong" specifications. It's a question of one company's refusal to publish a rather common set of specifications which are useful in gauging a product's ability to accurately reproduce sound in favor of a sharply truncated subset of specifications which evidently target the interior decorator rather than the end user. What Bose is calling specifications are not in line with the standard usage of the word in the field of home audio. In other words, we're not using the word "specifications" in a vacuum and allowing for its broadest possible definition; we're using it in a particular context.
Consider, if you will, a hypothetical parallel: let's say there were 100 computer manufacturers, and 99 of them published an extensive set of specs including CPU speed, memory, hard drive capacity, etc., while the 100th only published the dimensions, weight, and the fact that it had a hard drive. This would provoke a considerable amount of discussion (and, indeed, controversy) in the world, and it would certainly be worth noting in the Wikipedia article about Hypothetical Company #100, don't you think?
Yes, it would. However, in my opinion, only with citation that (a) a large number of a manufacturers published similar sets of specs, and (b) that the other company did not. If you can provide citations beyond "common knowledge" (and without doing original research) that other manufacturers have at least de facto agreement on the right specifications to provide, I think that would be a good addition. But otherwise, even if true, I think that this assertion is not encyclopedic.
I think this conversation is a really good one, because to me it highlights the veil of weasel words that anti-Bose folks always retreat behind: "those in the audio community", "rather common", "standard usage", "typical", "notable". Yet there seem to be no actual citations available for any of this. I'm not disagreeing that lots of people think so! Only that it's very clear in WP standards that "lots of people think so" is not an acceptable standard for edits. In order to include these comments, we must provide evidence that "those in the audio community" think so with an appropriate citation.Edsmedia1 14:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it's unfortunate that you feel the need to categorize your fellow editors as "anti-Bose". My opinions about the Bose corporation and its products have no direct bearing on my editing of the article, and I have always made a conscious effort in my work on the article to ensure that those opinions do not inadvertently influence my edits, as is the case for all articles I edit. Attempting to characterize my opinions about Bose is an exercise in futility, since you have no knowledge of what those opinions are. If you were to carefully check my contributions to the article and the Talk page, you would find that my apparent objective all along has been to make the article as neutral and encyclopedic as possible.
You appear to be misunderstanding the spirit, if not the letter, of the WP guidelines. If you can prove that my edits violate the guidelines, I'll be happy to reconsider my approach. In the meantime, I have reinserted (with a major rewrite, careful to avoid the dreaded weasel words) the item about specifications. Rivertorch 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
As for citations, that has been discussed before on this page. At least as far back as the early '80s, Bose product literature has not included the typical specs. But the statement that Bose doesn't publish specs cannot readily be proven, only disproven. (It's hard to cite something that doesn't exist.) If you can disprove it (by citing a Bose-produced document that includes what normally passes for specifications among audio manufacturers), please do. In the meantime, as Bose's failure to publish specs is a notable anomaly in the industry, I think it's clearly worth mentioning. In deference to anyone who might somehow bizarrely be misled by an appropriately precise use of the word "specification", I'm going to reword it a little. Pending a lack of substantive objection, I'll plan to make the restoration (not revert) tomorrow. Rivertorch 10:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
In the meantime, I have reverted it to your edit. A word to the unregistered would-be editors: many more people will be inclined to give serious consideration to what you write if you carefully proofread it before posting. This is an encyclopedia. Use the Sandbox if you want to scribble. Rivertorch 21:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
This is from an earlier post. Is any of this statement true? Are there any sources to back this up? Common misunderstandings about speaker specifications amongst audiophiles further complicate matters, such common misconceptions as 'wattage' equaling output, and actual output of a system equaling perceived (subjective) output and quality serve to muddy the waters even further. It has long been the position of Bose that the subjective listening experience is more important than system specifications. As an example, the cube speakers found in certain Bose systems are only 4 watts, yet have an output equivalent to over 90dB due to their design efficiency and construction methods. This is similar to the wattage of a filament bulb not being comparable to the wattage of an equivalent lux output modern energy-efficient bulb. This is for my own curiosity thanks -- UKPhoenix79 09:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
In a word, no. It's true there are often misunderstandings about speaker specifications, but it's usually non-audiophiles, not audiophiles, who misunderstand. Statements such as "the cube speakers . . . are only 4 watts, yet have an output equivalent to over 90dB" are absolutely meaningless and were clearly penned by someone whose knowledge of speaker specifications is severely limited. I called them gobbledygook when I reverted (it seemed shorter than trying to explain the particulars in the summary). Rivertorch 10:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems we differ on what "specifications" are. I refer to specifications as the electrical and technical specs of the speakers and receivers, not the size of them. Andrewwski 00:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're responding to my words or someone else's. For the purposes of this article, I'm defining "specifications" the same way you just did, as should be clear from my recent comments. Responding to conerns posed by Edsmedia1, in my last edit I spelled out that it is exactly this sort of specification which Bose doesn't publish. Am I missing something? Rivertorch 04:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm responding to someone else. I agree with you on the definition of "specifications". Andrewwski 20:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see . . . sort of a direct/reflecting approach to the discussion, you might call it! I thought I was becoming seriously confused. Just a suggestion: you could move your response to the relevant place on the page, which would make it clear to future editors. (If you do that, feel free to delete this paragraph, as it will become irrelevant.) Rivertorch 22:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure where to put it. Feel free to move it around if you'd like. Andrewwski 00:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 9 Dec. 2006 edits and revisions

The sentence, "The Bose corporation does not participate in these arguments, but they have asserted that people interested in quality audio should listen for themselves, as most people can determine for themselves what sounds best to them", is problematic for several reasons.

First, it cannot be determined definitively whether the corporation participates in these arguments; Internet forums allow nearly total anonymity.

Second, "they have asserted that . . ." is incredibly vague. When was this assertion made? To whom? In print or on the Web or where? Does it represent an official stance of the company? This needs to be a lot more specific if it is to be taken seriously.

Third, the content of the alleged assertion is hardly unique to Bose. In fact, many audio manufacturers suggest that potential customers listen to their own and competing products. If Bose made a special point of urging people to listen—much more vehemently than their competitors—then maybe it would be worthy of inclusion, but that case hasn't been made. Therefore, including such an assertion, even if it can be verified, seems irrelevant (at best) to an encyclopedia article on Bose.

Fourth, the part about the assertion doesn't logically follow from the undocumentable claim about Bose's non-participation; it is a near-non sequitur. What does Bose's participation or non-participation in online discussions have to do with their alleged assertions about the value of listening? This is poorly written and confusing, and I am reverting the page.

Given the apparent controversy surrounding the article, I offer a friendly suggestion: that editors (preferably of the registered persuasion) post an explanation here on the Talk page prior to making further substantive changes to the article, especially any that involve resurrecting long-deleted wording. Rivertorch 16:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Found this comment before and it seamed just fine. Just a quick Google search and I found this from the Bose website Enjoy a 30-day in-home trial, risk-free. Compare, side by side, the sound of the Wave® radio II to that of other audio products and hear the quality for yourself If you go to any Bose store they seam to encourage you to go and hear the difference for yourself. Remember that the slogan for the company used to be Hear the difference Bose technologies makes. I doubt that any corporation really involves themselves in internet discussions but your right there is no real way to find out for sure. I don't know why Bose should be controversial its not like they were involved with the Nazi party in WWII (Bayer, BMW, Benz, VW, etc) they just do stuff in a unique way and is very successful. Really I don't think there is anything wrong with the sentence but I really don't care enough to fight for it. --64.240.163.221 00:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/o/s/Talk%7EBose_%28audio%29_318e.html"