So why is bose not considered good again?

They have updated their around ear headphones and look at the review at CNET. 4 out of 5 which is as good as it gets with CNET barring rear exceptions. The previous version had gotten 3.5 out of 5 which is still really good for CNET.

Dont tell me CNET are not good reviewers, I have seen their reviews thrown around in TV recommendations here. This is what they say,

"When you put them on, the first thing you notice is that these are very comfortable headphones that have Bose's trademark plush, black leather earpads. They also feel lighter than your average full-size, closed earcup models from the likes of Sennheiser, Koss, and AKG."

So apparantly bose makes more confortable headphones than the real audio companies but that doesnt matter right? The sound sucks you say?

"Compared with our memory of the old TriPorts (the "AE1," if you will), Bose has improved the sound on these new models. Overall, the headphones are very accurate and offer good, well-defined bass. We threw a bunch of tracks at them, including some Elvis Costello, Bruce Springsteen, the Rolling Stones, the Kings of Leon, some classical tracks, and a Brooklyn band called The National. The only small gripe we had was that--because these headphones are as detailed as they are--they tend to come off sounding a tad brash, overemphasizing instruments such as cymbals (it's a matter of taste whether you like that "extra sizzle" or not). They also make poorly recorded music sound worse because they accentuate the flaws in the recordings (the flip side is they make good recordings sound very good)."

If those are not the characteristics of a high quality headphone then what is?

"Are they the best-sounding headphones we've tried for $150? Probably not. But the combination of their high-quality sound and excellent comfort level make them easy to recommend"

From what I hear about bose there should have been no "probably" there but "absolutely". I thought bose only compares sound quality wise to headphones much cheaper than theirs? Man o man it's almost laughable I was thinking of selling my bose for a $100 sennheiser lol.

They have updated their around ear headphones and look at the review at CNET. 4 out of 5 which is as good as it gets with CNET barring rear exceptions. The previous version had gotten 3.5 out of 5 which is still really good for CNET.

Dont tell me CNET are not good reviewers, I have seen their reviews thrown around in TV recommendations here. This is what they say,

"When you put them on, the first thing you notice is that these are very comfortable headphones that have Bose's trademark plush, black leather earpads. They also feel lighter than your average full-size, closed earcup models from the likes of Sennheiser, Koss, and AKG."

So apparantly bose makes more confortable headphones than the real audio companies but that doesnt matter right? The sound sucks you say?

"Compared with our memory of the old TriPorts (the "AE1," if you will), Bose has improved the sound on these new models. Overall, the headphones are very accurate and offer good, well-defined bass. We threw a bunch of tracks at them, including some Elvis Costello, Bruce Springsteen, the Rolling Stones, the Kings of Leon, some classical tracks, and a Brooklyn band called The National. The only small gripe we had was that--because these headphones are as detailed as they are--they tend to come off sounding a tad brash, overemphasizing instruments such as cymbals (it's a matter of taste whether you like that "extra sizzle" or not). They also make poorly recorded music sound worse because they accentuate the flaws in the recordings (the flip side is they make good recordings sound very good)."

If those are not the characteristics of a high quality headphone then what is?

"Are they the best-sounding headphones we've tried for $150? Probably not. But the combination of their high-quality sound and excellent comfort level make them easy to recommend"

From what I hear about bose there should have been no "probably" there but "absolutely". I thought bose only compares sound quality wise to headphones much cheaper than theirs? Man o man it's almost laughable I was thinking of selling my bose for a $100 sennheiser lol.

Gambler_3

Beyerdynamic DT770s/Audio Technica ATH-M50s are better and cheaper... That could be why?Mozelleple112

Find me a headphone as comfortable AND better sounding than the bose at the price range, I bet you cant!

[QUOTE="Mozelleple112"]

Beyerdynamic DT770s/Audio Technica ATH-M50s are better and cheaper... That could be why?Gambler_3

Find me a headphone as comfortable AND better sounding than the bose at the price range, I bet you cant!

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="Mozelleple112"]

Beyerdynamic DT770s/Audio Technica ATH-M50s are better and cheaper... That could be why?Mozelleple112

Find me a headphone as comfortable AND better sounding than the bose at the price range, I bet you cant!

I just checked on amazon and the DT770 were $170 and the M50 are $157.

http://www.amazon.com/Shure-SRH840-Professional-Monitoring-Earphones/dp/B002DP8IEK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1312514474&sr=8-1

Thankyou come again. Please get over Bose: they're not that great. Being a fangirl over a company isn't a winning decision for you, the consumer. The sooner you understand that, the sooner you can experience headphones with really high quality sound.

Like others have said: Audio Technica M50s sound better, and I think the ES7s sound better as well, which are very comfortable, and better looking than Bose headphones. But who cares? Bose isn't this big standard against which other headphone companies try to measure up to. If you want to continue being a Bose fanboy... then do that, No need to make posts justifying your unconditional love for Bose ;)

[QUOTE="Mozelleple112"][QUOTE="Gambler_3"]What are you talking about? Not only are those models more expensive than the bose but they also weigh TWICE as much. :?

Find me a headphone as comfortable AND better sounding than the bose at the price range, I bet you cant!

Gambler_3

I just checked on amazon and the DT770 were $170 and the M50 are $157.

My Grados have 2 metal cups on them and it doesn't seem to bother me. Maybe do some neck stretching exercises/create some neck lifts to help you out with the UNBEARABLE weight of the DT770s :roll:

You've reached the top tier of the Bose line. It doesn't get substantially better from there. If comfort and weight is your number 1 priority than go with IEMs, to give your head a much needed rest. If sound quality is your primary concern, then feel free to step up at any time to some of the headphones mentioned in the stickied thread

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="Mozelleple112"] Headphone weight is a problem ? :| comfort is subjective.. I thought you said the Bose' are $150? well Beyerdynamics DT770 are like $200 in norway, I figured they were cheaper in US... M50s are 120-130DivergeUnify

I just checked on amazon and the DT770 were $170 and the M50 are $157.

My Grados have 2 metal cups on them and it doesn't seem to bother me. Maybe do some neck stretching exercises/create some neck lifts to help you out with the UNBEARABLE weight of the DT770s :roll:

I never said the bose sounds better than same price alternatives. The fact is that bose is doing something no other company is doing. Having such a high quality headphone that weighs less than half a pound? Ah yes none of the real audio companies seem to have such a product.

You people call bose products as useless and rip-off when it is offering something nobody else is offering, it's capturing a segment of the market which is actually a pretty big one which are people who value comfort just as much as sound in a headphone.

I am no fanboy, it's the audiophile who needs to get back to reality and start accepting bose as something respectful just like how the tech enthusiast needs to accept what apple has achieved.

And btw,

http://www.amazon.com/Audio-Technica-ATH-M50-Studio-Monitor-Headphones/dp/B000ULAP4U

And btw where is the evidence that all those models actually sound so much better than the bose??? If bose is so much worse why does no review mention it?

And btw where is the evidence that all those models actually sound so much better than the bose??? If bose is so much worse why does no review mention it?

Gambler_3

The thing about Bose is that their noise cancelling is second to none but their sound quality leaves much to be desired. They're kind of like Apple in that they deliver quality products that appeal to the masses but underwhelm the enthusiasts.

The thing about Bose is that their noise cancelling is second to none but their sound quality leaves much to be desired. They're kind of like Apple in that they deliver quality products that appeal to the masses but underwhelm the enthusiasts.

red12355

Very well said. That pretty much sums it up. I'd compare their audio to the video of a nice Samsung LED TV. Do they have lots of attractive, easy to use features? Yes. Do they have a great picture? Yes.. compared to what the masses are used to. Do they compare in terms of image quality when you put them up against a good plasma that costs 30% less? Not even close. In the audio world, Bose is considered high-end by many people. They're just not viewed that way by true enthusiasts. They make a solid-sounding product that's definitely a cut above your run of the mill audio, but they fall short when it comes to competing with truly great audio equipment.

The fact is that bose is doing something no other company is doing. Having such a high quality headphone that weighs less than half a pound? Ah yes none of the real audio companies seem to have such a product.Gambler_3

[QUOTE="Mozelleple112"]

Beyerdynamic DT770s/Audio Technica ATH-M50s are better and cheaper... That could be why?Gambler_3

Find me a headphone as comfortable AND better sounding than the bose at the price range, I bet you cant!

This is a point that often times gets missed, which I've stated numerous times on this forum. The comfort is a big factor, especially if you are going to use the headphones for movies or games OR just extended use, period. People will point out better sound for the dollar, which is the truth, but Bose are not a poor product. You pay for that comfort. Just as people are saying you can get better audio at Bose price, it is only the REALLY expensive models from other brands that offers the same comfort.

This is coming from someone that thought Bose was trash, btw, before I tried the over-ear phones. Also, I'd like to point out that the in-ear Bose are MUCH better than the in-ear Shures. The high end in-ear shures are the most overpriced phone product on the market.

And btw where is the evidence that all those models actually sound so much better than the bose??? If bose is so much worse why does no review mention it?

Gambler_3

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"]

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]Yes obviously the weight of the headphone goes a long way in it being comfortable. Bose values comfort and weight, if you gotta do an apples to apples then you cant just compare a headphone with bose that are bigger and heavier. There is a reason why CNET said that the bose are easy to recommend when considering their comfort/performance.

I just checked on amazon and the DT770 were $170 and the M50 are $157.

Gambler_3

My Grados have 2 metal cups on them and it doesn't seem to bother me. Maybe do some neck stretching exercises/create some neck lifts to help you out with the UNBEARABLE weight of the DT770s :roll:

I never said the bose sounds better than same price alternatives. The fact is that bose is doing something no other company is doing. Having such a high quality headphone that weighs less than half a pound? Ah yes none of the real audio companies seem to have such a product.

You people call bose products as useless and rip-off when it is offering something nobody else is offering, it's capturing a segment of the market which is actually a pretty big one which are people who value comfort just as much as sound in a headphone.

I am no fanboy, it's the audiophile who needs to get back to reality and start accepting bose as something respectful just like how the tech enthusiast needs to accept what apple has achieved.

And btw,

http://www.amazon.com/Audio-Technica-ATH-M50-Studio-Monitor-Headphones/dp/B000ULAP4U

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="Mozelleple112"]

Beyerdynamic DT770s/Audio Technica ATH-M50s are better and cheaper... That could be why?Heirren

Find me a headphone as comfortable AND better sounding than the bose at the price range, I bet you cant!

This is a point that often times gets missed, which I've stated numerous times on this forum. The comfort is a big factor, especially if you are going to use the headphones for movies or games OR just extended use, period. People will point out better sound for the dollar, which is the truth, but Bose are not a poor product. You pay for that comfort. Just as people are saying you can get better audio at Bose price, it is only the REALLY expensive models from other brands that offers the same comfort.

This is coming from someone that thought Bose was trash, btw, before I tried the over-ear phones. Also, I'd like to point out that the in-ear Bose are MUCH better than the in-ear Shures. The high end in-ear shures are the most overpriced phone product on the market.

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"]

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]Yes obviously the weight of the headphone goes a long way in it being comfortable. Bose values comfort and weight, if you gotta do an apples to apples then you cant just compare a headphone with bose that are bigger and heavier. There is a reason why CNET said that the bose are easy to recommend when considering their comfort/performance.

I just checked on amazon and the DT770 were $170 and the M50 are $157.

Gambler_3

My Grados have 2 metal cups on them and it doesn't seem to bother me. Maybe do some neck stretching exercises/create some neck lifts to help you out with the UNBEARABLE weight of the DT770s :roll:

I never said the bose sounds better than same price alternatives. The fact is that bose is doing something no other company is doing. Having such a high quality headphone that weighs less than half a pound? Ah yes none of the real audio companies seem to have such a product.

You people call bose products as useless and rip-off when it is offering something nobody else is offering, it's capturing a segment of the market which is actually a pretty big one which are people who value comfort just as much as sound in a headphone.

I am no fanboy, it's the audiophile who needs to get back to reality and start accepting bose as something respectful just like how the tech enthusiast needs to accept what apple has achieved.

And btw,

http://www.amazon.com/Audio-Technica-ATH-M50-Studio-Monitor-Headphones/dp/B000ULAP4U

Comfort wise you will find plenty of comfortable headphones that delivery higher quality sound then the bose headphones despite weighing more as weight is not the sole determining factor in a headphones comfort. May not be as portable but never listed that as a criteria in your post but have that covered with the headphones below. Bose is not the only one offering quality lightweight portable headphones some of the alternatives are below.

AKG K450 Headphones Navy
Sennheiser PX 200 II B
JAYS c-JAYS Elastic Multi-Layer Speaker Headphones
Ultrasone HFI-15G

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]What are you talking about? Not only are those models more expensive than the bose but they also weigh TWICE as much. :?

Find me a headphone as comfortable AND better sounding than the bose at the price range, I bet you cant!

DivergeUnify

This is a point that often times gets missed, which I've stated numerous times on this forum. The comfort is a big factor, especially if you are going to use the headphones for movies or games OR just extended use, period. People will point out better sound for the dollar, which is the truth, but Bose are not a poor product. You pay for that comfort. Just as people are saying you can get better audio at Bose price, it is only the REALLY expensive models from other brands that offers the same comfort.

This is coming from someone that thought Bose was trash, btw, before I tried the over-ear phones. Also, I'd like to point out that the in-ear Bose are MUCH better than the in-ear Shures. The high end in-ear shures are the most overpriced phone product on the market.

I had already put away the 555 as open back is not practical for me, if I ever get an open back headphone it would be as a second headphone.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"] M50s are 130

My Grados have 2 metal cups on them and it doesn't seem to bother me. Maybe do some neck stretching exercises/create some neck lifts to help you out with the UNBEARABLE weight of the DT770s :roll:

DJ_Headshot

I never said the bose sounds better than same price alternatives. The fact is that bose is doing something no other company is doing. Having such a high quality headphone that weighs less than half a pound? Ah yes none of the real audio companies seem to have such a product.

You people call bose products as useless and rip-off when it is offering something nobody else is offering, it's capturing a segment of the market which is actually a pretty big one which are people who value comfort just as much as sound in a headphone.

I am no fanboy, it's the audiophile who needs to get back to reality and start accepting bose as something respectful just like how the tech enthusiast needs to accept what apple has achieved.

And btw,

http://www.amazon.com/Audio-Technica-ATH-M50-Studio-Monitor-Headphones/dp/B000ULAP4U

Comfort wise you will find plenty of comfortable headphones that delivery higher quality sound then the bose headphones despite weighing more as weight is not the sole determining factor in a headphones comfort. May not be as portable but never listed that as a criteria in your post but have that covered with the headphones below. Bose is not the only one offering quality lightweight portable headphones some of the alternatives are below.

AKG K450 Headphones Navy
Sennheiser PX 200 II B
JAYS c-JAYS Elastic Multi-Layer Speaker Headphones
Ultrasone HFI-15G

And btw even with mini cups all of those still weigh more than bose lol.

You know I'll tell you something, many of my friends find even the bose to be too heavy to be worn for 2-3 hours for a movie. I am also personally not sure about a headphone that would weigh twice as much. And no it's not at all about portability it's about extended use in your home where the weight matters ALOT.

If anyone wants to bash Bose, System Wars is that way, otherwise please keep the discussion fact-based and specific to the headphones being discussed - the Bose AE2s - or you will be reported for Trolling. General statements (Bose sucks!) are against the Gamespot Forum TOU. Try something more akin to, "The Bose AE2s compare/do not compare favorably..." in order to construct a compelling argument.

Audiophiles won't be interested in the AE2, but travelers who prefer headphones to earphones might want to give them a listen.PCMag

More on topic and relevant, the Bose AE2 appears to be a decent headphone with a pronounced bump in the low-end. It's got some bumps in its frequency response, but nothing along the lines of something like the Skullcandy Hesh, and in some ways appears - graphically - similarly neutral to the Audio Technica ATH-M50.

To say that these are not good at their price range is simply not true based on available information: They seem to have decent response in their price range, good reviews, and are light enough to be desirable to people that travel frequently.

Further, it is silly to bash a company. Bose has many products: Some are good, some are not, but mostly it's a question of value, which C|Net even addresses in their review:

Are they the best-sounding headphones we've tried for $150? Probably not.CNet

Boz

I agree that Bose isn't a bad company and they have some decent headphones( I really like the On-ears with the thick pads), but to say they're untouchable given: Price, comfort, sound, is ridiculous

With regards to the graph, sure they may have a similar sonic signature, but the sound quality of the Shure 840s is just much better than the Bose AE2s( and I've heard the AE2s much more than I have the 840s), but I mean thats another issue.

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]What are you talking about? Not only are those models more expensive than the bose but they also weigh TWICE as much. :?

Find me a headphone as comfortable AND better sounding than the bose at the price range, I bet you cant!

DivergeUnify

This is a point that often times gets missed, which I've stated numerous times on this forum. The comfort is a big factor, especially if you are going to use the headphones for movies or games OR just extended use, period. People will point out better sound for the dollar, which is the truth, but Bose are not a poor product. You pay for that comfort. Just as people are saying you can get better audio at Bose price, it is only the REALLY expensive models from other brands that offers the same comfort.

This is coming from someone that thought Bose was trash, btw, before I tried the over-ear phones. Also, I'd like to point out that the in-ear Bose are MUCH better than the in-ear Shures. The high end in-ear shures are the most overpriced phone product on the market.

I own those. They aren't nearly as comfortable. My father has the Bose, which he never uses, and I'm debating asking if I can take them for late night movies as I live in an apt building. The senns sound better, but I couldn't handle wearing them for 2+ hours straight. I've done that multiple times with the Bose when I visit him. The weight difference might seem small on paper, but it is something resting on a sensitive part of your body. I like to compare it to glasses. I don't need to wear glasses often. I do when I watch films, and that's about it. One pair is a more stylish pair, and one pair is a more relaxed paper light pair. I use the latter at home for the same reasons I'd use the bose--comfort.

The 555 sound better because they are open back. I really doubt the 280 pro sound better than the bose AE.

And I wear glasses all the time so a lighterweight headphone furthur helps with that.

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="Heirren"] Let me just really briefly point out that TC was referring to Senns HD555s that he chose not to take over his Bose. Those Senns are supposed to be EXTREMELY comfortable. His original post pretty much exclusively talked about sound quality. The only reason he brought in comfort is because his points were shut down so quickly, and no offense, but he doesn't have the knowledge to back up his opinion Heirren

I own those. They aren't nearly as comfortable. My father has the Bose, which he never uses, and I'm debating asking if I can take them for late night movies as I live in an apt building. The senns sound better, but I couldn't handle wearing them for 2+ hours straight. I've done that multiple times with the Bose when I visit him. The weight difference might seem small on paper, but it is something resting on a sensitive part of your body. I like to compare it to glasses. I don't need to wear glasses often. I do when I watch films, and that's about it. One pair is a more stylish pair, and one pair is a more relaxed paper light pair. I use the latter at home for the same reasons I'd use the bose--comfort.

The 555 sound better because they are open back. I really doubt the 280 pro sound better than the bose AE.

And I wear glasses all the time so a lighterweight headphone furthur helps with that.

Gambler_3

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"]

I own those. They aren't nearly as comfortable. My father has the Bose, which he never uses, and I'm debating asking if I can take them for late night movies as I live in an apt building. The senns sound better, but I couldn't handle wearing them for 2+ hours straight. I've done that multiple times with the Bose when I visit him. The weight difference might seem small on paper, but it is something resting on a sensitive part of your body. I like to compare it to glasses. I don't need to wear glasses often. I do when I watch films, and that's about it. One pair is a more stylish pair, and one pair is a more relaxed paper light pair. I use the latter at home for the same reasons I'd use the bose--comfort.

DivergeUnify

The 555 sound better because they are open back. I really doubt the 280 pro sound better than the bose AE.

And I wear glasses all the time so a lighterweight headphone furthur helps with that.

Gambler_3

Perhaps to you, but to others it may be. I mean, afterall, Bose certainly has a market. You can't argue that. I also consider myself the audiophile type. All three of my stereos are home-made.

Again, I've never claimed Bose were the best sounding headphones, but they are by no means terrible. Considering most listeners use mp3s, it doesn't matter that much. In fact, the nicest headphones actually make the mp3s sound worse.

Why don't you keep your 'phones and be happy with them? You're NOT going to get any performance upgrade by swapping over for 555s or AD700s, if you want a BETTER sounding pair of headphones may I suggest M50s, DT770s, K702s, DT880s, DT990s, HE300s, and so on..

Bose has some 5 star products down at whathifi

Quietcomfort 15

MIE2i

Bose On-ears got 4 stars

3 star headphones

Bose mobile on ear

http://www.whathifi.com/review/bose-oe

If you average that its 4 stars per headphone

The bose in-ear phones are also absolutely remarkable.

Anyways the point of the thread was not to say that bose is the best thing ever because they arent but simply to address the stupid notion that bose audio is mediocre, a complete rip-off blah blah.

The sad thing about many audiophiles on the internet is that they have just learned that bose is bad through the internet and never actually tried them but yet they know that bose is not "true" audio.

I mean I have never said anything negative about a sennheiser or any other audio brand because I havent used them so why would I say something bad about them.

The bose in-ear phones are also absolutely remarkable.

Anyways the point of the thread was not to say that bose is the best thing ever because they arent but simply to address the stupid notion that bose audio is mediocre, a complete rip-off blah blah.

The sad thing about many audiophiles on the internet is that they have just learned that bose is bad through the internet and never actually tried them but yet they know that bose is not "true" audio.

I mean I have never said anything negative about a sennheiser or any other audio brand because I havent used them so why would I say something bad about them.

Gambler_3

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

The bose in-ear phones are also absolutely remarkable.

Anyways the point of the thread was not to say that bose is the best thing ever because they arent but simply to address the stupid notion that bose audio is mediocre, a complete rip-off blah blah.

The sad thing about many audiophiles on the internet is that they have just learned that bose is bad through the internet and never actually tried them but yet they know that bose is not "true" audio.

I mean I have never said anything negative about a sennheiser or any other audio brand because I havent used them so why would I say something bad about them.

Mozelleple112

I've never read "bose is #1" ANYWHERE. Generally people will say Sennys are the best bang for your buck, and that AKGs are the best as far as moderately high priced consumer models are concerned.

I'll second the comment on the Bose in-ears. They are excellent--they blow the comparatively priced SHUREs out of the water--HOWEVER, I'm yet to find a pair of great sounding in-ears with decent build quality.

The bose in-ear phones are also absolutely remarkable.

Anyways the point of the thread was not to say that bose is the best thing ever because they arent but simply to address the stupid notion that bose audio is mediocre, a complete rip-off blah blah.

The sad thing about many audiophiles on the internet is that they have just learned that bose is bad through the internet and never actually tried them but yet they know that bose is not "true" audio.

I mean I have never said anything negative about a sennheiser or any other audio brand because I havent used them so why would I say something bad about them.

Gambler_3

In general, sound quality is not the biggest issue that people have with Bose. Rather its the price point of their products and the respective build quality at those prices. Consider the Bose LS V35 that retails at $3300 on amazon. With $3300, you can do all sorts of wonderful things to your home theater including full standing 5.1 bookshelfs, a high grade subwoofer, and a mid-high end receiver.

Bose charging $3300 for tiny sattelite speakers with plastic enclosures is absolutely ludicrous compared to whats out on the audio market. Some nanosats with a mid-range receiver would give you comparable sound and compact design at about 1/3rd the price.

As far as sound quality is concerned, Bose is somewhere in the middle for me. Its not atrocious to listen to but its not the best either (I've tried their QC's, On Ears, some LS systems they audition in their store). Both the treble and the lows were a bit recessed which isn't my cup of tea since I prefer a more neutral sig. The isolation on the QC was excellent however.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

The bose in-ear phones are also absolutely remarkable.

Anyways the point of the thread was not to say that bose is the best thing ever because they arent but simply to address the stupid notion that bose audio is mediocre, a complete rip-off blah blah.

The sad thing about many audiophiles on the internet is that they have just learned that bose is bad through the internet and never actually tried them but yet they know that bose is not "true" audio.

I mean I have never said anything negative about a sennheiser or any other audio brand because I havent used them so why would I say something bad about them.

Foamybrian

In general, sound quality is not the biggest issue that people have with Bose. Rather its the price point of their products and the respective build quality at those prices. Consider the Bose LS V35 that retails at $3300 on amazon. With $3300, you can do all sorts of wonderful things to your home theater including full standing 5.1 bookshelfs, a high grade subwoofer, and a mid-high end receiver.

Bose charging $3300 for tiny sattelite speakers with plastic enclosures is absolutely ludicrous compared to whats out on the audio market. Some nanosats with a mid-range receiver would give you comparable sound and compact design at about 1/3rd the price.

As far as sound quality is concerned, Bose is somewhere in the middle for me. Its not atrocious to listen to but its not the best either (I've tried their QC's, On Ears, some LS systems they audition in their store). Both the treble and the lows were a bit recessed which isn't my cup of tea since I prefer a more neutral sig. The isolation on the QC was excellent however.

You can probably get B&W MT30s with a decent receiver for that price too!

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="Heirren"]

This is a point that often times gets missed, which I've stated numerous times on this forum. The comfort is a big factor, especially if you are going to use the headphones for movies or games OR just extended use, period. People will point out better sound for the dollar, which is the truth, but Bose are not a poor product. You pay for that comfort. Just as people are saying you can get better audio at Bose price, it is only the REALLY expensive models from other brands that offers the same comfort.

This is coming from someone that thought Bose was trash, btw, before I tried the over-ear phones. Also, I'd like to point out that the in-ear Bose are MUCH better than the in-ear Shures. The high end in-ear shures are the most overpriced phone product on the market.

Heirren

I own those. They aren't nearly as comfortable. My father has the Bose, which he never uses, and I'm debating asking if I can take them for late night movies as I live in an apt building. The senns sound better, but I couldn't handle wearing them for 2+ hours straight. I've done that multiple times with the Bose when I visit him. The weight difference might seem small on paper, but it is something resting on a sensitive part of your body. I like to compare it to glasses. I don't need to wear glasses often. I do when I watch films, and that's about it. One pair is a more stylish pair, and one pair is a more relaxed paper light pair. I use the latter at home for the same reasons I'd use the bose--comfort.

The HD555 is very unforgiving to people with big heads (even more if you wear glasses). I couldn't wear it for more than an hour before the sides of my head start to ache. While the pads are comfortable, the vice-grip was just a bit too much for me.

The HD555 is very unforgiving to people with big heads (even more if you wear glasses). I couldn't wear it for more than an hour before the sides of my head start to ache. While the pads are comfortable, the vice-grip was just a bit too much for me.

Foamybrian

I have a nickname of Jack In The Box because of my head and the Hd555s are extremely comfortable. Best pair I've owned yet. Glasses were a pain to use but thankfully it's for focusing far, not within monitor length :P

CNET does do good reviews, the problem is they dont review enough of the right products. So they dont compare/contrast to eachother, so its hard to pick a good headset based off their star score, and sometimes their reviews because in them they do alot of comparisons to other products they have reviewed in them. Bose, are good, just overpriced, although i have noticed less advertising and more cuts on prices in the last year.

I LOL'd @ the price of that thing!!!!!!! $3300? Isn't that basically the Bose Acostimas 5 or whatever its called? I've heard better 5.1 setups for 500 dollars with a cheap receiver. Christ $3300? That's more than my KEF KHT3005, Denon AVR1911 andB&W DM685s which are significantly superior in every way...

You can probably get B&W MT30s with a decent receiver for that price too!

Mozelleple112

[QUOTE="Mozelleple112"]

I LOL'd @ the price of that thing!!!!!!! $3300? Isn't that basically the Bose Acostimas 5 or whatever its called? I've heard better 5.1 setups for 500 dollars with a cheap receiver. Christ $3300? That's more than my KEF KHT3005, Denon AVR1911 andB&W DM685s which are significantly superior in every way...

You can probably get B&W MT30s with a decent receiver for that price too!

NVIDIATI

[QUOTE="NVIDIATI"]

[QUOTE="Mozelleple112"]

I LOL'd @ the price of that thing!!!!!!! $3300? Isn't that basically the Bose Acostimas 5 or whatever its called? I've heard better 5.1 setups for 500 dollars with a cheap receiver. Christ $3300? That's more than my KEF KHT3005, Denon AVR1911 andB&W DM685s which are significantly superior in every way...

You can probably get B&W MT30s with a decent receiver for that price too!

Mozelleple112

[QUOTE="Mozelleple112"]

[QUOTE="NVIDIATI"] I still don't understand why you purchased KEF eggs and paired them with some B&W 685s...

NVIDIATI

I believe that when NVIDIATI says that it makes little sense and that it will sound acoustically awkward (s)he is referring to speaker timbre. Crutchfield explains timbre well:

Timbre is what gives a voice or instrument its sonic signature — for instance, why a trumpet and a saxophone sound different when they play the same note.Crutchfield

It's the same way with speakers; you wouldn't want to use a Sennheiser HD595 for your right ear and an AKG K702 on your left - and not just for comfort reasons! - it'd sound weird because each driver and its cabinet have their own timbre, or unique sonic signature. For the same reason it is typically best to match your speakers from the same family and line of products to ensure they are "timbre matched." This is not to say your setup will sound bad, only that there may be disparities in the transition of audio between speakers.

For example, the sound of a plane flies around your system, which includes speakers with a sensitivity of 92db paired with a speakers of 86db sensititivity. Because the 92db speaker is more efficient, the plane will sound louder in that speaker than the 86db speakers. This is getting pretty nerdy, though, and most people won't notice.

As an aside, subwoofers - by and large - do not need to be matched since they range they frequency range they are reproducing is seperated via crossover. Purists might get pissy, though.

Boz

I believe that when NVIDIATI says that it makes little sense and that it will sound acoustically awkward (s)he is referring to speaker timbre. Crutchfield explains timbre well:

[quote="Crutchfield"]Timbre is what gives a voice or instrument its sonic signature - for instance, why a trumpet and a saxophone sound different when they play the same note.Bozanimal

It's the same way with speakers; you wouldn't want to use a Sennheiser HD595 for your right ear and an AKG K702 on your left - and not just for comfort reasons! - it'd sound weird because each driver and its cabinet have their own timbre, or unique sonic signature. For the same reason it is typically best to match your speakers from the same family and line of products to ensure they are "timbre matched." This is not to say your setup will sound bad, only that there may be disparities in the transition of audio between speakers.

For example, the sound of a plane flies around your system, which includes speakers with a sensitivity of 92db paired with a speakers of 86db sensititivity. Because the 92db speaker is more efficient, the plane will sound louder in that speaker than the 86db speakers. This is getting pretty nerdy, though, and most people won't notice.

As an aside, subwoofers - by and large - do not need to be matched since they range they frequency range they are reproducing is seperated via crossover. Purists might get pissy, though.

Boz

Also:

685s = 100W

1911: = 7 * 90w

Kefs = 90w