Talk:Bose Corporation/Intellexual.net Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Criticism

At the very least there should be facts included. Bose publishes no technical data on any of their speaker line (check their website). Try visiting Sennheiser, Onkyo, DALI or any other major audio equipment vendor and you'll find information such as impedence, frequency response and THD listed on their specifications page. The drivers of the Bose Acoustimass system, which retails for around $1300, are sold for $35 a pair here. The speakers in question contain paper cones in a thin plastic casing.

Your page with the $35 drivers hasn't been updated since 2000 and doesn't look very respectable.

This article contains a number of problems with their system backed up by facts and test results. Until this article becomes balanced rather than PR speak I'm adding a disupted neutrality tag. Defsac 06:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I see nothing about the article in its current form that makes it "imbalanced". The article states FACTS about the company, contains no opinion about the products, lists a few products, and links to its website. I see no reason to have a neutrality disputed tag on the article, therefore, I am removing it. Every company out there is criticized or disliked by someone, not just bose.

The article states: "Excessive Bass at the cost of Treble (The lack of Treble bothers Audio Veterans, Audio Engineers, and Audiophiles the most)"
Discussion: Bose designs speakers to deliver flat radiated total power over the audio spectrum rather than to deliver a flat "on axis" frequency response in an anechoic environment, the traditional measure of a loud speaker. Indeed, traditional speakers with front-facing tweeters mounted in a sizable baffle, do demonstrably radiate forward a noticeably higher level of upper frequencies, the baffle-mounted tweeters insuring a strong frontal lobe at the higher frequencies. And the lack of these lobed high freqencies can be interpreted as "inadequate treble." The flat radiated power criterion is directly correlated to the sound fields in a typical live performance space where the dominant received sound is omnidirectional in its arrival at the pina of the ear for virtually all in the audience. In a home, however, the traditional loudspeaker does not attempt to duplicate the spatial fields of a concert hall; BOSE speaker do attempt to do that. If ones criterion is duplication of the sound field of a traditional loudspeaker in a typical home listening environment, then, indeed, the BOSE speakers will be seen as "lacking treble." If, however, the criterion is a recreation of the experience of a live performance, the BOSE design may be judged, correctly, as the better choice. Which experience one prefers is entirely subjective. Hence, the Bose directive is to let your own ears be the judge of which you prefer.

I take it this is some sort of objection to the statement, maybe a request to change it? If so, do you have any evidence for your statement from a source other than Bose? If not, I'm afraid it must remain as is. Tens of properly executed FR measurements (regardless of whether or not you understand how they could possibly be correct when Bose's marketing department says otherwise) far outweigh what a company says about its own products. SVI

As for A/B comparisons, they are notoriously difficult to do fairly and well; small differences in volume, say 3dB, will be judged by most listeners as quality differences rather than differences of sound level. The louder speaker will often be heard as having the "better" sound--a reality that is well known to audio salesmen who arrange for the speaker they wish to sell -- the speaker of the week whose manufacturer has the highest current "spiff"--to be played at a very slightly louder volume in an A/B test.

A/B comparisons are actually quite easy to do fairly and well so long as you're not trusting a salesman to set it up for you. All you need is a trusted friend and an SPL meter to carry out a good, scientific test.SVI 02:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
3db is quite a large difference IMHO, especially when talking about driver sensitivity, or when things start to roll off at the edge of frequency responses.--Pypex 01:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

intellexual.net piece

As I said, I'm putting it back in. Links are not just for providing readers with objective, factual data. On a subject on which there is controversy, links to opinionated pieces from either side are perfectly fine so long as they are clearly separated from the article itself (they are). As an example, I point to creation science-- many of the links there are pure opinion, with no basis in fact or indeed reality. As you can see, it's really irrelevant whether the linked article is right or not so long as it accurately expresses a significant group's collective opinion on the matter. I have relinked it stating that it is an "opinion piece." Any further objections? SVI 05:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It appears that the Acoustimass 15 referred to in the intellexual review is no longer in production. A link to a product no longer available from Bose is questionable. Perhaps someone knows of something more current?Waulfgang 19:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Well the page is outdated since it talks about a product that Bose is no longer producing, and second of all, the external link is an extreme troll, which angers certain Wikipedians who rely on Bose products for everyday music and movie listening. I discourage troll links since it may somewhat violate Wikipedia NPOV standards. — Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 14:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Positive bias?

Below are from the edits on 23:20, 20 February 2006 came from G_25I am listing this in the talk page simply because its the 1st time I noticed someone being biased in a positive way towards Bose.

Some of what was listed by the user I think does deem some consideration to be included. Yet most of it was of an opinionated nature (just like most biased reviews) and unfortunately can’t be used. If the user would cite any sources it would go a long way to help create a counterbalance to the criticism section of the article.

The intellexual.net article that was disputed by G_25 is referring to an older discontinued Bose system (it even had a passive bass). The inclusion of the link is dubious at best, but due to its infamy on the net it would be hard to completely ignore it. Using the intellexual.net article to talk about current Bose products is akin to talking about the iniquities of Windows XP but basing those on an article about Windows 98. I believe that it should be mentioned next to the link that this is talking about a discontinued and outdated product.

There are certain websites providing very biased reviews or information based on either just word of mouth, an older product or unfair comparison.

Do review some of the miss-understandings:

  • Bose do not use basic paper drivers, they are all now treated and will not rot. On some speakers Bose uses a special material or kevlar.
  • Bose speakers will always reproduce up to 16Khz, regardless of product, and it's also known that the average human hearing range is much less when your a mature adult, so the difference would not be very noticable.
  • The acoustimass systems do not have a gap in the audio spectrum, as the acoustimass will do up to about 280Hz, where then the JewelCubes will take over. Though the acoustimass can be localised on some notes (if correctly placed this will not be a serious problem for most people)
  • The acoustimass bass modules will deliver down to 30Hz without any problem.
  • The direct/reflecting, although may be not studio sound - it's cirtainly the radiation pattern of a live instrument in an untreated room. Therefore, it's a very concert hall 'like' effect. It's subjective as to if you like this type of reflected sound or not.
  • Bose in general don't break down as much as most consumer electronics.
  • You have to consider many factors including: The size, the performance for such a small unit, it's compactness, ease of use/simplicity as well as what sound quality works for you.
  • Although the wave systems are very expensive, they provide a fit purpose: A small elegant system, in one box, complete with everything, it's got no wires and yet it's easy to use while providing good sound quality for the average to music buff.
  • Although a guy I know was a 'Bose Basher', I never told him the Bose cubes were installed - I had a pair of floor standers in front - wired up, and a pair of small rear speakers (though these were not powered to the DVD Player/Receiver) - and the Movie began playing on the Bose. He was impressed - until he knew it was a Bose - where then he became slightly biased. The point is, LISTEN to the product first before deciding. Choose yourself. Needless to say, the guy has some Bose Companion 3 speakers and is somewhat pleased, despite the cost.

This is not in anyway a bias towards Bose, it's just a statement to review some of the things people have issues with - and the opposite arguments based on my own experience and that of others, or understaning I have of those Bose products mentioned.

Intellexual.net: "Bose AcoustiMass-15 review" / opinion piece on Bose(This website has some element false information, which has been proven wrong by various sources)

I hope that this can create a dialog that ends up with a more balanced and impartial article. Thanks for you time (UKPhoenix79 08:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC))

At the risk of sounding insulting to that user (I've no wish to offend), little of what the anonymous user said below is demonstratably true, and none of it is relevant whatsoever in this article. Even if all of his her claims were correct, this is not the place for any of them. An encyclopedia article is not a forum thread. SVI 19:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for moving it, I actually thought it should be in the discussion page anyway. I'm new to this. However, I do think Bose has had maybe a tad too much critism. My statements I truly belive are true, and I do know many places and forums where it has been said the article at intellexual is wrong. If I can find the articles I will cirtainly post them.

Maybe the 'bashers' haven't actually seen the drivers in the latest systems, there is a rubber surround on the Bass drivers and a silky but papery material for the cone area. The excursion is quite impressive. The twiddlers and made of the silky/papery type material and has a foam surround (which Bose assures me it does not rot).

I know a few people in the business selling Bose systems. I'm not a newbie when it comes to sound systems, and I'm not going to go round saying: "Go get a Bose". Yes, they are somewhat expensive, probably a massive markup - but I own a few Bose products. Not a single has failed, yet a Klipsch system I had on my PC failed after a year and a half, the internal amp had to be fixed. I'm also quite happy with the way they sound, ok, I'm sure there is better... I've heard better, but they are bigger - and generally cost the same. I'd rather have my desk space back. Needless to say, those klipsch are replaced by Bose Companion 3s which sound good, but in a different way. The Klipsch had very loud treble, and overboosted lowermid-bass. The Bose is vety subtle and doesn't hurt my ears as much as the Klipsch. But this is personal preference.

The statements about the acoustimass freq response is true due to my own testing on a Lifestyle 35. It may be different on the other models. However, I don't feel as though I'm missing anything and a 30Hz - 16Hz sweep is perfect, sounds fine - no gaps, no volume increase or decrease, or at least not noticable to the human ear. Down below 30Hz, it does loose the power handling - but most 'cubed' subwoofers only truly reach 30Hz, unless your spending £800 or more on your subwoofer alone. I've heard a Velodyne really hit hard against a Bose, but it was much larger and cost a lot more. So basically, Bose has it's place in the market. It may not be the best, but it's miles ahead of the £1000 HTiB systems. The thing I do praise Bose for is the all-in-one system, it means home users can get good sound, while it being easy to use.

I actually know the full specs for the Companion 3s. 18wrms per channel sats., 60watt Compact Acoustimass with DVC driver. The response on a sweep was about 28Hz - 17Khz. Don't use this as a real information, it's from my own self tests using audio measurement software. The wattages though are in RMS IEC and are correct information, from Bose.

Considering the size of the speakers, I find those specs acceptable and I don't feel £200 was way too much, it was overpriced by a little, but not grossly overpriced.

I'm not writing all this to directly Biad towards Bose... I'm just pointing out that with the newer products I've tried and tested, and actually use some of them - there are some mis-conceptions about the Bose systems.

I disagree with the statements about they have no highs and no lows, they are not accentuated - I find them perfecly balanced.

Bose don't produce specs for a few reasons. One being it can confuse consumers. I think this is a get out for them, as I know they use Psychoacoustics.

The ABS plastic they use, will have a resonant freq. To prevent disortion the speaker cannot produce that freq. Bose will not leave it out, instead they use Psychoacoustics to fill in those missing freq. Therefore, Bose graphs will always look poor in some places and look to have levels of high distortion.

Infact, I've never got most of their systems to distort fully - even with different types of distortion such as Power Handling distortion, or distortion from a freq out of the capabilities of the drivers.

I also disagree when people say they use cheap parts, they are far from cheap - they are not the most expensive... but the drivers are not $35 each. They are not OEM, they are actual Bose drivers which Bose make themselves. They hardly ever fail, they have a good response for such a small driver and they cut out the problems with crossover issues from tweeter to mid-bass, they also have good power handling - while being small. The electronics inside are of good quality too, as I said, not a single driver or unit has ever failed - nor have I heard many reports of systems failing.

It's true Bose uses weird ways of getting sound out of speakers, but so what? It will suit some people and not others.

I'm trying to refrain from making this a 'for bose/against bose' - but Bose has it's problems, just like any other speaker. None are perfect. The guy who works at that shop selling Bose I mentioned earlier, said: "All speakers distort, just choose the one that least offends you"

Therefore, let the people decide... I am sick of these Bose arguments everywhere - Bose are not a bad company in themselves and I really do think their products have a place and don't actually sound as bad as people make them out to be. Sure, you say there's better... and guess what? I'm sure there's better than your Paradigims... there's always going to be better, there's always going to be some that are better value than others... but at the end of the day. If someone likes Bose or buys Bose... Lets not get mad.

And maybe give Bose a valid chance, wipe the slate clean - go to Bose themselves if you can and talk to their engineers and discuss your views... infact their guys are very nice people and they DO know more about sound than anyone here or in the forums... trust me. Go talk to them, Bose actually listens to it's customers so go visit a few guys there (trust me, if you go to their forum on the website and ask to visit them, I'm sure they will let you) and share your views about Bose. Maybe then, Bose will become better for you guys and improve it's image to audio boffins with a new line of 901s?

The whole point of this, is to give some of the views from a different side, and why some of the critism may be incorrect. The only true way to find out, and Bose himself says it: Listen. Use your ears and not the measurement instruments... which one do you like more? Then choose that!

If anyone has questions about this please feel free to post here, but please keep your comments reasonable and no bashing/flaming towards me, just describe why you feel that my point is incorrect and maybe give some reasons why you feel that way about that product/speaker.

SVI - How do you know what I've said is incorrect? And, no I'm not offended. I'm just interested in hearing why you feel my statements are un-true?

Some info: http://www.pcmag.com/image_popup/0,1871,s=1617&iid=85387,00.asp (Mirrors the altecs response almost, but the altecs are louder by the looks of it - but I've found the C3s to be more than loud enough)

And in case any of you were wondering: I do not work for Bose, but I do know people whom sell their gear and work with Bose. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by G_25

Lordy, that's a long post. I'll respond to it with something short and hopefully to the point.
It doesn't matter what my arguments are for my statement; it doesn't matter what yours are for yours. It doesn't matter why you spend your money on Bose, it doesn't matter what else you have tried. Even if everything you said in the original edit were completely correct, none of it would be relevant content for an encyclopedia entry, thus none of it should be even considered for inclusion.
If you really and truly want to debate the merits of Bose products, and/or are curious why they are so widely disliked by audiophiles and audio engineers alike, go find a decent audio forum (I like Hydrogenaudio, myself... generally down-to-earth people who believe in the value of real-world data and measurements, not fancy $400 cables and sugar pills-- there are always exceptions, but still), post your opinion there, wait for replies, and have a discussion. Alternatively, ask some audio engineers who don't work for Bose (preferably who don't work for any speaker company) what their feelings are on the subject-- you might be surprised at how much one's place of employment can affect one's views (shock, horror). Understand that I mean no offense, no ill will, nothing of that sort when I say that this just is not the place.
If you are unhappy about that "criticism" and the Bose product review get listed with no counter-criticism, check out Creation science, my favorite example of how points of view are displayed in an NPOV article, and look at the external links section. SVI 22:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, yes it was rather long, sorry about that. I'll leave it at that, and say no more on this - as you say, this is the wrong place. I was wrong in trying to give some of the other sides of the story on the Wikipedia... it's just I came across the critism but no actual counteracting thoughts listed... it just makes Bose look like total rubbish... maybe they are. I dunno... but as I've said I'm quite happy with the Companions 3s and dont feel as though they are 'bad'. I've heard many other high-end systems, even some £18,000 massive floorstanders from B&W, and Linn in the UK, they are impressive - but price? size? amps? players? It's all added cost, and then there's the setting up. The problem with those forums, is articles about Bose cause major arguments (which is wrong, everyone is entitled to an opinion, no matter what it may be.

I understand totally why people dislike them (I hope you dont think I am a newbie to sound, I know exactly what all the measurements mean, etc and why people dislike bose), but I haven't had any of the problems people claim with the Bose systems (I dont feel I need more treble, mid or bass, or missing any sound compaired to a pair of floorstanding Klipsch, etc). Maybe I'm listening to a different range of products those people. I don't know, but there again, everyone is different. I've spoken in depth with people whom dislike Bose... or just have never bought Bose but have used say, KEF. It varies, some dislike the sound - others just think it's overpriced but they sound decent, and one guy actually said: Bose are quite good, but for the moment I'm happy with my KEF system... My reply was: but have you heard a Bose system? He said: "Yeah, they are excellent, wouldn't mind getting some 301s for the front". It's all mixed, just theres more bad than good, and I have heard people say: "Bose is rubbish" - They've heard a system and then changed their minds - just because a bunch of people in a forum say they are rubbish, doesn't mean you can go round saying it, but some people think they can... trying products for yourself is the only true way to know whats good/bad about a product. It would be nicer to say: "Why not try a few systems, and listen to the Bose before buying it? Ensure your happy the Bose is best for you first!" Instead of: "Bose are rubbish, they use paper drivers and they only sound as good as a cheap Home entertainment system" - and thats a false claim, because they don't exactly sound 'that' bad...

But, this is not the place to discuss this as you say. So silence from now.... but before I leave this alone, I just want to say (not to you SVI but anyone else reading this): Please just lets all get on, accept someone eles opinion - just advise the forum poster to listen to some other speakers but don't go round saying Bose are rubbish when, quite frankly some of you haven't tried a Bose system (not meaning that to be all of you). At the end of the day, listen and decide with your very own ear. Don't listen to me, don't listen to anyone - not even BOSE... clean sheet shopping, check everything out and see what you like best based wholely on what you feel is most important, if it be SQ, Volume, Size, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by G_25

Below is a Reply to SVI 19:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I don’t know about that. I think any evidence disputing the criticisms of Bose products should be used thus creating some kind of counter point to the criticisms, balancing out the article. I just don’t know how to make the article seams more NPOV. The intellexual.net link really concerns me and I believe that some warning should be listed. How about "this article is highly subjective based on a discontinued and outdated Bose product" or "this article is disputed and is referring to a discontinued product" UKPhoenix79 08:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


Below is a Reply to G_25 21:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
My Pleasure I’m glad that I moved this for you. I thought that your comments deserved to be seen by others. I agree that Bose does seam to get more than its fare share of "bashers" but we need some kind of evidence to repudiate their claims. I agree that the best thing to do is simply hear the product before you criticize and I don’t believe that most do.
You describe the cones with great detail and if there is a page on the web that has photos disproving people’s claims please put a link to that. What would be even better is if you have your own photos you could upload them to Wikipedia thus proving what you’re saying. I would agree that Bose is well known for their customer support and product longevity. I don’t believe that anyone is disputing that in the article. You mention that you have tested them yourself why don’t you show some evidence of what you have done? This could go a long way in proving your point. Just remember that they have to be done in a scientific way to leave no doubt about its accuracy. So doing this in a lab or some type of controlled environment would be best.
You have a lot of detail about Bose Computer Speakers especially the Companion 3 why not put up those facts on a page?

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, make sure to sign your posts and comments with four tildes (~~~~), which will let others know who left it.
Please remember to sign your comments it really helps all of us out. Why not create a user account? UKPhoenix79 08:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


Below is a Reply to SVI 22:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I think some talk about the subject is quite healthy and a good change of pace. I do agree that this isn’t a forum. Yet at the heart of this it is about making the article more NPOV and I think that if we could get some facts to counter the claims of people that would be a good thing. Do you think that putting a link to Hydrogenaudio Bose’s section would be a good inclusion to the article? Thanks UKPhoenix79 08:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
If you wish, though since the article isn't supposed to adopt any sort of position on the corporation's products one way or another it will just be discussion for discussion's sake. Although I do not ordinarily object to such a thing (it's healthy and gives me something to do instead of work), this discussion has been had many times before in many different places by people much more qualified to comment than any of us, and I doubt we will break any new ground whatsoever.
Like most forums, Hydrogenaudio's boards do not have vendor-specific sections. Forums that DO have vendor-specific sections are unlikely to list Bose... they, ah, don't have a very good reputation among audio folks. The Audio Hardware forum is located at http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showforum=21 , but I doubt it would be a good link for the article. SVI 13:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Your right this article alone wont change anyones opinions. I just like hearing a different side for once. I think that any evidence that 86.112.238.117 finds should be included in an article that talks specifically about that product or product family. I have spent a long time improving the Bose Headphone Family article with specifics about the headphones listed. It wouldn't make sense to talk in detail about specific products in this article... but it is nice to have a good conversation. UKPhoenix79 22:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Below is a Reply to G_25 23:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually I don’t think that you were wrong about giving the other side I believe that you were spot on…. Only a bit too enthusiastic and opinionated for an encyclopedia article. Frankly I liked it; it was quite refreshing to get someone defending Bose.
I would have to agree with you the specs can lie and you could get a system that had all the right specs and it would sound horrid. Some people need to know everything about a system but frankly there going to have to enjoy what they get. So if there going to get a 5.1 surround sound system listen to what’s out there hear with your own ears and see what is best for you. Heck, bring your own stuff so that you can control the demos and make sure that the Bass & Treble are at Zero on all of them.
Please come back and bring some facts that can be used. You might be 100% right but without evidence nothing can be done. UKPhoenix79 08:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Below is a Reply from 86.112.238.117:

I will create a user account, but before I do - so you know this is the same user, I will post in the same way.

Rightyo, I wish I had the extensive back-up - but without proper scientific labs I obviously cannot produce graphs that Audio guys out there will trust to be accurate. I also understand that you cannot just take my word for these points I mentioned.

I will try to answer some of the questions you have had about my post:

1) You mention I understand about the drivers and I need images to prove this.... I actually have looked at a few drivers open air of a mates who actually sells Bose systems. He decided to take a good look into the Companion 3 speaker system which is Bose's lowest cost 2.1 Computer Speakers. I know for a fact it wasn't paper alone, it looked type of shiney and plasticky, but it wasn't plastic. This guy told me it was either treated paper or Bose's own material they are starting to use, which has the same properties/sound as paper drivers but resists rot/damp and tonal change in different temp rooms. The acoustimass module had two voice coils (this can be seen by anyone using a very bright light in a dark room to look behind the grill - I wish I had pictures and if I can get this guy to send me some I will upload them ASAP). I know that this will probably not prove to any of you guys that I am correct, but maybe you'd like to check out in a shop the Companion 3s, take a small powerful light and look behind the grills - you can see the drivers to a degree and cirtainly make out the type of material and the cone's.

The rest of my information has been gained from various sweeps I've sent over the Bose systems. I have a series of test MP3s/WAVs and CD's with sine waves on. From 20Hz to 48Khz (for high resolution supertweeters) - and I noted in stages of 1 from 20 to 30Hz - that the system started to produce an audiable and very deep resonance at about 28Hz. This was 8 stages into the test. 20Hz was a faint sound, but in reality - I feel the Bose acoustimass does go low enough to be acceptable for a £200 sound system. I noted the sounds it does produce, it did very well (to the ear). In the treble region, don't expect much above 18Khz at all... theres a slight peak there but after that it rolls off... but it depends on your ears. Personally I don't find the Bose lacks high treble - but this is subjective.

Again, I wish I had graphs and data to show you - but it isn't verifyable because I'm not a qualified sound engineer - I don't work in a speaker company - I just like music, enjoy good quality sound, and I'm also a musician. Therefore, I am quite critical to the way a speaker sounds. I can't stand cheap £30-40 speakers, they infuriate me - the thing is the Bose... I just can't seem to find the problems people have with them. No highs? No problem for me, I hear the high notes but they don't hurt my ears the same way a Tratrix horn on a Klipsch does, it sounds rather balenced and natural. And about bass? I find it more than acceptable, it maybe not the punchiest, deepest, earth moving bass - but it sounds musical and refined to me. It's not overblown and flashy (but nor do I think Bose wish them to be). I've found Bose systems just correctly balenced. Maybe it's my room, positioning, etc. I don't know, but to me the system performs very well. Though, if anything there are a few overpriced products in their range. I do note that the 201s from Sound and Vision Online are only £139, which is a steal (they arn't that bad for surround sound speakers, or even for music if you have a subwoofer to match up). They I feel are probably the best value, and the Companion 3 speakers too(I'm not saying the companion 3s are the best speakers, because they have their problems such as a small ambient hiss from the acoustimass - but for £200 a very faint hiss from an acoustimass module isn't vetry important because I found it was far less than even some expensive amplifiers I have, and it seemed quieter than an Onkyo - but the Lifestyle acoustimass has no hiss whatsoever). The triports are not too bad as well. Their Wave system is a tad over the top, it would be better at £299. The Lifestyle systems could do with a few hundred off the cost too. When you look though, at the features of the lifestyle systems and the engineering that goes into the products design it's all very clever (AdaptIQ, Umusic, Bose Link, are all excellent features that very few other systems have). I guess you actually pay for a patented product that you can only get from Bose. If their waveguide is the most expensive way of getting bass from 2.5" speakers - I guess all your paying for is the engineering. Whereas the soundworks 740 from Cambridge Sound Works just uses a small woofer unit, which could produce distortion or rattling because it's engineering will be less detailed because of it's cheaper design, though it may sound bassier on some material meaning you would probably choose that over the Bose because of it's flashy bassy sound. But at the end of the day, if you prefer that instead of the Wave then why not get it? Long as when someone buys a wave don't shout at them for it. They are a different person, so will have different tastes in bass/treble and quality. Personally, how I know a speaker is quality is by it reproducing a series of music styles (classical, rap, pop, world) with great clarity, sufficient power without reliability problems, a natural sound, zero distortion and reproducing the musical instrument being played with a sound close to that of the instrument in a normal room or concert hall. This is coming from a guy though, that can find a slight rattle, buzz or slightest sound of distortion in almost all speakers. I haven't been able to find any major problems with Bose speakers, but because of their great clarity they can sometimes show up the quality of the recording. I can't listen to 64k MP3s on Bose speakers (it makes the speakers and the music sound really bad), and even at 128k it's still evident your listening to MP3 compressed audio. Where it starts to get much better is a very well recorded CD/SACD/DVD-A, 2000K WAV files, or 320k bitrate MP3s.

I just wish I could back all this up with data, but at this moment in time I do not have images of the drivers nor of any graphs as I used my ear for the tests I have done. About reliability, I know this from many retailers that sell Bose, as well as people I know have Bose speakers. Maybe the old Bose drivers did look rather sad, cheap and tatty. But their latest drivers as I have seen, look perfectly fine: http://www.bose.co.jp/images/products/125/cristal_driver.jpg (This looks almost like whats in the Companion sats. Other than the companions have a larger surround and bigger dust cap)

You see the cones on these: http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0002TSA9W.01-A228GNTXW0TH0L._SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg (They look like like a similar shine, so it's obviously not rottable paper, maybe it's treated with something, or maybe it's the Bose material this mate of mine was saying about)

The acoustimass drivers on the latest gear seem to have a type of rubber or fabric surround, which is very large to handle the high excursion. Heres also a Bose cone on the right: http://www.bose.co.uk/images_global/technologies/acoustics/2cones.jpg Though the one here does look like standard treated paper, which doesn't not infer the speaker is of poor quality. I sure doubt it would rot, and Bose will replace if it does - as I know people whom have the old 901s and Bose have replaced all the surrounds free of change.

The article link about the old Bose acoustimass not having supernatural excursion, actually, try doing the lamp to view the woofer behind the grille, you will find that the Xmax of the Bose drivers is quite large for the size - and plus, the reviewer didn't understand the Acoustimass technology which is to get deep bass with less speaker excursion.

Before this gets way too long, I'll leave it here for the moment and try to gather as much proof as I can for my statements. I'll talk with the guys I know who may be interested in sending some technical data.

I also noticed, if you go to Bose japan www.bose.co.jp it gives out IEC wattages and some bandwidth ranges. ;-)

pro.bose.com also gives technical specification of the Pro gear.

I hope this is sufficent for the moment while I collect more infromation sources for you.

EDIT: Just created account. :-) I'm sorry if there is typo's or errors with my grammer. I think I type way too quick. Please do correct them if you wish to do so.

--g_25 20:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

What equipment did you use to test your Companion 3? If you did it by ear, you can't very well say that it goes down to 30Hz. The ear is a bad enough measuring instrument on its own, having it hooked up to the world's worst meter (the brain) really doesn't help matters. I have had people convinced their $30 Logitech multimedia sets go down to 20Hz after running a frequency sweep (they really "hear" it so long as they can see me running the sweep), only to be surprised when my SPL meter (yes, it's kind of sad that I have one, but I can make a few bucks here and there by calibrating HTs for people) picks them up as -30dB at 35Hz.
Also, the objections to Bose are typically not "they don't go to 17KHz". Typically, people argue that the frequency response is uneven-- that is to say, not neutral. It sounds neutral to you for the same reason the Logitech set sounds neutral to the above guy and, for that matter, the same reason a favored $somethingridiculous pair of speakers sounds neutral to an audiophile: everyone thinks their own audio system is neutral unless they own several, because the brain will eventually adjust to a single audio output such that other things sound "wrong" even if they are technically closer to accurate. If you give the brain time to adjust to a new system, it will perceive that as the new neutral and your old system will sound horribly off. For example, if you're used to listening to a system with a hideous peak around 7KHz, something flat around there will sound depressed and unmusical. The same exact thing happens if you're used to listening to a system flat around there and go to something with a hideous dip there, too, of course. Each brain will adjust more quickly or more slowly to certain frequency patterns, which is what accounts for preferences among people who do own several sets of audio devices (well, that and the sugar pill).
I can conduct a little experiment with this, myself-- I'm not a speaker guy, but I have eleven pairs of decent headphones lying here and there (yes, lamest hobby ever, I know), and if I use any one of the decent ones for a long period of time, anything else will sound "wrong" (to about the same degree its FR is different from the pair I've been using for days) until I let my brain adjust to the new sound pattern. It's not the most scientifically accurate of experiments, but it's a fair enough little illustration, and the same does hold true with speakers in blind testing.
On a side note, you may have noticed that according to the little lesson in psychoacoustics I posted just above, it doesn't matter if your system is neutral or not if your brain is adjusted to it. This is more or less correct. Most people just buy speakers, like them, and stick with them; if they do eventually upgrade or get another set, often they will simply get something that sounds similar because it sounds right too. Exceptions would be people that LIKE frequency responses close to neutral (which are more expensive to obtain), the truly anal (who demand that they hear it as the recording engineers did), and the recording engineers (who are just anal because you have to be anal about your choice of field to get your engineering certification).
Overall: what's most important is that you enjoy what you have. People can spend hundreds of thousands on audio hardware and still not be satisfied... surely that is much, much worse than buying a Bose system and being satisfied. However, people who call Bose systems overpriced are not entirely without justification in my view-- when you do enough comparisons (preferably blind, with several subjects) between budget-grade hi-fi systems (even the really small tiny ones, like some of the stuff Onix has I guess) and Bose systems, a pattern will start to emerge: most people prefer the (often much) cheaper hi-fi system. There are always exceptions, naturally, and to each their own. SVI 14:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I used AudioTestBench and TrueRTA, plus a signal gen. I used a microphone designed for use with SPL monitoring, connected to the sound card, which then you can optimise the microphone for use with AudioTestBench. It's pretty accurate I would say, because a cheap pair of Creative speakers had terrible distortion levels, and a peak at about 75-80Hz to create that punchy bass often found in cheap systems that appeals to novices. The Bose wasn't perfectly flat, and freq. the test bench didn't pick up I could hear perfectly fine (probably the psychoacoustics Bose is using there, but if you can hear it just as loud as any other freq. why complain. I must admit, the Companion 3 did roll off very badly below 28Hz, but considering the size and the musical sound of the acoustimass I wasn't un-impressed. The lifestyle systems do seem to go lower in listening tests, but I havent done any measurements with those, yet. I would say, the Acousimass in the lifestyle systems rolls off after 25Hz, or 20Hz very sharply, therefore explaining the deeper bass on some tracks. It's all subjective anyway, and your correct - each to their own. I'm happy with the Companion 3s, but someone else may not be, it's just one of those things. All ears are different.

--g_25 23:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind uploading the FR graph somewhere? I don't wish to seem rude by requesting evidence, but flat to 28Hz is more or less power range, something that I've never seen compact subwoofers with standard drivers managing regardless of design (I don't mean "Bose subwoofers", I mean anything of that type, even the relatively exotic stuff). As well, I sincerely doubt the Acoustimass bass modules could physically have the drivers fed enough power to handle flat to 25Hz or so. I'm not saying they don't offer sufficient bass for music-- unless you listen to organ music, it actually doesn't matter whether or not your system ever goes below 50Hz at all-- but your results are kind of conflicting with, well, all of the relevant data that I have. It'd be nice to have the graph around to link to, as well. SVI 01:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


The meansurements for the acoustimass I got were-

To ease this up... the correct frequency response is below:

40Hz - 18Khz -/+ 3db 35Hz - 20Khz -/+ 6-8db

<35 is not existant, the driver doesn't hardly even move on some freq - probably due to active EQ. The excusrion on anything in the 35-45Hz range is an impressive sight.

I did find 36Hz accaptable though, at about - 5-6db - it would be fine for music.

I don't feel this freq. response is unacceptable, the system also produces 18w per channel RMS and 60 watts for the Dual Voice Coil Acoustimass, 2x 30watt amps. I also must note that most PA gear only reaches 40Hz - therefore, it would sound quite impressive for 'live' musical playback. I admit the acoustimass is no match for a 'real' subwoofer but it does provide what subwoofers can't, excempt the most expensive types. Musical, snappy, sharp bass. I actually prefer this than having extra rumble. Movies, I'm sure you'd miss that extra bottom end.
On a further note, I feel the Larger Acoustimass are even better. When I did a sweep with SPL meter and my ears on the acoustimass of a Lifestyle system (LS48) I found the bass got to about 30Hz before rolling off. Again, it will not do 20Hz, but it appears to do 25Hz about -8db. Anything above 30Hz and it produces really well, quite flat too with only +/-2db other than 55-60Hz which has a slight peak, of +3db. Therefore i'd say 30Hz to 180Hz for the acoustimass, then the cubes do take over at 180Hz till about 16Khz flat, then 18Khz is slightly peaky. I've had this confirmed by a Bose rep I know - and yes, he does know his stuff. There is no gap in the spectrum too, maybe peaky highs (causing shrillness at times) and peaky lows (causing muddyness as described by Bose bashers sometimes). These obviously cannot be included on the wikipedia because they have no proof from Bose in USA themselves - though I do know for sure, these are correct due to my own extensive tests/sweeps/spl meter tests. Hear then decide... and then find out if you love them or hate them.

I cannot comment on the AM15 systems, these are differen't and may have the same response as the companions - I'm not sure.

Great, thanks. I can fill in x5 / form a graph myself if it's any trouble for you, I just like to have as much data as I can on this sort of thing. SVI 16:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

May I also note that on those tests it was at just slightly less than full volume on the puck, this was to get a good idea of the system under high load.


It's probably true, the Acoustimass on the Companions doesn't go with intense power below 30Hz, but the thing is - I don't notice any loss of any deep bass, it's musical and has no port noise or distortion. Therefore I'm happy. I'd much rather the woofer produce no 20Hz than produce it with port noise.

It's also true, that almost all P.A. Systems and especially those in Cinemas roll off after 40Hz, I've seen some do 30Hz, and multi milion £ THX ones do 25Hz.... but most Cinemas systems roll off at 40Hz, so why is the Bose worse than a Cinema, when Cinema systems generally do 40Hz - 16Khz, as the UCI in my area does. It's not a complaint or POV for Bose, it's just food for thought really... Most subs for P.A. use don't do <40Hz. Look at the specs for say JBL, Mackie and it's quite common.


--g_25 23:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

My consensus

But I think that Bose has came a long way since the intellexual.net incident. Bose has innovated, improved, and even went way beyond their basic beliefs to put their products up to par. They are very serious about their reputation, and their latest "skull crusher", the Bose QuietComfort 3, is a result of the company's understanding of ergonomics, psychoacoustics, detail-orientation, and even customer relations, though they might need to work on their price points a bit, usually they had to price their products higher than usual to protect their patents and copyrights. It may be possible that Bose might be able to think more outside of the box, look at how overzealous other competitors might do their speakers, refine, refurbish, improve, and polish-up their patented technologies, and quite possibly put what I call "the Bose-bashers" to shame in the future with countless innovations and improvements to their lineup. Bose's QuietComfort 3 headphones, and quite possibly more Bose loudspeakers to come, might be able to match and/or exceed competitors from Bang and Olufsen, Klipsch, Sennheiser, Sony, and a few others in the future, thus today's Bose is committed to putting their products up to par. — Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 22:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but neither ergonomics, psychoacoustics, detail-orientation nor customer relations matter to what the Bose-bashers are claiming. Until Bose produces products that are up to par with their price point and advertising claims, or until they reduce their price point, the point that their sound quality is subpar will stand. --Zambaccian 02:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I feel that the Bose-bashers need to grow up IMO. I've really heard enough of this Bose-bashing, and I feel that Bose deserves at least some respect, even though IMO audiophiles historically bash Bose for stupid reasons. I've seen it through ZDNet, CNet, and other websites that don't give a rat's-butt about neutrality. No company can be complete without weaknesses, and that is what Bose is trying to correct. Though they may not be audiophile-friendly, I feel that it's time to end all this Bose-bashing right now. — Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 04:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

FR Charts, Acoustimass, Intellexual, etc...

All this talk, even on the discussion page, seems a little over the top to me. Don't you think other contributors and readers to this article and discussion would be better served and informed by directing them to an external link to one of the many internet forums where the merits of Bose and other systems are subjects of daily conversation? I think it's best to use this page as a place to discuss the information used and the information available to create an ever better article.

I don't like the intellexual rant myself, and question it's value as an external link, but it is just a link to an external site, and it is labeled as an opinion piece. Perhaps the label could be modified to read something like "opinion piece on a discontinued speaker system".Waulfgang


I think you are right, this place is no place for NPOV or POV reviews, it should provide information about the company only. Neither bad or good, just information. --g_25 14:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't particularly like the intellexual rant, but it is extremely valuable as a summary of the anti-Bose viewpoint. It's already clearly presented as outside of Wikipedia and an opinion piece, I honestly think any more would be OTL. If there's a rebuttal to it, why not add that as an external link as rebuttal to the opinion piece? afaik, that much is perfectly within NPOV. SVI 16:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Sanctioned Link

This topic was originally called WARNING: Intellexual.NET Link

I had to revert three times from an anon editor who posted an Intellexual Link labeled "Better Profits Through Marketing". This article has been severely trolled in the past and any links that carries a strong bias against Bose is not allowed in Wikipedia. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 05:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

and ain't that the truth. The suppression of honest opinion in this article by you and your ilk is why it is such a shameful article. Please point me to the POLICY that says that "any links that carries a strong bias against Bose is not allowed in Wikipedia". And how does that POLICY not apply to "any links that carries a strong bias in favour of Bose ". Greglocock 07:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly what the hell. Any external links will have to be neutral from this point on. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 15:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Says you and whose army? Show me the wiki policy that says links have to be neutral? How can a link using a subjective criterion like "high end audio" be neutral? Show you have a spine and remove all non-neutral content from this article, and then defend those edits. Greglocock 23:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This link is the only one presented so far which contains third-party frequency response information about a Bose device. We must include the link. —ptk✰fgs 01:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, although I have read the link, it carries a heavy bias against Bose. Exclude. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 03:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Addition to that&mdash-it only talks about one product, and the product that Bose no longer makes. Links have to be current, and talk about all products of the company. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 03:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, bollocks. Find another third-party frequency response analysis of any Bose gear and we'll use that instead. But until then, we should at least include some technical analysis of the gear. It is a significant viewpoint that Bose produces equipment with measurable technical flaws. We cover that viewpoint in the body of the article, and should cover it in our selection of links. —ptk✰fgs 03:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
"Links have to be current," hahahaha. Why don't you take down the 1975 Stereophile review of the 901 then. AscendedAnathema 04:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason why an article with such an in-depth technical analysis of Bose should be excluded simply because the technical results are not in Bose's favor. Mark argues as if it can't be included in the article due to the empirical data itself. This is ridiculous. Bose products, like everything are not perfect and stating so does not constitute "strong bias".12.217.154.246 03:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and reinstate that god-forsaken Intellexual Link but with conditions—that editors do not mask the link with trolling language. Mark Kim 13:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

it only talks about one product, and the product that Bose no longer makes. Links have to be current, and talk about all products of the company. The Intellexual article discusses the Acoustimas system, which is (a) Still manufactured and marketed by Bose, and (b) is the basis for the "Lifestyle" system, the company's flagship product. Furthermore, the Intellexual article's author took the thing apart and reported detailed findings about its design and build quality to reach his conclusions. I fail to see how a thoroughly researched piece goes out, but fluff pieces stay in. Jedgeco 15:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Good to see that reason and the facts won out in this situation. I think the renaming of the article's link in the external links section is acceptable and for the better. It's good to see some factual information added to this article, sorta. With some luck Bose might not sue Wikipedia, either. AscendedAnathema 22:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This does NOT mean that the link will stay indefinitely because I allowed this link to be here with conditions meaning that users are not to be using the link as a troll and/or users are not trolling the page with anti-Bose propaganda. The link is likely to be removed if I see any instance of trolling (as that link have been used to troll Bose pages in the past) associated with use of the link. That is why I said "There with conditions" because the Intellexual link there remains a privilege and not a right. If I see excessive vandalism which is heavily influenced by that link, the link will be removed. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 23:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. That link is also in dangerous grounds because it may be likely that Bose MIGHT sue both Wikipedia and Intellexual if a Bose person finds out about it, so that is why it's very important not to base edits and/or troll the article based on heavy utilization with the Intellexual link. That link is a privilege and not a right.

This does NOT mean that the link will stay indefinitely because I allowed this link to be here.... Mark Kim, all due respect, but I don't think that any one person gets to "allow[]" anything to be in any particular article. Adding the Intellexual link doesn't even remotely approach vandalism; it has no "anti-Bose" bias -- it gathers data and draws a conclusion. In fact, that article is a classic in audio enthusiast circles, and is presented here in the most neutral way possible. Also, its the only thing out there that (a) gives objective data on Bose frequency response, and (b) objectively assesses the build quality of Bose speakers by physically taking them apart. As to it being likely that "Bose MIGHT sue," since the original article has been online for years, it's hardly a concern. And since there's nothing in it that is remotely libelous, I wouldn't start worrying about the Wikipedia legal defense fund. Jedgeco 01:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

In the past, that link has been used as what I call a "troll link" against Bose Headphones—that is why I imposed conditions against that link that it is not to be used in a fashion which it would be used to troll against the article. I would have to remove it if the link is abused by Bose-bashers, as it has been noted that this link would be used to troll Bose articles in the past. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 03:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, obviously it's not relevant to the Bose headphones article. It's about a speaker system. —ptk✰fgs 03:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

And it was used to troll certain Bose articles in the past. Nuff said. That is why I'm sanctioning the link to ensure that people does NOT troll based on the influence of the link. Like I said, if the link is abused to the point where the trolling is based on the influence of the Intellexual Link, it will be removed and deleted from the article. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 03:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What is your level of authority on Wikipedia to say it is a privilege and not a right? I do not see any sort of indication that you are an administrator here, and unless that absent userbox is in error, your air of authority is totally hollow. BTW, the link is mysteriously gone, I am putting it back in. AscendedAnathema 21:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
No individual has authority over the inclusion or exclusion of content, regardless of administrator status. We resolve content disputes by discussion, not by unilateral decree. —ptk✰fgs 21:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
What the hell is wrong with you anyway? The link is ALREADY there, you were only blind and recklessly placing a duplicate. Some links are placed as references and/or citations and for good reason—to make it a bit more encyclopedic and to alleviate the trolling of the article. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 23:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Please try to stay cool and avoid personal attacks. Without stepping through 30 diffs to find out what had happened, it certainly appeared as though the link had been removed, and shouting at other editors is not an appropriate response. —ptk✰fgs 20:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The reason for the link appearing different as it supposed to be is to ensure that the link is used as a reference rather than a flat external link. Number one. Number two, the trolling has to be alleviated so the language had to describe the link carefully to avoid any possible trolling of the article. Number three—AscendedAnathema duplicated the link, and I believe that one link to that god-forsaken Intellexual Link is enough. There is NO NEED for two link areas for that page, as if there is already a link to a page as being as a reference, then that's a plenty. End of story. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 01:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Having read the article it is hard to think of it as anything but trying to drive in a single point. Bose is bad. It has no other point as it is overwhelmingly biased. So ok it does take apart one of Boses home entertainment systems does tests on it and that seams ok but then I looked at the date and I read up on what system it was. Bose hasn't actually made since the turn of the century! The system has changed since then and now has a powered bass and since the article focuses on the lack of mids and lows that a powered subwoffer would fix why does this link have to stay? So I read the talk page archives and I saw that this issue has come up before and it was decided to be removed since "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." and because it "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." Does anyone have another link? Something that would also test one of Boses current products? I think it would be interesting especially if it was done in a dispassionately scientific way accompanied with blind tests from Bose and something else in the same price range to see if people can tell which one is Bose! That would be fascinating. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.80.57.57 (talk • contribs).

Bose hasn't actually made since the turn of the century! The system has changed since then and now has a powered bass and since the article focuses on the lack of mids and lows that a powered subwoffer would fix[.] Model numbers have changed, but it's still the same basic system. Also, more generally, a powered subwoffer will not compensate for a speaker system's inability to produce midrange frequencies, and if it does, it's creating more problems than it's fixing. Jedgeco 19:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Stage of Blatant Disputes

It appears that we all have entered into a state of blatant disputes as of right now. I have a anon, myself, and UKPhoenix79 stating that the Intellexual.NET link has to stay away from this article while Greglocock, Ptkfgs, Anathema, and their anon preferring that the Intellexual.NET link is there for some reason. This article might be in a stage of blatant disputes since we appear not to be in full agreement on the fate of the Intellexual.NET link. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 14:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what issues you still have with the link. Here are the reasons why I believe it is appropriate.
  • It provides a review of the Acoustimass sound system, which is still Bose's flagship home theater speaker system. Three years is not a long time -- ask any Bose 901 owner. My uncle has had his 901's for over a decade.
  • It provides a third-party frequency response analysis of a Bose product. This makes it unique among Bose product reviews. Certainly, there would probably be more available if not for Bose's silencing of negative reviews through lawsuits, but this is what we have for now.
  • It represents a significant viewpoint, namely, that Bose's products are of poor technical quality when compared to their retail prices.
I understand that you are a fan of Bose products. As any audio equipment user should, you must trust your ears and find the audio system that is right for your tastes. But the neutral point of view policy requires that we represent all significant viewpoints. The viewpoint represented in the article disputed here happens to be supported with data from SPL meters and a great deal of experience with audio equipment. —ptk✰fgs 01:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
check your facts. it is the lifestyle systems and not the acoustimass systems that are the top of the line with bose. Mainly the Jewel Cube systems that use rare earth Neodymium magnets and completely different speaker design than the speakers tested in the intellexual link. You can't use this review to compare these two systems since they are 100% different in every way... I wonder if the speaker wire is the same! Oh and silencing negative reviews that is so silly. If that was true then how is this website still up after almost a decade? The only evidence you have is a single court case where even the person who even wrote the review complained that they changed what his review actually said!
By all indications, the Lifestyle systems are just Acoustimas systems that come with a DVD player/receiver. At any rate, there are no substantial differences in the published specs for the two systems [3], which leads me to conclude there is little difference in the technology. If you feel differently, make your case.
As to "silencing negative reviews," look up the concept of "chilling effect" sometime, as in "Bose's willingness to sue the publisher of a negative review had a chilling effect on others who would criticise the company's products." The only evidence you have is a single court case where even the person who even wrote the review complained that they changed what his review actually said! Yes, the magazine changed a negative review to a differently worded negative review. That's a smoking gun. Jedgeco 18:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
No [4] and [5] says "Jewel Cube® speakers, one-half the size of the previous Acoustimass® cube speakers. To create speakers this small, the magnet inside is formed using the rare earth element neodymium and has ten times more energy (per unit volume) than conventional magnets. For high performance from such a small package, a port 3.8 inches (9.7 cm) long was designed in the shape of a nautilus shell and enclosed inside the tiny cube." so there are differences. The old accoustimass 15 has nothing the same with the new "top of the line" systems. So any business out there knows to sue newspapers and magazines to make sure that they get good reviews! Wow if only enron knew this earlier! Are you really saying that one lawsuit created a "chilling effect"? Go to the Consumer reports page on wikipedia so that means that Honda has the same issue because they sued them and no one reviews their products now? You need to make a better argument then saying a 27 year old law suit holds any sway on audio reviewers today. You just sound like your quoting from a audio forum and not actually thinking about what your statements actually mean in the real world. One law suit that Bose LOST would make the reviewing world tremble at reviewing there products! Not likely.75.80.57.57 20:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow, put up strawman arguments much? Shell out millions in legal fees taking a case all the way through SCotUS review then get back to me. Reluctance of other editors and publishers to review Bose products has been documented antecdotally, and Bose's litigiousness is well documented. Like it or not, when you allege a negative review has libeled you, that reputation is going to stick for a while.
Also, diferences noted, I fail to see how those differences between the Acoustimas and the Lifestyle products are especially meaningful since half the Lifestyle products offered contain the same "direct/relfecting" speakers as the Acoustimas products, not the "jewel cubes" you describe. Moreover, the primary criticism of the Acoustimas product is that its size makes the phyisics of reproducing midrange frequencies impossible. Now you're telling me that the very "top of the line" systems have speakers that are "one-half the size of the previous Acoustimass cube speakers" because they reduced the size of the magnets. How is that going to affect physical limitations that are the source of the original criticism? It also doesn't affect the build quality criticism (plastic cabinets, paper cones). Jedgeco 22:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Prove it!

It has came to my attention that you really, really, really want the Intellexual link there. Prove that the link does not violate WP:NPOV, prove that it deserves to be there. Please read the article a couple of times and list the areas where the article is neutral, where the article is heavily anti-Bose biased. Now read the Bose website, and I MEAN the entire Bose website. Do your homework. Read the other reviews and compare them to the Intellexual link. Post all of your findings here in this talk page, what is neutral, what is not from Intellexual. Prove that it deserves to be there. Don't just claim it—prove that it deserves to be there. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 04:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

As a citation in the criticism section, it makes perfect sense. The neutral point of view policy states that we must represent all significant viewpoints. The Intellexual.net article encapsulates a significant viewpoint: that Bose products have an uneven frequency response characteristic of cheap hardware.
I did a Google News search for Bose. Let's take a look at the ones that are related somehow to Bose Corporation.
So, we have an article from the Centre Daily that describes "by far the worst frequency response I have ever seen", and cites the Intellexual.net link as a source; this is reprinted twice. We have the review from Techtree.com that doesn't discuss technical details. We have two announcements of vehicles that will feature Bose audio systems. Lastly we have the news that Amar Bose has lots of money.
Please feel free to keep digging, but from the most up-to-date articles, I'd say it's pretty clear that the viewpoint encapsulated in the Intellexual.net article is a significant one. I mean, news columnists appear to be citing it and offering it as further reading on the topic of Bose frequency response stats. As long as it's paired with a discussion of other positive reception of Bose gear, I think it's a critical and significant addition to the article. —ptk✰fgs 05:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

More Googling is necessary then

Judging from what you said here, it becomes imminent that you still favor the Intellexual link for WP:NPOV purposes. However, it would be necessary to work around that just to alleviate the trolling. The reason why I vehemently blasted the Intellexual link is because it promotes trolling. The link can stay, but remains an ongoing disputed link. More Google research through the Internet may be required to make the article a bit more neutral. Some links on the current article's revision may or may not be neutral.

What on earth do you mean, trolling? All discussion on this talk page is dominated by you. People come here to balance out the article -- an empty, whitewashed puff piece when you can have it -- and you spend hours badgering, threatening, reverting, and insulting them.
The only trolling here is being done by you, sir.

On a sad note, the article's neutrality is, in one sad and unfortunate word, disputed. Judging that you prefer the Intellexual link should remain as a reference for trolling alleviation purposes and because other articles might explain Bose more in detail through the Internet (provided that you can google), I am, unfortunately, going to have to mark the article as not being neutral unless the article's neutrality can be alleviated and that this article reaches class A. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 13:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

We must represent all significant viewpoints. If this article does not note the widespread viewpoint, supported by technical data, that Bose is known as a maker of overpriced cheapo speakers, then the article is not neutral.
We know you love Bose. This does not mean you get to remove anything you don't like from the article. This does not mean you get to endlessly repeat the same objections, thinking that the issue will just go away one day.
Part of being an adult is learning to get along with people who disagree. —ptk✰fgs 13:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Seconded. Jedgeco 19:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Mark Kim, please explain exactly what is "trolling" about the Intellexual article, other than it reaches the conclusion that the Bose system is inferior. Jedgeco 19:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Google -- I can dig up "references" that say almost anything. Hell, journals are refereed / peer-reviewed / experiments duplicated to minimize the chance of erroneous results. Re: reviews -- speakers sound different in different environments. That's precisely why they invented test gear. While we on the topic of sound engineers, they often have hearing damage due to high SPL mixing. Reference: OSHA tables.66.217.164.84 22:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for Neutrality Check

I am going to have to nominate this article for a possible POV check since too many people have disagreed with the links that deserve to be in the article. The NPOV state of this article remains unknown as of this time. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 13:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again, we have to represent all significant viewpoints, not just the ones you agree with. As I pointed out above, the only recent news stories to discuss the technical specifications of Bose gear cite the Intellexual.net article as a source. For this article to use it as a source to support the claim it's attached to -- which is only noting the existence of widespread criticism, not asserting that criticism as fact -- is entirely appropriate. —ptk✰fgs 13:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, due to the fact that there's been a lot of disputes in the past, I had no choice but to nominate the article for a POV check, and this is a rare instance where I had to nominate the article for a POV check because I had to rely on the past on this one. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 15:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there are serious POV problems with this article, but they ain't because of the Intellexual article. Jedgeco 19:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
1.5 million google hits for neodymium magnet(s). "rare earth" and "flat power response" reek of marketing mumbo jumbo. and xmax , more or less, determines the ultimate acoustic power. moreover, a decent xmax without tons of distortion and a reasonable mechanical limit. and how do you get flat power response to 20 hz without an array of subs?66.217.161.118 21:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

2¢: The Intellexual.Net link is acceptable as a reference, but is not professional enough as a showcased external link. That said, regarding the current wording, "some audio analysts": The reference only asserts that one nameless somebody has done so on a single unit. Investigating this website, it does not appear to meet the guidelines regarding Wikipedia:Reliable sources. On the whole, this instance of critism seems insignificant. If this is really a big problem, there should be no problem finding a reliable, published, peer-reviewed source on the matter. –Gunslinger47 17:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

See below: the best other source we can find is citing the intellexual.net article as a source. On the other end, anonymity appears to be helpful in avoiding the long arm of the Bose censor-lawyers. —ptk✰fgs 20:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Lack of reliable sources doesn't mean you default to the best of the non-reliable ones. Lack of sources defaults to exclusion. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. –Gunslinger47 02:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
At the least, the "some audio analysts" wording should be corrected as to be more accurate to the reference. –Gunslinger47 02:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to say (and please know that I mean no disrespect in any way what soever) that is is really a silly comment to say "anonymity appears to be helpful in avoiding the long arm of the Bose censor-lawyers" because in just under 5 min I managed to find out the name, address, phone number and email account of the administrator of that website [6] [7] [8]. The shear fact that this website has existed for soooo many years proves that that argument is BS. If Bose wanted they could have sued that site YEARS ago, forced him to remove the article, or many other things a Sue happy company does. This company never has because if it did it could have put an injunction on the site and managed to tie up the case in court for so long that the owner could not afford the legal fees and would have to acquiesce to there demands! I'm sorry but I don't mean to be insulting but it does take a bit of thinking when one says that a company sues anyone who criticizes them and you cite a really old website that does just that!!!! But beyond that this site just doesn't hold enough credibility to be used as an external link. -- UKPhoenix79 04:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

intellexual review

This website has been debated time and time again. It has been removed after much debate spanning over 2 years. There have been many reasons stated for and against this web sites inclusion. But the reasons for its removal was best summed up with Rivertorch comments

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 [..] 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)

So please don't link this site its POV it lacks verifiability and is tested on a particular product not made by Bose since the late 90's. -- UKPhoenix79 06:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you don't write the rules. There is no wiki rule that says that objective measurements have to be signed, or calibrated, so the comments about the frequency remain. If you can find objective measurements of a Bose system that are more to your liking, please post them. Personally I thought my summary of that page was uncontroversial. Greglocock 07:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
you don't write the rules??? Ok please try to keep this civil... please! I have only been following them and it is very clear this this is a highly biased page and rather questionable. If you check you would see that it does not meet the standards of Verifiability:
  • third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
  • Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.
  • Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources
    • Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.
  • If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
This web page fails everything, it has NO reputation for fact checking, these claims have not been cited from other reliable 3rd party sources, This person is not an expert or has he been credited as being an expert in the audio field, and has no notable published works aside from this single page.
Nor does it pass reliability:
  • Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand
  • Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight.
  • In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views, in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
  • In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.
  • Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources
  • Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution.
I don't think that I really need to list this one point by point but check out the last one. Yes this is extremely valid with this persons notable anti-bose and blatant POV throughout the web page.
No other reliable site can be found with these claims only forums and most link back to this article. Hence all the debating for over 2 years on this issue is focused on the reliability, verifiability, and POV of this particular website. according to the Official Guidelines of Wikipedia this website fails every test... Sorry... Not only that we've been debating this forever and it is just annoying to keep going back to this :-( -- UKPhoenix79 08:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
You obviously don't understand the meaning of the phrase objective measurement. That's what we (engineers, scientists etc) do with instruments, to measure the technical performance of systems. It doesn't matter what the opinions are of the person who makes the measurement are, the instrument still measures the same result. So, until you can prove that the measurement is incorrect, or that you have better OBJECTIVE data, it goes back in. and quit whining, I don't read it. Greglocock 10:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Our last discussion on this topic reached the conclusion that we should retain the link, as it is the only third-party evaluation of Bose frequency response anyone has presented here. UKP, if you'll kindly peruse the topic archive you created yesterday, you'll find that we even discovered that the site was cited by a number of news stories examining why Bose does not publish frequency response data on its speaker systems.

It is pretty disappointing to see that you waited a few months and then thought no one would notice if you swept all that discussion under the rug and went ahead and removed the link anyway. —ptk✰fgs 14:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No I did not wait a few months and sneak this in, please try and keep this kind, please don't attack other users since I have not done such things and it is the article that this talk page is concerning... ok? If I was trying to hide anything I would have just removed conversations I didn't like when I created the archive, wouldn't I? Actually the question is if this person really did objective measurements since this web page is the only place making such claims (without citing back to this page I might add).
Wikipedia:Verifiability This page in a nutshell: Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. [...] The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. [...] The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. [...] If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. [...] Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources. [...] Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources
I can go on into NPOV and Reliability but I think my point is proven... AGAIN! I have to wonder why is it that this is the only place that I have EVER found that states such things? Oh yes forums say that, but they link back to this one single website. Oh and those articles you said linked back to this website, none do scientific research on the web sites findings. They actually do everything but.
What Reliable 3rd party source means is someone more than an amatures that supposedly got a hold of equipment and tested out speakers. It can start that way, dont get me wrong great science has come from amatures. But science, yes this is science, relies on verifiability, repeatability, and peer-review. This website is a single entity and its claims are unverified by any noted verifiable sources that re-tested the websites findings getting the same results. So going with the scientific method this page has no weight in the world of science and fails in the world of wikipedia.
Please realize that this web page is disputed, find one that is reliable, then add that in, remember "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. [...] If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." I did not make this up so please do not restore the link any longer. If you wish we can bring this to the light of others out inside wikipedia and we can ask them if this is a valid, reliable and npov source. But please do not add the web page back in until we have got a consensus on the validity of the websites inclusion :-) -- UKPhoenix79 18:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I tried to write something that should be ok without citing that website. I figure that there are many audio forums out there that talk about this so I added Audio forums tend to talk about the non-linear frequency response of certain Bose systems. and I figure that you two might know a couple of good links to forum discussions that cover such topics, hope that helps :-) -- UKPhoenix79 18:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Just answer one question for me. Is "Our last discussion on this topic reached the conclusion that we should retain the link" an accurate statement? Greglocock 21:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that WP:NPOV requires that we represent all significant viewpoints. This does not mean that every reference or link must represent all significant viewpoints; it means that our article must refer to sources which together represent all significant viewpoints. The viewpoint that Bose equipment is overpriced and technically deficient is a significant one. Our last discussion even uncovered that the Intellexual.net article is something of a classic exposition of that viewpoint -- we found multiple articles using a Google news search which cited the Intellexual.net article in discussing this viewpoint.
Additionally, please note that the frequency response data in the Intellexual.net article was not prepared by the author. He is citing Sound and Vision magazine, so there is really no dispute about the validity of the data. —ptk✰fgs 22:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Topic continued at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_2#Bose_Corporation_and_the_intellexual_web_page where it was decided that it was not a reliable source.