Talk:Bose (company)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bose (company) article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	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.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

/List of Bose product sightings

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

[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 (pre-2007)

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)

I am reverting Vesther's last edit because (a) it does not need mentioning that arguments are rebuttable and (b) the sentence's structure is convoluted to the point of making it meaningless. The previous edit is fine, imo. Rivertorch 18:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine. However, sometimes arguments can be rebutted, but don't you think it would be better to say "i.e." instead of "for example" in addition to "Bose and its line of products" instead of "Bose Corporation and Bose Products"? Why do you have to say "Bose Corporation and Bose Products"? Don't you think it would be better to say "Bose and/or its line of products" instead? — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 21:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"Bose and its line of products" is briefer and means the same; I'll change it. The "for example" may be unnecessary but does make some sense. I don't see that "i.e." would make any sense in this context. Rivertorch 15:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your last question. The "and/or" construction seems awkward. Using "and" alone here doesn't detract from the accuracy of the statement, as far as I can see, because it doesn't imply that each argument involves both. Rivertorch 15:18, 14 January 2007 (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)

After a bit of searching I've found this http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/18/review_bose_sounddock/ which states Bose has decided that iPod users are sufficiently numerous now to venture into the iPod add-on business, but can the company bring its high-end loudspeaker prowess to the world of personal audio? asks Stuart Miles. I'm putting the high-end descriptor back in, as under the current definition in wikipedia High-end audio equipment is purported by the manufacturers to be the best, regardless of the price Bose products are high-end ASH1977LAW 13:12, 13 March 2007 (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)

I'm axing the Intellexual.NET link for good as it can no longer be tolerated here since it's more like a troll link. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 02:29, 17 February 2007 (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)

This paragraph seemed unencyclopedic in tone, and didn't tie very well into the surrounding text. Furthermore, it desperately needs a citation. If someone can find a source, I'd be open to putting it back in with minor edits.

"Dr. Bose believes that our imperfect knowledge of psychoacoustics limits our ability to adequately characterize quantitatively any two arbitrary sounds that are perceived differently, and to adequately characterize and quantify all aspects of perceived quality. He believes, for example, that distortion is much over-rated as a factor in perceived quality in the complex sounds that comprise music, noting, for example, that a square wave (a hugely distorted sine wave) and a sine wave are audibly indistinguishable above 7 kHz. Similarly, he does not find measurable relevance to quality in other easily measured parameters of loudspeakers and electronics, and therefore does not publish those specifications for Bose products. The ultimate test, Bose insists, is your perception of audible quality (or lack of it) and your preferences."

129.22.166.188 03:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, that was me. Forgot to login.Gjc8 03:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of the above paragaph is rephrased from Amar Bose's 1968 AES paper "On the Design, Measurement, and Evaluation of Loudspeakers" -- reprints of which are avaialable from the AES in NYC for a small fee. See: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=1390. I received permission from the AES to upload a PDF of this paper to the Wikipedia, however Bose Corporation declined my request for permission to do that. Hence I did not upload it. If you want a copy, email me and I'll send it to you: fferguson@aol.com Frankatca 21:55, 23 March 2007 (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)

It is correct and a demonstrable fact that Bose Corp does not publish the type of speaker specifications available from other manufacturers. And the reason for this is explained [correctly] in the Research section of the article, namely that Amar Bose (and others) are not able to make valid, realiable, and meaningful correlations of these physical measurments to the perceived quality of sound on complex musical speaker output. For example, measurements taken on-axis in an anechoic chamber are straightforward to do. An anechoic chamber is NOT a facsimile condition for the speaker in a normal living space (a room) which has a profound effect on the sound field delivered to the listener. Worse, the sound field so measured (anechoic) is demonstrably wrong since the speaker in a living space incorporates the walls of the room in terms of the delivered sound at the lower radiated frequencies. The disconnect is enormous. Certainly Bose measures speakers in their engineering lab but the measurements (both anechoic and total radiated power across the audio spectrum) although useful to speaker designers are meaningless to consumers and are, like the anechoic measurments, NOT directly a measurement of "perceived audio quality" on complex musical material. I speak with some authority on this matter as I have been associated in one fashion or another with Bose Corporation since 1967. Frank E. Ferguson, Bose Corp. President, 1969-1976. Frankatca 22:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a great topic which I'd love to discuss further with you, but I fear the Bose talk page might not be the ideal place. One very brief comment addressing the substance of what you said, then a comment about the process we're undergoing in editing the article. The specification you are apparently referring to is frequency response, but there are various other specifications that Bose declines to publish, including two that have no direct bearing on the sound of a speaker but can be critical to selecting speakers that will work in a given system; these are impedance and sensitivity (hence the wording "measured electrical and acoustic performance". As for it being "correct and a demonstrable fact," I agree entirely. Nonetheless, more than one editor here is insisting we stick to the letter of the law and produce citations. I am making some efforts in that regard, and while I have no idea whether what I come up with will be acceptable to everyone, I hope to have something to add to the article in the next few days. Rivertorch 07:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes! ONWARD! I am not entirely optimistic, however, that you will find much in the way of citations that are helpful. The sad truth seems to be that specifications that relate to preceived "quality" of sound, are few and far between, alas. The factors that govern perception of quality in the psycho-acoustic domain are presently so poorly understood that we cannot (yet) adequately specify and uniquely characterize any two arbitrary sounds that are preceived to differ. And subjectivity as to desireability will differ among listeners. Bottom line: Let your ears be your guide: If you like it, go for it.

Frankatca 20:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If the absence of specifications has attracted the attention of a reputable publication, then go ahead and cite it. This is all Wikipedia requires. I'd love to read more about the Bose argument against including certain specifications and whatever rebuttals others might offer up. This goes to the core of Wikipedia--the reader should be able to check the source and read more about the subject, and not have to take the word of a former President, or the opinion of an audiophile or enthusiast.Waulfgang 03:55, 19 February 2007 (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)

[edit] 2007-01-19 edits

No doubt considerably more fine tuning is in order, but the article is looking relatively neutral and actually rather encyclopedic nowadays. For the most part, it neither reads like ad copy nor serves as a vehicle for reckless bashing. And yet . . . the three edits made thus far today are needlessly inflammatory and/or lack appropriate citations and/or are written so that the meaning is ambiguous (not necessarily in that order). I'd be happy to help reword it, but the intended meaning honestly isn't clear in some places, and I don't have the stomach for searching out citations right now. It cannot stand as is, however, so with much goodwill and the best of intentions I'm reverting (the page, that is). Rivertorch 06:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I notified Gold Dragon about it. Hopefully I won't go through such trouble of having to tone down negative rhetoric again. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 13:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

lol - it reads a lot like advertising copy to me. Have you seen http://www.bose.com/controller?event=VIEW_STATIC_PAGE_EVENT&url=/about/history/index.jsp&ck=0 ?

[edit] External Links

Regarding the link added today to the YouTube video (in the Automotive Suspension System section), could someone with a high-speed connection please check it to make sure it's (1) relevant and (2) not advertising/promotional? Thanks. Rivertorch 06:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Its actually both relevant and quite fascinating to watch. I think the wording before the last link could have been done better but if you get a chance you should watch it. Oh and it is not spam either, from the little French that I could understand. -- UKPhoenix79 12:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last few edits by Waulfgang and Rivertorch

When Waulfgang flagged certain lines in the criticism section this article for a need of citation, Rivertorch comes in to revert them. I need these two users to talk to each other and work out any possible disagreements imminent to avoid any edit wars in this article. Your cooperation is appreciated. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 15:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

In both instances, I have noted in the edit summary that the substance of these edits has already been addressed—some might say ad nauseam but I didn't say it—here on the talk page. It would be enormously helpful if editors would actually read the talk page and see what has already been discussed here before casually returning us to the same old ground we went over months ago. I not only welcome discussion, I think it's essential, but I am loath to clutter this page with repetitions.

For the record, Vesther, I have found your contributions to date to be very level-headed and reasonable, and I'm surprised you would fear an edit war after a mere two reversions.

At any rate, I'll try to summarize my thoughts as briefly as possible (but it will still be long). Forgive me if this repeats anything already said on this page.

First of all, the sentence "Critics argue. . ." is worthless with or without citations. It's true but it's also worthless to an encyclopedia article. (Critics argue about the price and quality of everything. So what?) It could probably be rewritten more precisely, but in the meantime I'm going to delete it, which should dispense with any perceived need for a source there.

The paragraph beginning "Unlike other major speaker manufacturers"—this does not require a citation because it is immediately verifiable to anyone who checks either the web sites or the printed literature of Bose and other speaker manufacturers. It is not a controversial statement, nor is it an obscure one in need of documentation. Bose doesn't publish specs; other major speaker manufacturers do. There's nothing debatable about that; it's a simple fact that can be verified by anyone, not by reading about it somewhere but simply by looking. It takes only seconds to look. Bose's own web site is already linked here. So are the sites of several other speaker manufacturers, and one could add dozens more. I suppose we could issue an invitation something along the lines of "Click on any of these fifty links to see speaker specs or click here to see no speaker specs", but I believe our readers are bright enough to figure that out for themselves, should they question the veracity of the article.

The prior paragraph ("On the other hand . . .") is more complex because it makes three different, albeit related, statements. One relates to Bose's place in the "audiophile and/or audio enthusiast market." I'd be happier if there were a "generally" or a "usually" in there, but that would be a dreaded "weasel word", wouldn't it? At any rate, anyone who has had any breadth of experience in the aforementioned market will immediately recognize the truth of the statement, regardless of their personal opinion of Bose products, but I will concede that it is a difficult statement to allow uncited--or at least the "derided" part is. The "ignored" or "disregarded" part (these are functionally redundant, and one should be axed) carries the same stigma I discussed in the previous paragraph: the absence of something is often not documented by any citable source because sources usually deal in the presence of things, not the absence of things. Ditto for the rest of the sentence: can anyone reasonably expect to find a citable source that bothers to note the absence of Bose products among audio specialty retailers' merchandise? Hardly, yet it is clearly the case, and to not mention it would be an odd omission indeed. At any rate, this paragraph is in need of some work, but as a whole it is hardly in need of a verify flag. I implore anyone with a cogent argument to the contrary to use this talk page to explain why. As always, I promise to keep an open mind. Rivertorch 19:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in a war. All I care about is making a modest improvement to the text of this entry. So if we are going to say that Bose doesn't disclose certain specifications, and that others do, and that it's worth mentioning in an encyclopedia, then go ahead and cite a few that do, and show where Bose doesn't. If it's not important enough to cite, then maybe the content isn't worth mentioning in this encyclopedia.

Same argument for Bose's place in the "audiophile world", as if that world thinks with one mind or speaks with one voice. If it is a fact that they are not often mentioned, then this is hardly worth noting. If it is a fact that they are often derided, then this should be easy to verify and properly cite.

Wikipedia is not a forum for critics or advocates. Just include factual information and cite the sources used. I don't think that that's setting the bar especially high.

All I have done is ask for citation. Wikipedia policies require it when readers are trying to evaluate the credibility of the text, or looking for more information about where the text came from. So you can go back and add the citation required tag, or I'll do it myself. I can't imagine why anyone would want to come down on the side of less verifiability.Waulfgang 04:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for your thoughtful input. I'm glad you share my belief that there's no war.

Second, I'm in complete agreement with you about WP's not being a forum for critics or advocates. When I first began paying attention to the Bose article, it had a decided slant towards advocacy while suffering sporadic attacks from injudicious critics. I have tried to walk a middle course in my editing, paying close attention to what I see as the spirit, if not in every case the precise letter, of the WP guidelines. Let me throw this question out and see what others think: if credible sources cannot be found to back up a statement that is widely considered factual (and verifiable by all--I refer to WP readers, here, not WP editors--who care to do a tiny bit of original research, is it always verboten with no exceptions? It seems to me that 90 percent of Wikipedia content is highly suspect, if that is the case. I'm not at all "on the side of less verifiability"; I simply believe that verifiability is not always possible, yet its impossibility in a given instance shouldn't necessarily be cause to omit relevant information from an article. If you recall, your summary did suggest that the statements in question needed to be substantiated or deleted.

If you want to add the "citation required" tag to the "On the other hand" paragraph, I offer no further objection. Perhaps it will inspire someone with more time and resources than I have to find one or more citations. This is easier said than done, especially in print media and corporate web media, considering that various factors ranging from lack of reader interest to fear of litigation may contribute to a dearth of candid appraisals of Bose products and their place in the world. But maybe it's possible.

As for the specifications paragraph, I continue to object to that being tagged. You say, "go ahead and cite a few that do, and show where Bose doesn't"--but that's the point I've been trying to make: Bose doesn't. How can I cite something that isn't there? I can't very well pick a page from the Bose web site and cite it because that's where the specifications would go if there were any. It's just completely illogical. The sentence refers to an absence, so no comparative citations can be given. Rivertorch 07:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand the argument about not being able to reference something that isn't there. But you can reference a reputable publication that is critical of the specifications that Bose does or does not release. After all, this section falls under "opinions", and Wikipedia policy requires that material used be referenced to verifiable sources published by a reputable publication.

What you believe to be widely held opinion has no place in Wikipedia if it can not be cited or verified, even if you believe this is widespread within Wikipedia. To say something is "widely believed to be true" without providing any way for the reader to verify it simply is not allowable in Wikipedia.

I appreciate the civil tone of this discussion and look forward to seeing the continued improvement of this article. I am going to re-tag the items I tagged earlier--not delete them, although if they go on for too long without citation I believe deletion will be in order.Waulfgang 20:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

All of you have very logical arguments. I just don't want the opinions section to become like it once was where every word was fought over... Trying to keep this section NPOV has been a pain without giving a bias to one side or another. The current one seams to be very stable without people constantly editing it and creating headaches for all of us. Just try to remember that before anything is removed. -- UKPhoenix79 00:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intellexual.net link

The intellexual.net link should be returned as a reference in the "Criticism" section. This article currently does not have any references or links to technical reviews of Bose hardware. The intellexual.net link provides one of the few reviews available where someone has actually tested the frequency response of a Bose product. —ptk✰fgs 14:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, if there's a link equivalent to that overly-biased Intellexual.NET link but in a more neutral note, then I would understand, but that link is a bit too extreme to be there. If it talks about the frequencies of Bose Speakers, but in a more neutral manner, then I would be willing to let the link stay. However, unless the link proves to be neutral, then it needs to be discussed first, as there has been instances when links have came in without being talked about first. Links like the Intellexual.net one is at super risk due to excessive bias. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 19:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

While I believe that any criticism section is inherently biased due to what it is. This link makes no sense. This article is not about the speakers mentioned and Bose does not make those any more. And yes the page is overly biased against Bose. But by adding it, this would be the same as having a page about how horrid the Apple Lisa was on apples main page while comparing the Apple Lisa to newer computers. It just does not make sense. -- UKPhoenix79 20:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

My flu-ridden, coughing two cents: (1) the review in question is blatantly biased and anything but objective; (2) so are lots of worthwhile reviews; (3) the methodology of the review is questionable, which brings into question—but doesn't necessarily negate—its value as a link here; (4) the age of the review is worrisome. However, the mere fact that a given product has been superseded by another doesn't mean that the new one's basic design principles and performance are different than the old one; the changes can be all cosmetic. I'd like to know whether the design and performance problems specified in the article remain the same in current product. (5) The bordering-on-shrill tone of the review leads me to reflexively say, "Bad link. Kill it", but that is a subjective response on my part. (6) The recurring use of the word "troll" is not helping matters in the slightest. Troll Street carries two-way traffic, after all. Rivertorch 22:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References Cleanup

I.m thinking of cleaning-up and consolidating all the external citations/links into a more formal References section. It looks more formal, and also gives an "at-a-glance" account of who the publisher/author of the source is, without having to GO to that link... Wikipedia suggests to follow the existing majority citation format, so I'm wondering if anyone here has any objections. Keecheril 01:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "external" citations? And how would you consolidate them? A references section, if added, would normally be used in addition to citations, so I'm curious to hear a little more about what you'd like to do.Waulfgang 04:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree what do you mean? -- UKPhoenix79 07:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

By "external" I simply meant links to pages outside Wikipedia. Maybe I'm not using the word citation correctly? Anyway, an example of what I'm suggesting is, the first citation on "Automotive Suspension System", would be better on a Reference, section, with the Journal name, author name, etc mentioned formally. I did a similar cleanup @ CATIA. Here's the old version, with different numbering for citations and references...Keecheril 17:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, Keecheril. Please do continue ASH1977LAW 16:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

OK - I've gone through and cleaned up all the external citations/links into a more formal References sectionASH1977LAW 16:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] March 12 edits by unregistered user 85.90.232.145

POV, people! So, if you write anything even potentially critical of Bose, it must be backed by citation, while factually wanting, fawning drivel gets to stand as a given? I don't think so. I don't want to do a wholesale revert, particularly as the one involving the space shuttle may be worthwhile (and may have another side to it). I'm really overloaded with other commitments, so if anyone else would like to have a go at fixing some of this, please do. In the meantime, I will remove one patently false statement (that, funny enough, lacks a citation). Just for starters, I think three citation-neededs in one sentence are a bit much, no? Rivertorch 17:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Scratch that. The edits are still coming in. This time, the spell check is off. I'll wait. Rivertorch 17:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd try to check out the citations by all means possible because apparently it sounds a bit weasel-ish. I am not sure if it's POV but if it's at the level of neutrality issues, I'd say go ahead and tune it. I feel that it's a bit too unneutral but check the links to see if there's anything to do to tone down the weaselness of the anon's edits. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 17:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I was quite worried about these edits being weaselish so I check wikipedia policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words) just in case, Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources and as all my edits have at least one citation to each statement I don't think they are at all weaselish (I was worried) ASH1977LAW 16:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting edits, If they are factual I'm sure that some can stay... but we don't want an edit war with pro/anti Bose people so I agree that we should wait and see what it looks like when its finished and then remove the unsourced pov and return it to a neutral state. -- UKPhoenix79 23:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - that was me, I forgot to log in. I've now provided two citations for the patently false statement , and that is statement is currently under discussion in the High-End, High-Fi, Opinions & Bose section beneath. The factually wanting, fawning drivel now has citations from reliable sources. Sorry about the spelling, no excuse for it really, I'll spell-check when I return on SundayASH1977LAW 11:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

OK - I've removed refutable or meaningless statements and spell checked everything... theatre was spelt incorrectly, but that was the only thing my spell checker picked up as wrong. I've provided a further four citations for the high-end description but as there are two on the page already I've just included them in the talk page - does this really need 6 seperate citations? ASH1977LAW 11:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] High-Fi, High-End, Opinions and Bose

I've gone through the opinions section today and added citations wherever relavent. I've also added a little more about the company, with relavent citations. My contributions to the Opinions section will need to be gone over by others, and irrelivant or contradictory items removed (for example - in the sections about 'many audiophiles' I was able to find citations for many other audiophiles liking Bose and trhis needs to be cleaned up ... also the section which states that certain internet forums have arguments going back and forth about the merits of Bose seems to imply that these same forums are uncritical of other companies and their products, so I've added a bit about how BoseBashing is not unique (I picked Sony and Pioneer at random as examples to link to). I've added back in HIGH-END with citations (such as the use of Bose products in the cistine chappel & on the space-shutttle). — ASH1977LAW 12 March 2007 User:85.90.232.145 18:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You have indeed left a lot to clean up. You've obviously spent some time researching citations, however, and you definitely are following the "be bold" commandment, so welcome aboard. One quick point and a friendly suggestion:

The use of a given audio product in the Sistine Chapel (that's "Sistine" with an 's' and "Chapel" with one 'p'--both capitalized) or the space shuttle has no relation whatsoever to its being high-end. I am way too overextended to contribute much right now, but I am killing those two words.

If you've registered, you sign your posts on talk pages by putting four tildes (~~~~) at the end of what you've written. (More info on signatures can be found here.) Rivertorch 06:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Rivertorch. Could you please define "high-end" please so I can research citations for Bose being high-end or not being high-end. I assumed that the use of the companies products in such locations would indicate their perceived quality by the IOC/NASA/Vatigan etc...

Also, on the opinions section the parts about audiophile opinions I was able to find citations against the 'audiophile hate bose' and 'audiophile magasines hate bose' and the statements about audio internet forums. ASH1977LAW

The article did not make such statements. The wording was a hell of a lot more nuanced. Believe it or not, it was intended to be nuanced, so as to make the article factual, objective, and as accurate as possible. Reckless paraphrasing of the sort you just engaged in is counterproductive to a reasoned dialog not only because it's inaccurate but because it is dismissive of past editors' work. To answer your question, the term "high end" is necessarily somewhat subjective. As it applies to audio equipment—in this case, speakers, since I really don't think any reasonable person would consider Bose's other products to be even borderline high-end—I'd say it implies several things: favorable notice by publications which review products they consider to be high end; sales exclusively through specialty audio retailers or, in a few cases, direct sales with extended home-trial periods; a market base primarily composed of consumers who consider themselves audiophiles; a reputation among audio journalists and within the larger audiophile community either for cost-no-object design in the service of sound quality or for exceptional sound quality at a given price point; an avoidance by the manufacturer of serious forays into areas unrelated to high fidelity sound reproduction; an absence of advertising in mass-market media; sales figures that are well short of the stratosphere; and (again in the case of speakers) drivers, crossover components, and enclosures of exceptionally high quality and, often, cost. Does every company generally thought of as high end necessarily encompass all of the above? No; most of the above would be sufficient. But not a single of these factors applies to Bose. If you're genuinely interested in high-end audio, excellent places to learn more include the American magazine The Absolute Sound, the British magazine Hi-Fi Answers, and various Web sites including Six Moons[4]. A better understanding of the topic would be helpful to you, I think. Rivertorch 18:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

OK - 'hate' is a bit strong, I was paraphrasing. I'm sorry for any offence caused.

really don't think any reasonable person would consider Bose's other products to be even borderline high-end I have posted a citations for high-end - plus under the definitions on wikipedia of high-end and high-end audio bose products are high-end products.

I'd say it implies several things: favorable notice by publications which review products they consider to be high end; sales exclusively through specialty audio retailers or, in a few cases, direct sales with extended home-trial periods Therefore by these criteria that you have given, Bose products are high-end products. Bose has received favorable notice by publications which review products they consider to be high end. Bose (at least in the UK - I understand in America the situation is different) sells exclusively through specialty audio retailers or, in a few cases. Bose only uses direct sales (in the UK at least) of it's wave products and related items (with a few exceptions such as headphones in duty-free stores in airports). Bose also offers extended home-trial periods.

an avoidance by the manufacturer of serious forays into areas unrelated to high fidelity sound reproduction so Bose's medical testing and automotive suspension arms are serious forays into areas unrelated to high fidelity sound reproduction... I fail to see how this affects the quality of their audio products.

an absence of advertising in mass-market media again, I fail to see the significance of this to a companies products being high-end or not

sales figures that are well short of the stratosphere surely high sales are not indicators of low quality, anyt more than low sales are indicators of high quality?

and (again in the case of speakers) drivers, crossover components, and enclosures of exceptionally high quality and, often, cost does build quality or high cost nesicarily relate to sound quality?

...so what does that leave us with? Well... apparently just the opinion of audiophiles, which is as ever a debatable point. Let us assume for the sake of discussion that all audiophiles do not regard Bose as a high-end manufacturer. Does bose fufill the rest of the criteria as you have laid out, or most of the criteria? Yes.

Does every company generally thought of as high end necessarily encompass all of the above? No; most of the above would be sufficient. So Bose IS high-end then? Yes.

But not a single of these factors applies to Bose. This is a factually incorrect statement.

Therefore by the criteria that you have given, by the wikipedia definition of high-end and by the citations given we can clearly say that Bose produces high-end audio products. ASH1977LAW 18:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we therefore remove the statements

Some people claim that the brand is sometimes derided, ignored, or disregardedneeded] in the audiophile and/or ...

and

Some internet audio forums ...

for the following reasons

1- The statements about audiophile publications and opinions are refutable, and the citations show this. At best we are able to show that some like Bose and some don't... though the same can be said of any product (some coke drinkers like Cocacola, some prefer pepsi)

2- 'Many' Audiophiles hold low opinions of Bose and post so on internet forums but equally 'many' audiophiles hold low opinions of other audio companies. I have posted citations for that. Therefore, since this statement can be made for any given audio company (some coke drinkers like Cocacola, some prefer pepsi) it is meaningless. However, in it's current form it skews the article's NPOV by making it apear that Bose is the only audio company to receive critisizm.

3- The statement about specialist stores not stocking Bose is factually inaccurate, and I have posted a link to a Bose site which has a store locator (I'd introduce other evidence such as specialist audio stores local to me that do carry Bose, but that is personal research and therefore not valid).

4- Checking on other audio company articles there are no Opinions About sections. I'm of the opinion that we need to either scrap references to audiophiles and audiophile publications in the Bose article or add in such sections in all audio company articles.

ASH1977LAW 12:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm putting the high-end descriptor back in, as under the current definition in wikipedia High-end audio equipment is purported by the manufacturers to be the best, regardless of the price Bose products are high-end

Checking the talk-pages of some other articles there seems to be some question about 'high-end' audio. While the high-end audio page lists B&O as a company that produces high-end audio systems, the b&o page has had this term removed

I've added this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audiophile#Subjectivists.27_criticisms_of_objectivism_in_audio to clarify further the last sentance in the section

I've added citations for Bose not wanting to publish certain specifications and the company founders reasons for doing so ASH1977LAW 16:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Your reasoning is flawed, probably because you don't have a good grasp of the history and nature of high-end audio. You're making the mistake of equating "high quality" with "high end". Both are subjective to a degree, but the former has rather specific meanings that have been in use in the audiophile community for many years. You asked me to define "high end". Off the top of my head, I provided several indicators of a product's being high end. I'm sure others have supplied more articulate definitions, and I will look for some when I get the chance. (I have innumerable back issues of various audiophile publications, but they aren't easily accessible. I also have a backlog of other projects that are demanding my time.)

Again, I was referring to speakers, which once were Bose's bread and butter and which still are an important part of their product line. In the early days, their speakers arguably could be considered high-end products—although the term was less common back then—but they haven't been for a long time. Referring to my earlier definition, they're not high end because:

They receive no favorable notice in publications oriented towards reviewing high-end products. The Stereophile review you cited (which was already linked from the page) is decidedly unfavorable. Audioreview.com is not a publication but a Web site which allows anyone to post a review; it also is not of reference quality and has no place being cited in WP. The third link involves PC speakers, which have nothing to do with high-end audio. (Among other things, high end means high fidelity. iPods, for instance, are not high end. Dedicated MP3 players are not high end. Portable music players or all-in-one systems of any kind are not high end. Pro audio equipment is not high end.)

High end, as defined in wikipedia is is purported by the manufacturers to be the best, regardless of the price. High-end audio equipment can be extremely expensive. It is sometimes referred to as cost-no-object equipment. and High-end audio can refer to the build quality of the components, but more specifically, refers to the ability to reproduce a recording with the highest fidelity to the original performance that has been committed to the recording. Typical qualitative attributes that are scaled by audiophile publications and experts are accuracy vs. warmth, tonal color vs. speed, timbre, size of sound stage vs. depth (spatial origins), clarity, pace, timing etc, etc.A theoretically perfect high-end audio system would create the illusion of the musical performers actually being present and performing right in front of the listener. There would be no sonic signature that imparts any clue as to the fact that the performance is a playback of a recording instead of a live performance by actual musicians in the listening room. This is obviously more important with performances involving acoustic instruments and without studio manipulations of vocals. I can find nothing to support your assertation that a product being a speaker designed as a PC speaker, portable music players or all-in-one systems precludes it being either a system with high-fidelity reproduction or it being a high-end audio system as defined by high-end. ASH1977LAW 09:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
At least in North America—Bose's home territory—precious few specialty audio retailers sell Bose products. (Until home theater for the masses caused the high-end audio market to diminish in the 1990s, virtually none did.) If this is not the case elsewhere, that should be noted in the article. Direct sales of Wave radios and the like obviously are irrelevant since they cannot possibly be considered high-end products, which are always separate components, not boom boxes, no matter how fancy.

Again, your assertartion that high-end systems must always be seperate systems dosn't fit with the definitions of high-end ASH1977LAW 09:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Their market is not primarily composed of consumers who consider themselves audiophiles. (You left this one out.) This is not necessarily any reflection on the quality of the goods, it's simply the way things are. If you know of evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

The market for an item dosn't affect the quality of an item, many other factors do. If you have citable evidence that their market is not primarily composed of consumers who consider themselves audiophiles and that having a such market is a primary indicator of a product being high-end please cite it. 85.90.232.145 09:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
They don't have a reputation among audio journalists and within the larger audiophile community either for cost-no-object design in the service of sound quality or for exceptional sound quality at a given price point. (You left this one out, too.)

Yes I did. There is a reason most audiophile publications don't review bose (http://supreme.justia.com/us/466/485/) and it has little to do with quality or lack of in bose systems but rather is a reaction to this case. ASH1977LAW 09:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually... http://www.avguide.com/products/product-1678/ audiophile magasines (Absolute Sound) do review Bose systems ASH1977LAW 14:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
They don't avoid making serious forays into areas unrelated to high fidelity sound reproduction. This has nothing to do with the quality of the audio products they make; it simply is an indicator that they're not high end because their exclusive focus isn't high fidelity audio.

Why is this an indicator? To give an analogy... Rolls Royce produces aircraft engines. They also produce high-end automobiles. Both make use of engine research. No one reasonable could argue that producing aircraft engines is an indicator that a Rolls Royce automobile is not a high-end automobile. GE produces the minigun, but also makes washing machines - however their forays into gun manufacture dosn't nesicarily reduce the quality of their washing machines (and vise-versa). exclusive focus is not an indicator of any products quality ASH1977LAW 09:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
They advertise heavily in mass-market media. The significance of this is that the media in question don't target audiophiles; they target everyone. The typical high-end audio maker will place ads in audiophile publications. Some don't advertise at all. Bose advertises just about everywhere except in audiophile publications. It is therefore reasonable to form at least a preliminary conclusion that Bose is not marketing their products especially to audiophiles—and it is audiophiles who comprise most of the market for high end audio, after all!

Based upon this quote from the company founder In the quest for better ways to measure and evaluate loudspeakers, it is natural to search for quantitative objective tests to replace the qualitative subjective methods that are vulnerable to the large variances of individual value judgement. In this pursuit, there is the danger of employing objective standards whose correlation to the ultimate goal of natural sound reproduction is open to serious question. This paper examines the merits and shortcomings of some of the well known measurement criteria and presents some new approaches intended to make steps in the direction of more meaningful measurement and evaluation procedures. (from here: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=1390) and the company history In 1956, while a graduate student at MIT, Amar Bose purchased a high-end stereo system and was disappointed when it failed to meet his expectations. He later began extensive audio research aimed at fixing what he saw as key weaknesses plaguing such high-end systems. The principal weakness, as he saw it, was how the overall design of the loudspeakers and electronics failed to take into account psychoacoustics (the human perception of sound). and Bose achieved international acclaim by setting a new standard for lifelike sound reproduction. I would therefore say that Bose systems are aimed at audiophiles based upon the "We believe that the sound of music, unamplified, occurring in a real space is a philosophic absolute against which we may judge the performance of devices designed to reproduce music." which is a statement that has influenced many audiophile values from Harry Pearson, longtime editor of The Absolute Sound (see the wikipedia audiophile article). However, Bose products are not aimed exclusively at audiophiles. This dosn't, however, make them non- high-end products ASH1977LAW 09:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thinking further on your point Bose advertises just about everywhere except in audiophile publications. It is therefore reasonable to form at least a preliminary conclusion that Bose is not marketing their products especially to audiophiles—and it is audiophiles who comprise most of the market for high end audio, after all! I think you are drawing eronious conclusions. If manufacturer X can spend $10,000 for a full page advert in a magasine with a circulation of 100,000 people or $250,000 for a full page advert in a magasine with a circulation of 10,000 it makes good sence to spend in the cheeper higher-distribution mag. Of course, this these costs are suposition, but isn't it fair to say that Bose are likely to choose cost-effective methods of advertising and that audiophile publications have relatively low circulation compared to where Bose does advertise? Given that audiophiles are likely to see the advertisements elsewhere (given that advertises just about everywhere except in audiophile publications) why would they replicate the effort when if they are advertising everywhere else audiophiles will still see the adverts? ASH1977LAW 12:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Their sales figures are certifiably stratospheric. They're sold in mass-market big-box chain retailers from coast to coast. High-end audio makers cannot have such high sales figures because the market for their products is too small; there simply aren't that many audiophiles with large disposable incomes.

Hmm... I'm not sure what you are saying here, could you please expand upon this point? You seem to be implying that sales figures for a given product is inversely proportional to it's quality, or that audiophiles only by high-end systems and high-end systems are only purchased by audiophiles. I'm confused as to your meaning, but I'm probably being dense here, if so you have my appologies. ASH1977LAW 09:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Their drivers, crossover components, and enclosures are of neither exceptionally high quality nor cost. Does this have an effect on sound quality? Yes, some effect. Does it mean Bose speakers necessarily sound like crap? Not at all. Does it suggest they're not high-end—a categorization I never equated directly with sound quality to begin with? Without a doubt.

Could you provide a citation of the build quality of bose products compared with the build quality of competing products, and of wither build quality affects subjective experience of sound, please? If so this is a good point against bose products being high-quality audio systems and we can say that Bose products are of low quality and therefore are not high-end. ASH1977LAW 09:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The article used to begin rather well: "The Bose Corporation is a privately held American company based in Framingham, Massachusetts that specializes in audio equipment." That was short, simple, and descriptive. I cannot help thinking that inserting "high-end" (among other things) in there is a decidedly POV thing to do. Phrases have meanings, meanings have contexts, contexts have histories, histories provoke controversies, controveries breed POV. All well and good, but some of us had worked rather hard to minimize POV in the article, and in a little over 24 hours that has all gone out the window. Such is the nature of WP, I suppose.

Checking other audio companies which could be described as producing high-end products their introductions tend to include either high-end or high-fidelity. You are correct that phrases have meanings, however, are you saying that all other articles should have the phrases high-end or high-fidelity removed for fear that these are POV statements? As I have shown, under the definition of high-end audio, Bose produces high-end audio equipment. ASH1977LAW 09:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I really don't have time to proceed with this discussion any further, let alone edit the recent edits, but I expect I'll be back to help mop up the article in a few days. In the meantime, maybe someone could move this discussion to a new section because these embedded replies are getting out of hand and will be nearly impossible to sort out later. Also—pretty please—could someone run a spell check on the article? Rivertorch 23:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll likewise leave this article until Sunday so I'm coming to this fresh. I'll spellcheck the article on Sunday too. If there's no objection by Sunday I'll remove the Some people claim that the brand is sometimes derided, ignored, or disregarded in the audiophile and/or ... and Some internet audio forums ... for the reasons (refutable,meaningless,factually inaccurate) given in full below. I'm also wanting to add a section on audiophile publications lack of Bose reviews and the BoseVsCU court case. ASH1977LAW 09:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm also leaving it alone for the time being. I had hoped that what I said yesterday would have some influence on your thinking, but it seems as though I failed. Once again you are equating high quality with high end, which I specifically advised was a mistake. You're twisting what I said elsewhere, too, and cherry-picking my statements to conveniently ignore key parts in your rebuttals. Before I return to editing the Bose article—next week if I'm lucky—I apparently need to do some clean-up on the high-end audio article. In the meantime, may I offer one more suggestion? It is that you be careful to avoid assuming cause-and-effect relationships where none necessarily exist—e.g., Bose sues Consumers Union, therefore audiophile mags don't review their speakers . . . or Amar Bose recognizes the shortcoming of equating measurements with sound quality, therefore Bose doesn't publish specs. In the first case, I don't doubt that the lawsuit had a chilling effect, but I'm unaware of any evidence that it fully explains the dearth of Bose reviews in audiophile mags. In the second case, do you suppose that all the other major speaker manufacturers publish specs because they equate measured data with sound quality?

Can I please refer you to the section on this talk page entitled specifications for an answer to this, as your question is answered there by an ex-bose corporation president ASH1977LAW 18:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

There are various reasons for publishing specs, some of which are never claimed to have any relation to sound quality (e.g., electrical impedance and sensitivity). In both cases, you're drawing inferences a little too quickly. I mention these examples because ironically enough it is the high-end press that (like Bose) historically has eschewed measurements in favor of listening and because the wording in the Consumer Reports article that sparked the lawsuit dealt with how the speakers sounded, not how they measured! Btw, Consumer Reports is about as far from an audiophile mag as you can get, and they have long since resumed including Bose products in their reviews. Also, vis-à-vis your Rolls-Royce example, I think you missed my point, but I can't resist pointing out that the aircraft maker and the car maker of the same name split off some years ago and are no longer part of the same company. Rivertorch 21:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

May I profer the following in support of the disputed high-end descriptor http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1764153,00.asp which is an article entitled High-End, Affordable and Adaptable and refering to the sound-dock and this http://www.popsci.com/popsci/bown/2004/autotech/article/0,22221,750663,00.html and this http://news.softpedia.com/news/Free-Bose-Headphone-Accessories-48984.shtml and this from Forbes http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/10/BVDT.html which brings the number of citations for high-end to 6 in total. Your criteria for high-end seems to be that audiophile magasines have not often reviewed Bose products in recent years.

I am all for putting in a link to a poor review in an audiophile magasine in the opinions section, preferably one that states that the reviewer did not consider the product to be a high-end product. In that case something like "despite being refered to as high-end products in both popular and specialist publications, some audiophile magasine reviewers do not regard Bose to be a prodducer of high-end products because (reason given in review)" would be a suitable wording.

ASH1977LAW 11:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I've searched online as you suggested (Six Moons, the last 8 years of The Absolute Sound, Stereophile & Sound And Vision) and can't find any references to Bose not being a high-end system... nor of any particually damning reviews (infact Sound&Vision had this - http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/av/711/bose-lifestyle-38-home-entertainment-system-page3.html). If you have any citations to hand that would be very useful so we can add an This audiophile magasine does not consider Bose to produce high-end products because (reason + citation). I agree that audiophile opinions should be cited, but not that audiophile publications are the be-all-and-end all of wither a product is high-end audio. If we can find some citations to put in here, preferably from a publication or a non-internet forum source (such as an online publication) to support audio hobbiests opinons of Bose systems that would be great, but I can't find any in the sources you suggested earlier. Your expertise in this area obviously outweighs mine so your help would be invaluable. ASH1977LAW 12:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Searching Absolute Sound (an audiophile mag suggested by Rivertorch) I was able to find reviews of Bose systems http://www.avguide.com/products/product-1678/ but nothing to indicate that the audiophile community dosn't regard bose products as being high-end nor anything to indicate that they are not well received systems.ASH1977LAW 14:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

As noted above,in 1968, Amar Bose presented a classic paper to the Audio Engineering Society entitled: "On the Design, Measurement and Evaluation of Loudspeakers" available from the AES at a small charge: See http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=1390. Following the logic in this paper, Bose Corporation has endeavored to strike an economic balance between cost and performance to provide high quality as judged by the average listener whose criteria of quality include faithful reproduction of the listener's experience in a live performance, i.e. a dominance of the reverberant sound field in the listening space, ie. a typical home enviornment. This issue is non-trivial since those whose main listening experience has been reproduced sound, i.e. loudspeakr-sound, often find Bose systems lacking and in particular in the directional high freqencies produced by many expensive speaker systems with tweeters mounted in forward-facing baffles that assure considerable directionality of the higher frequencies. For those listeners, Bose systems will not appeal and they should not, and largely do not, own them. My understanding of "high-end" is a price issue, and on that score, Bose systems fail; although it is possible to spend a few thousand dollars on a Bose system, none are priced in the stratosphere ($10,000 and up) that qualify as true "high end." Whether or not they are of "high quality" is a value judgement that cannot be arbitrarily resolved. Bose believes, and I agree, "You must be the judge." Frankatca 23:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Frankatca, I'd like to put the above in the Opinions section almost word-for-word, if that is OK (if not please delete or ammend it as appropriate). It helps to balance the article out, though it still needs a citation external to wikipedia (though you are a reliable source it needs to be published and citable). Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.85.90.232.145 11:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

OK - the section above where you say My understanding of "high-end" is a price issue, and on that score, Bose systems fail; although it is possible to spend a few thousand dollars on a Bose system, none are priced in the stratosphere ($10,000 and up) that qualify as true "high end." Whether or not they are of "high quality" is a value judgement that cannot be arbitrarily resolved. Bose believes, and I agree, "You must be the judge." I'd like to insert it into the opinions section and attribute it to you as you are a reliable source but it would have to have a citation external to wikipedia and to be balanced against Bose is arguably the number-one manufacturer of high-end audio equipment, with sales accounting for 25 percent of the world market. from http://www.wetfeet.com/Content/Companies/B/Bose.aspx Can you provide a suitable citation please? ASH1977LAW 12:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I think it does help the main article. Good move. But I would still not regard Bose as a "high end" manufacturer as that term is usually interpreted. Both because I think it fails the high-price test and the audiophile's acceptance test -- most hate Bose with an unbridled passion, and for reasons that I fail to comprehend. Meanwhile, Bose Corp. happily supplies millions of lower-priced systems to the unwashed who simply like what they hear and want to own one. As for a published citation, I know of none that would qualify, alas. Frankatca 00:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added the 1975 steriophile review as a citation for the POV of those who do not like Bose products, though it is not nesicarily the audiophile pov but the pov of those who prefer non-bose systems because they prefer a different type of sound reproduction. As for the "high end" part I'm still searching for a suitable citation. I'll add in a "some do not consider Bose products to be high-end because..." as soon as I can find a suitable citation from a reliable published source ASH1977LAW 13:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

OK... I've found this http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2097317,00.asp and will be adding something about bose being considered high-end by some but not by others to the opinions section after I've had the rest of my pint. ASH1977LAW 13:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, I've added it in but I'm not entirely satisfied with the wording. I've put a half-dozen citations to support not only "high-end" but the phrase "widely regarded as" to show that it is indeed widely regarded as such (though the citation for Bose not being regarded by some as a high-end system says that "most people" regard it as such) ASH1977LAW 14:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've altered the wording in the last sentance, but I'm still not entirely satisfied with it. I want to avoid 'audiophile' or 'sound snob' in the sentace, but if one goes in so does the other as the 'some people' refered to in the article are refered to as true sound snobs and the standard that the reviewer supposes they use are audiophile standards. I'm still not happy with the phrase some people, though I'm fine with most people as that is what the article says. 85.90.232.145 13:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions Regarding Bose section (current edits from March2007 onwards)

This section contained some unnecessary formatting that unnecessarily charged some of the text with emotion. I have removed the italics from the side comments that attempt to justify Bose's negative coverage, as they add nothing positive to this section of the article.

Even so, this section could use some cleaning up in order to convey a more credible and authoritative tone, rather than an emotional argument. Delekhan 20:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the following...

...

Some people claim that the brand is sometimes derided^{[citation needed]}, ignored^{[citation needed]}, or disregarded^{[citation needed]} in the audiophile and/or audio enthusiast markets (though the same can be said of any audio company and its products). It has also been claimed that the only mention the brand gets in audio enthusiast publications is invariably in editorials highly critical of some products^{[citation needed]}, and many audio specialty retailers do not carry Bose products.^{[citation needed]}.

However, despite claims that the only mention the brand gets in audio enthusiast publications is invariably in editorials highly critical of some products Bose products have received many positive reviews in various audio publications [5], [6], [7] and many speciality retailers do carry Bose products - a full listing of these dealers can be found on most Bose national websites - usually under dealer locator (example: the bose.co.uk site[8])

Some internet audio forums are filled with arguments for and against Bose and its products (for example [9], [10]), though it should be noted that such internet audio forums are filled with arguments for and against other audio companies and their products (for example [11], [12], [13], [14]) so Bose is not unique in receiving both critisizm and praise from posters on internet audio forums.

...

reasons... a) the first paragraph is refutable by citations b) the second paragraph is meaningless as the internet audio forums are filled with arguments for and against can be said of any audio company

ASH1977LAW 10:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the section

...

It is sometimes Bose's non-publication of specifications that lead to poor reviews by objectivist audiophiles [15], rather than actual product performance [16] [17]

...

reason: needs reliable sources or to be removed in line with policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution#Using_questionable_or_self-published_sources).

I'd ideally like to find reliable sources rather than removing this section but am unable to find any that are not blogs or forums (which count as questionable or self published sources). I am entirely happy for it to be restored to the opinions section with reliable sources ASH1977LAW 19:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the section

...

Unlike other major speaker manufacturers, Bose does not publish specifications relating to the measured electrical and objective acoustic performance of its products.[18] [19]. This reluctance to publish information is due to Bose's rejection of these measurements in favour of "more meaningful measurement and evaluation procedures"[20].

...

into the research section, directly below the paragraph also relating to specifications.

reason: it is not an opinion about Bose but is a fact.

I beleive that it should be moved back to the opinions section when and if reliable sources for

...

It is sometimes Bose's non-publication of specifications that lead to poor reviews by objectivist audiophiles [21], rather than actual product performance [22] [23]

...

are found and that section is added back in, or if reliable sources can be found for citing the opinion of audiophile magasines journalist/editors/reviewers can be found and an appropriate paragraph on this created. As it stands it makes sense to move it to the research section.

HOWEVER - this just leaves us with the Forrester research bit. This article is still absolutely in line with Wikipedia's NPOV (All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source. ... Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."). The problem here is that there has been a lot of discussion about the audiophile POV, and to represent this we must have reliable sources. Despite 8 hours of searching the net I am unable to find reliable sources for the audiophile POV, but then again I may just be being dense and using poor terms in my internet searches. Please, please if anyone has a reliable citable source to balance this article that would be very much appreciated.

ASH1977LAW 19:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

As of 19th March, this is a pretty appalling article. It still reads like fan boy gibberish at best, or an ad at worst. I've never read any serious reviews of Bose stuff, but I have listened to two of their systems. As an ex chorister, and someone who has probably heard more live music than 90% of wikipedians (being older than 99% of them), I regard the claims for the Bose systems in this article as being quite absurd. The salesman could not (or at least did not) set the system up properly, or else it was equivalent to a car stereo. No imaging, no clarity. Bose's fundamental ideas are probably sound, he seems like a smart guy, but using 5 inch drivers for low frequency MUST involve compromises in linearity. I'll dig around for credible reviews, but without much hope. Use your ears guys, it is all you need. Oh and the answer you are looking for is STAX earspeakers. Greglocock 12:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The NPOV guidelines which say that any significant point of view must be fairly represented All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source. While I agree with some of your points original research or experiences are not the basis for the inclusion of anything in wikipedia, Verifiability is. Personally I'd welcome verifiable POVs that are not positive about bose, but so far it has been mainly assertations without citation, opinions of editors based upon original research or links to internet forums. If you can find some good citations please go for it! The more POVs the better (provided they are citable) ASH1977LAW 13:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have googled & wiki'd STAX earspeakers... I must admit to being somewhat confused, Greglocock. Perhaps I am being dense or maybe it is my hangover but I am unsure what the question was to which the answer we are looking for is STAX earspeakers. Could you expand upon this point please? ASH1977LAW 13:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

They provide the most nearly equivalent sound to the original source. To go slightly further than that, they provide true spatial awareness if the sound is correctly binaurally recorded in the first place. The lack of coloration is also very apparent. I have used them for several years at work, no room speaker system comes close.

here's a review which more or less agrees with my subjective ratings. In an NPOV article I think it has a place. http://www.stereophile.com/historical/425/index3.html Greglocock 02:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm still unsure of your meaning, could you clarify further, Greglocock? This article is about the Bose corporation, not the STAX company. I appreciate that you may prefer the STAX headphones to the Bose speaker system that you had demonstrated for you... however surely information about the STAX line of products would be better in the STAX article, it certainly dosn't belong in the Bose article. The link to the review of the 901s does belong in the article... if it isn't in the article already I'll add it inASH1977LAW 10:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

At your suggestion I'm adding in the review as a citation to the opinions section, which while out of date is still a significant point of view, and is citable. ASH1977LAW 11:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Greglocock, I've removed the ^{[citation needed]} tags that you put in. There is a citation at the end of the paragraph. ASH1977LAW 11:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

So I see. Yet that article does not seem to support the assertion. Does it mention a survey in which it says what proportion of audiophiles buy Bose? Does it attempt to discover what the split is between live music listeners and those who concentrate on recorded sound? The whole para sounds very dismissive and POVGreglocock 02:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cold Fusion & other 'blue-sky' research

I'd like to create a section on this under the research heading. Does anyone have any links for citations apart from the interview where Bose mentions the cold fusion research? ASH1977LAW 14:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drink the Kool Aid

The following addition has been deleted on the basis that UKPhoenix79 thinks "it is a word for word duplicate from http://bose.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1506041054/m/1191077643. "

In 1984, Bose Corporation sued Consumer Reports for publishing a review in which Bose speakers did relatively poorly. The review stated that the stereo image of the Bose speakers was unstable and "tended to wander about the room", undermining the basic Direct/Reflecting concept behind Bose's products^[1]. The final verdict ruled that Consumer Reports had in fact libeled Bose by overstating its negative findings, which were, more precisely, that the stereo image merely "moved along the wall" behind the speakers. This was something of a Pyrrhic victory for Bose, as since then both Bose and Consumer Reports readership in demographic areas where Bose products are targeted have became bitter enemies, and the same may hold true today. Furthermore, the monetary award of $210,000 in libel damages was appealed to the Federal Supreme Court, who overturned it. Nevertheless, the case is believed to have had a chilling effect on publication of subjective preferences in reviews, both specifically by Consumer Reports as well as in the media as a whole.

If you look at the cite in question you'll see it is a quote from wiki that is being used, hence hardly surprising that it is the same. The same User also claims " Also talk page shows jist of this statement is false since they still review Bose products) " which is completely misreprepresenting the thrust of the article, it wasn't saying they don't review them , merely that the important subjective assessments are no longer reported.

What do they give you guys to drink? Greglocock 04:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Odd to be talked about so subjectively... just odd... but if you check the talk page you will see that this has been talked about including "Bose sues Consumers Union, therefore audiophile mags don't review their speakers [...] I don't doubt that the lawsuit had a chilling effect, but I'm unaware of any evidence that it fully explains the dearth of Bose reviews in audiophile mags." and "in the Consumer Reports article that sparked the lawsuit dealt with how the speakers sounded, not how they measured! Btw, Consumer Reports is about as far from an audiophile mag as you can get, and they have long since resumed including Bose products in their reviews." Saying that Bose has been involved in law suits goes on par with being a large corporation, All large Auto companies, computer software/hardware, financial institutions... heck any company that has earnings in the 10's of millions of dollars or more tend to be sued or sue because of this or that. I don't know why that belongs in an opinions section and I really doubt that we want to create a legal section of every company inside of wikipedia, like I said most companies get involved in legal issues from time to time... Oh and I generally drink water or coke if I'm eating out why do you ask? -- UKPhoenix79 05:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/o/s/Talk%7EBose_%28company%29_58dc.html"

Categories: WikiProject Professional sound production articles | B-Class Professional sound production articles