Talk:Bose Corporation/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Concerns over structure.

I find that this article, and the relatively vast array of Bose-related articles read far too much like advertisements/catalogs, and the more controversial points, such as the criticisms of Bose, are too oft shuffled into the depths of the article.

Edits by by 41.212.135.126 & 202.12.144.21

It would seem that 41.212.135.126 is deliberately trying to vandalize this page, or is unaware of how to edit wikipedia pages and is instead blanking out sections and inserting strings of random characters. Who is returns the following: 41.212.135.126
Record Type: IP Address
OrgName: African Network Information Center
OrgID: AFRINIC
Address: 03B3 - 3rd Floor - Ebene Cyber Tower
Address: Cyber City
Address: Ebene
Address: Mauritius
City: Ebene
PostalCode: 0001
Country: MU
ReferralServer: whois://whois.afrinic.net
NetRange: 41.0.0.0 - 41.255.255.255
CIDR: 41.0.0.0/8
NetName: NET41
NetHandle: NET-41-0-0-0-1
NetType: Allocated to AfriNIC

NameServer: NS1.AFRINIC.NET
NameServer: NS-SEC.RIPE.NET
NameServer: NS.LACNIC.NET
NameServer: TINNIE.ARIN.NET
OrgAbuseHandle: GENER11-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: Generic POC
OrgAbusePhone: 230 4666616
OrgAbuseEmail: [email protected]
ASH1977LAW 13:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I have today reverted two edits by 202.12.144.21. Someone at this IP address has continually added nonsence to articles, been blocked, reported for vandalism etc. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:202.12.144.21 . While I do not count the changes as vandalism, removing the High-End descriptor when there are multiple citations for it is certainly nonsensical. ASH1977LAW 11:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

How is a ~ $1500 speaker high-end relative to the $85,000 Wilson X2/Alexandria. I've auditioned the X1/GS and they had big SPL, xmax, composite cabinet, Focal drivers, etc. How many of these alleged reviewers used *any* test equipment or DB/ABX? <insult deleted> If high-end is simply relativism, what is opinion and original research doing in an encyclopedia?66.217.161.118 21:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we erase this stuff? IP addresses mean nothing. I can come in Netzero, Europe, Canada, or anywhere. Every 1st year hacker knows *all* the tricks.66.19.66.81 22:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Bose & high-end audio

As you have been repeatedly told by those with some knowledge of the audio market the Bose brand is in the consumer audio sector and not the high-end audio sector. People will continually delete the word high-end because it is not only incorrect but positively leaps out from the page because of the view of the Bose brand by those that purchase high-end audio equipment. You do realise that unless you start being more honest a group of editors will almost certainly take action against you for the damage you are doing. You only have to look back in this talk page and the edit history of the article to see the growing list. HonestGuv 14:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, HonestGuv. I would like to, at this time, refer you back to our previous discussion on this subject. If you can please tell me the nature of the "damage" that I have done I will gladly repair it myself if need be, just point out the factual inaccuracies that need to be fixed. However, I should point out (again) that neither knowledge of the audio market nor commonly held views nor opinion are a suitable criteria for changes to this article, citability is. I am sorry that you feel that I need to be more honest, and if you can point out any lies I will gladly rectify the situation. I, as I always have, welcome any useful discussion on this subject, and invite you to find suitable citations to support the changes you wish to see in this article. ASH1977LAW 15:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This is of course why Wiki will fail to become anything more than a geek's toy. Any editor with limitless time and a particular POV can repeatedly edit an article while gaming the rules, in order to promote his viewpoint. We can't find cites that say Bose does not produce high end audio, partly because Bose's litigous nature makes it unwise to print such things, as in the example above. Similarly, Bose gear is not reviewed in magazines that specialise in high end audio, for the same reason that Yugos do not appear in sportscar magazines. Note that most of the cites in the article are from magazines/sites with no history or technical interest in audio. In fact almost overwhelmingly they are general interest or business related magazines. I wonder if that is a clue? Greglocock 01:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree! Many people who criticize Bose on web pages do so anonymously. I've seen people use anonymous remailers when writing scathing reviews.66.19.66.81 22:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I find it appalling that "knowledge of the audio market nor commonly held views nor opinion" are not accepted in wikipedia. What is accepted then? Marketing speech by Bose that says that their product is high-end? Biased reviewer of magazines that obviously have to favour certain products in order to keep the samples coming in? (unsigned comment)

Of course knowledge about the subject of the article is accepted by everybody trying to write a neutral article for wikipedia and determining what is neutral is worked out by honest discussion in talk pages. What is interesting is when someone with a biased view is prepared to ignore discussion and work hard as is the case at present with this article. Good people then leave or do not contribute because their work will get mangled/deleted. What to do about this is by far and away Wikipedia's biggest current problem. Now they have got the world's attention how do they stop a usenet-type collapse in quality? I do not know the answer but if there is one I suspect it has got far more to do with channelling people such as ASH1977LAW into making positive rather than negative contributions than it has to do with making "experts" contribute which seems to be the focus of much of the current noise/discussion/forking. For example, it would have been far easier for ASH1977LAW to have read up on audio market sectors and found out what high-end audio actually means than for him to compose his many responses on this page. But how do you redirect his focus to the subject of the article? Rivertorch above patiently listed 8 reasons why the Bose brand was not in the high-end audio sector and the responses by ASH1977LAW probably tell you all you need to know about the wisdom of trying to use reason. Here is something not unrelated: Wikipedia:Astronomer_vs_Amateur HonestGuv 15:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Astronomer_vs_Amateur is of course unrelated, yet highly amusing. I am providing citations from reliable and citable sources saying that 'supposition A' is true. Other editors are saying that 'supposition A' is infact false, but are unable to provide citations for this. channelling people such as ASH1977LAW into making positive rather than negative contributions if you could point out these negative contributions I will be greatly enlightened. As for the discussion between rivertorch and myself I felt that it was both adult, useful, and informative... and above all reasoned. We presented our viewpoints to each other and discussed them, refuting each others points until a concensus was reached. ASH1977LAW 16:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible that you believe your last 2 sentences? It struck me as odd when you referred people to the earlier sections where they would see dialogue like that between yourself and rivertorch. I wonder. HonestGuv 20:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

HonestGuv, it appears we are working with different definitions of 'reason', 'damage', 'negative contribution' and 'dishonesty'. I will outline where I beleive we differ, so as to better aid future communication. You appear to be defining "reason" as agreeing with your point of view. You appear to define 'damage', 'dishonesty' and 'negative contribution' as an edit that dosn't agree with your point of view. I have asked you (repeatendly) to tell me how I have been 'dishonest', how I have 'damaged' the article with 'negative contribution' and where I have been 'unreasonable' but so far you have not and have continued to use these quite confusing terms. Perthaps you could help me out: I am, afterall, a bear of very little brain... maybe I am being monumentally stupid (as I so often am) and am entirely misreading what you are trying to express, and if this is indeed the case I invite you to please enlighten me. Once again I invite you to find suitable citation for the changes that you wish to see in this article. ASH1977LAW 09:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I explained and then clarified in our first dialogue why people are no longer engaging in reasoned discussion with you. Almost everybody reading your dialogue with rivertorch (and others) will reach the same conclusions and they bear no resemblance to what you claim earlier in this branch of the thread. People can reason for themselves and your responses to someone with the patience of Joab (rivertorch not me) explaining why the Bose brand is not in the high-end audio sector clearly mark you down as a "crank". At some point other editors are almost sure to take action against you for Wikipedia:disruptive_editing. If you do not want this to happen then get educated and repair the damage. For example, learn about the audio market and Bose's position in it, listen to people and debate in an honest manner if you disagree, find out how to use citations and stop deleting other peoples work when you are unfamiliar with the subject. HonestGuv 15:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah - Wikipedia:disruptive_editing. I think you are somewhat confused on this point, so I have pasted the following text Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness. However, that very openness sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site as a mouthpiece for viewpoints that constitute original research. While notable minority opinions are welcome when attributable to reliable sources, and normal editors occasionally make mistakes, sometimes a Wikipedia editor creates long-term problems by persistently editing a page with information which is not attributable to reliable sources.. I have made edits attributable to reliable sources representing a majority point-of-view. You again use those terms "damage" and "honesty". To (mis)quote Inigo Montoya "you keep using those words... I do not think they mean what you think they mean". Hmm... I'd advise you to look up the following: on the top of this edit page: Wikipedia:Civility Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks Wikipedia:No_original_research Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and Wikipedia:Verifiability before continuing with this discussion, as it appears that we are getting nowhere fast. I'd also advise you to (as you say) find out how to use citations, and again invite you to find suitable citations for the changes that you wish to see in this article.ASH1977LAW 16:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If opinions of Bose so-called high-end target market (audiophiles) are not accepted, then they shouldn't be calling themselves a high-end system producer!

The strong anti-Bose view in the high-end audio market is a relevant point that should be in the article. If you look in the history you will see it has been made several times in the past. Bose marketing, just like pretty much every other companies marketing, makes all sorts of vague postive sounding noises and I am sure "high end" will be in there somewhere. Unfortunately, "high-end audio" has a clearly understood meaning in defining one of 3 identifiable audio market sectors: consumer, professional and high-end(audiophile). There is no debate about which sector contains the Bose brand and many of the facts contained in the article such as the volume of sales and the names of Bose's competitors unambiguously identify the sector. HonestGuv 15:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The strong anti-Bose view in the high-end audio market is a relevant point that should be in the article. I agree with this statement, however due to lack of citation it has several times been added to the article and then removed. I have even added it myself only to have it later (rightly) edited out due to lack of suitable citable sources. I would like to see it added in with suitable citations if any can be found, but so far none have been found that meet wikipedia standards (those found tend to be links to uncitable forums or blogs). There is no debate about which sector contains the Bose brand and many of the facts contained in the article such as the volume of sales and the names of Bose's competitors unambiguously identify the sector I agree with this statement but not with your intended meaning. We have seven seperate citations for Bose producing high-end systems, therefore I agree that there is no debate (or at least should be no debate). "high-end audio" has a clearly understood meaning in defining one of 3 identifiable audio market sectors: consumer, professional and high-end(audiophile). I'm not sure I agree with this statement, particually "high-end(audiophile)" ... from wikipedia the definition mentions that Owners of high-end audio are either audiophiles or conspicuous consumers and Audiophiles run the gamut from budget to high-end in terms of equipment price range and are primarily concerned with the quality of music reproduction (accuracy with personal preferences). I do not beleive that audiophile equipment is nesicarily always high-end nor that high-end equipment is always nesicarily audiophile equipment. It is possible that an audiophile would choose to purchase Bose equipment however, if he decided that it met his needs and personal preferences in audio. I think that you are confusing two different terms - high-end and audiophileASH1977LAW 16:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have no knowledge of the main audio sectors (general knowledge that almost everybody with an interest in audio equipment possesses) why do you have contempt for those that come to this article and try to share that knowledge with you? Didn't you think it odd that the high-end audio wikipedia page did not contain the name Bose given that everybody who had ever contributed to the page must have been familiar with the products of the company given its large market share? Or do you simply not see these big red flags that would lead most people to question whether they might have got hold of the wrong end of the stick? HonestGuv 20:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you think it odd that the high-end audio wikipedia page did not contain the name Bose given that everybody who had ever contributed to the page must have been familiar with the products of the company given its large market share? Or do you simply not see these big red flags that would lead most people to question whether they might have got hold of the wrong end of the stick? I myself added Bose to the high-end audio page over a month ago. Since then over 20 editors have made edits to the page. None of these 20 editors, presuably (as you point out) all with knowledge of high-end audio, have seen a problem with Bose being described in such a way. By your own logic, surely this is a big red flag that your point of view may indeed be in a minority. ASH1977LAW 09:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My appologies. Checking on the high-end audio history of edits it appearsa that not all editors feel that bose is a high-end audio company, and there have been multiple edits and reverts (mainly because the edits were POV and unsupported by fact). ASH1977LAW 10:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Normally I would judge that I have no need to respond to a point like this because it is too weak and I am confident that most readers can see that for themselves. I am spelling this out because I have a strong suspicion that you believe that because people have not been responding your last post has therefore in some way won. HonestGuv 15:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Win? I wasn't aware that this is a contest. I have no wish to win, just to see a fair and balanced article with both the majority (bose is high end) and minority (bose isn't high-end) points of view fairly represented, which they currently are in the opinions section. I would invite you to read up on Wikipedia:Concensus and I once again invite you to find suitable citations for the changes that you wish to see made to the article. ASH1977LAW 16:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There is only you stating that Bose is in the high-end audio sector. How many people have either deleted it in the main text or told you it is wrong and stated why on these talk pages? Nobody reading this page will have any doubt about the majority view. Given this, I was trying to understand why you seemed to think people agreed with you and one possibility, supported by your statement about the outcome of your exchange with rivertorch, was that you may be misunderstanding the meaning of having the last post. HonestGuv 18:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There is only you stating that Bose is in the high-end audio sector. Please see the seven seperate citations from reliable sources in the article. I would invite you to read up on Wikipedia:Concensus and I once more invite you to find suitable citations for the changes that you wish to see made to the article. ASH1977LAW 18:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It all comes down to the credibility of citations. Wales has decided that verifiability is more important than truth, experience or authority. OK, it's his playground, he (pretty much) makes the rules. So... let's try and find a reference to Bose as a manufacturer of high end audio in a /credible/ audio magazine. Not Forbes, or a computer mag, or PopSci, but a real audio mag. FWIW Bose do make one piece of good gear... but it ain't high end audio. Greglocock 13:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I will take the time to answer your points as fully as I can here. In order to make my reply as clear as possible I will give each section of my reply a title in bold. Also, my spellchecker is down at the moment, so please overlook any obvious missplleings that I havn’t noticed. (unsigned comment)

Reviews Similarly, Bose gear is not reviewed in magazines that specialise in high end audio, for the same reason that Yugos do not appear in sportscar magazines. This is an interesting statement. Let us, as an example, take two very different makes of car: TVR and Ferrari. You will find TVR reviewed in a lot of special-interest magasines aimed at sports-cars owners. Ferrari, however, tends to be reviewed in glossy Sunday supliments. Less people own TVRs than own Ferraris. However, this does not make Ferrari a consumer automobile sector car nor of lesser quality than the TVR make. All the above tells us is that the magasines are written for a target audience who are most likely to be interested in reading about TVRs, and that more people own Ferraris; however it tells us nothing at all about the comparitive quality of the two makes of car. In a similar way audiophile magasines review systems that appeal to the type of people who purchase audiophile magasines. (unsigned comment)

Citaions Note that most of the cites in the article are from magazines/sites with no history or technical interest in audio. In fact almost overwhelmingly they are general interest or business related magazines. Again, a quite interesting statement. Let us take the citations one at a time. C|Net reviews high-tech products. The Register is a technology news site aiming to provide objective content. Forbes bills itself as "Home Page For The World's Business Leaders" and is the most widely visited business web site. It features in-depth coverage of current business and financial events and of high-end lifestyle. WetFeet is a job site, and describes Bose as “arguably the number-one manufacturer of high-end audio equipment, with sales accounting for 25 percent of the world market.”, so whilst it is unqualified to comment on and review individual products it is qualified to talk about the company itself. Popular Science is a reputable magazine (with a 135 year history!) with a focus on science and technology. PCMag.com is the name for the online part of PC Magazine provides reviews and previews of the latest hardware and software for the information technology professional. Note that PCMag has only reviewed systems that are applicable to it’s target audience (the iPod docking station and the multimedia computer speakers). Also it is important to note that one reviewer (also from PCMag.com) states that Bose is a company that produces high-end products and the other reviewer says that while most people view Bose as a producer of high-end products, that “audio-snobs” are unlikely to hold that view. Flyingmag is aimed at pilots and has reviewed the aviation headsets. So, to recap:

Three publications reviewing high-technology products and the latest technology hardware and software

A high-end lifestyle publication

A site reviewing buisinesses

A highly respected science and technology magasine with over 100 years of publication history

A publication aimed at pilots which reviewed the aviation headsets

… all have said that Bose is a producer of high-end audio products. All are qualified to speak on the subject and are respected and well known in their respective fields. All are excellent citations for Bose being a producer of High-End audio systems. We have seven separate and dissimilar, highly respected and trustworthy sources saying the same thing. I think it is fair to say that Bose is indeed a producer of high-end audio. Your objection seems to be (and please correct me if I am wrong, I do not want to put words into your mouth) that Bose can not be a high-end system if it is not reviewed in certain specialist magasines. Firstly, a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet… if no one from Rose Fanciers Monthly reviewed roses as smelling nice it would not change their smell. Secondly, these specialist magasines are targeted at a particular audience, and it would seem that this audience has no interest in Bose, therefore a review would be wasting collumn inches on something that their audience has no interest in. Thirdly, as you yourself say, it is unwise to rely upon reviews in publications that “obviously have to favour certain products in order to keep the samples coming in”.

Audiophile views. If opinions of Bose so-called high-end target market (audiophiles) are not accepted, then they shouldn't be calling themselves a high-end system producer! This is quite an interesting viewpoint. Firstly, I do not believe that Bose produce systems that apeal to people who self-identify as audiophiles (though there is no citation for this). I think you are confusing systems-that-appeal-to-those-that-call-themselves-audiophiles with high-end audio. There is an overlap between the two but one does not necisarily equate to the other, much like sports-car and luxury-car overlap but one does not necisarily equate to the other. However, saying this, given audiophile philosophy I believe that Bose’s design philosophy is audiophile design philosophy (see the article on ‘audiophile’). I realise that you are unlikely to agree with the immidiately preceeding statement and some of the other statemenbts in this section, and as I lack citations I guess this is something that we must agree to disagree on. What is undisputable however, is that the views of audiophiles count for absolutely nothing on wikipedia. Your views are totally and utterly worthless (please do not take offence: MY views are equally and precisely as worthless as yours). Viewpoint, opinion, personal knowledge, original research and experience are all equally invalid (no matter who holds them) unless backed up by citation from a worthwhile source.

Opinion vs Citation. I find it appalling that "knowledge of the audio market nor commonly held views nor opinion" are not accepted in wikipedia. Let us take, as a hypothetical example, ice-cream. Three editors (Alpha, Bravo, and Charlie) are editing the article on ice-cream. Alpha edits it to say that strawberry is the best ice-cream flavour. Bravo contends that mint-chock-chip is the best flavour and makes an apropriate edit. Alpha reverts Bravo’s edit, and cites his own personal experience of both mint-chock-chip and strawberry. Bravo reverts it back citing his professional opinion as an ice-cream manufactuer. Alpha reverts it back, citing a forum on ice-cream flavors and the fact that mint-choc-chip makes him feel ill. Bravo reverts it again citing his professional opinion (again) and appeals to ‘common knowledge’. Alpha reverts it back pointing out that mint-chock-chip has never appeared on the top-ten list of flavours published in a special-interest magasine with comparatively low circulation, therefore strawberry is the best. Charlie does the research and edits the article to show that vanilla is the most widely produced flavour of ice-cream worldwide and provides suitable citations from respeciable and widely published publications. The opinions (professional or otherwise) together with qualifications (real or imagined) of Alpha, Bravo, and indeed Charlie are equally worthless. It is by citation that the reliability and verifiablilty of articles in wikipedia is maintained.

I hope that this has been helpful to you and I look forward to the results of your search to find a reference to Bose as a manufacturer of high end audio in a /credible/ audio magazine to add to the seven already excellent citations in the article. ASH1977LAW 10:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for making my point for me. Incidentally your analysis of the car comparison is completely faulty. Read what I wrote, and answer that. I did not say that the appearance of a product in a general interest magazine makes it non high end, I said that the absence of a product from any high end audio magazine is certainly a strong indicator that it is not high end audio. If you spent more time thinking ,and less time writing, we would all appreciate it.Greglocock 23:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am confused, perhaps you could help? Read what I wrote, and answer that. Could you please state the question that you need answering? If you spent more time thinking ,and less time writing, we would all appreciate it. I shall try therefore to keep this reply brief: there are seven excellent citations in the article for Bose being 'high-end'. ASH1977LAW 08:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You are claiming to be confused because you are being obtuse. If you are naturally obtuse, then there is no point in explaining, and if you are deliberately being obtuse, then there is no point in explaining. Quit your windy verbiage, read, and try and understand what other people write. And quit being obtuse. Or not, as you like. Greglocock 11:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've looked through this article in more depth, and the "high-end" description really needs to go for several reasons. First, "high end" is not descriptive or informative; as I said below, this sounds like marketing fluff, not an encyclopedia entry. Second, while I respect that sources are cited, none of these sources are those that make a practice to review or evaluate "high-end audio equipment" as that term is commonly understood; most of them have no solid reputation for reviewing audio equipment on any objective basis. Even given the benefit of the doubt, all of them use the term "high end" as a synonym for "expensive," and make no attempt to give a qualitative evaluation of Bose's product line or reputation in the industry.

There needs to be a judgment on this by someone with the authority to make a final call. But, I'll close by stating two facts. First, Bose is, in fact, not well thought of by any group by anyone with more than a passing interest in home audio. Even the most cursory search at Home Theater Forum, AVSForum, Audioholics, etc. will bear this out. I realize that the form of these sources may not meet Wiki standards (although they're at least as good in substance as several of the supporting citations in this article), but that's not the point; the point is that they are places where those with interests in "high-end audio" gather, and where Bose is not well respected. Second, this sort of thing is exactly the reason why Wikipedia gets a bad rap. This article is not neutral and simply does not reflect reality or the facts as they exist in the real world.

Finally, that Bose does not make "high end" audio equipment is not a value judgment; it doesn't mean that it's a bad company, that it makes bad products, or that it's run by bad people. Toyotas and Hondas aren't "high-end" cars, but they're still good cars. I really don't see the insistence, ASH1977LAW, on call black "white" and up "down."Jedgeco 00:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"First, Bose is, in fact, not well thought of by any group by anyone with more than a passing interest in home audio" ... " Second, this sort of thing is exactly the reason why Wikipedia gets a bad rap. This article is not neutral and simply does not reflect reality or the facts as they exist in the real world."... These are opinions, points of view, not citable facts. The most widespread opinion 'in the real world' seems to be that Bose systems are High-End, and there are citations for this. As a compromise position between Bose IS and Bose ISN'T I've put in a 'see below' link to the opinions section where it is stated that Bose is widely regarded as a producer of high-end systems (with citations) and that Audiophile forums are full of people who do not like Bose. If you can find additional citations to help balance this article it would be appreciated, and a fresh pair of eyes are always welcome. ASH1977LAW 10:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Leslie Shapiro is an audio engineer specializing in the post-production of sound for video and film. She also has numerous music album credits and is a voting Grammy member. She is a freelance technical writer and consultant for for Sound & Vision Magazine, Consumer Guide, Mobile Entertainment Magazine, America Online, and CrutchfieldAdvisor.com. [1]

[2]As we can see here she is a serious audio journalist who was impressed by the Bose system. This puts paid to the constant "If you are even remotely serious about audio you will hate Bose" statements. Quite simply put the statement First, Bose is, in fact, not well thought of by anyone with more than a passing interest in home audio is not factually correct. ASH1977LAW 14:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That people with a serious interest in home audio hold such opinions about Bose is a fact. Go to any place where audiophiles or home theater-philes gather and ask the question. Go to any "high end" audio store that specializes in speakers (i.e., not big-box retailers) and ask their opinion. Responses will range from "OK but underperform for the money" to outright hostility. Their views are opinions (as are the views of the reviewers you have cited); that it is the widely held opinion is a fact. As to your citations regarding Leslie Shapiro, you only prove my point. Sound & Vision, Consumer Guide, Moblie Entertainment, and America Online are all consumer-oriented publications, not audiophile/muscian/technical/sound professional publications. The reviewer's standards are going to be different depending on the forum. Moreover, you link to what she's writing at Crutchfield -- a retail outlet that is actively selling Bose products; such opinions, whether correct or incorrect, are marketing, and should be given no authority in an encyclopedia.

Our discussion has moved into the question of reliability, and I do not think your sources are reliable for the propositions that you are using them to support.

Ultimately, using the phrase "high end" does not make this a better article. It's non descriptive, subject to abuse and misunderstaning, and as stated above, seems to spring from a desire to market rather than convey facts. Indeed, by using it repeatedly, methinks you doth protest too much. Jedgeco 20:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

High-end: arbitration?

It is obvious that the current discussion is going no where fast and is not helping any of us actually improve the article. As I have been accused of damaging the article, being dishonest and making negative contributions as well as of making disruptive edits I feel that it is time to take a deep breath, step back and seek help for all concerned. I have today posted at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts to get outside disinterested parties comments, as the first step in a possible resolution. ASH1977LAW 17:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm coming into this discussion from Wikipedia:Third opinion. Here's my take on the issue. First I'll address the issue itself and then the controversy about verifiability and sources. My apologies if anything seems redundant.

• First, I think one main problem is that there is no precise definition of "high-end" on Wikipedia---and there may be no precise definition anywhere. This is really a problem to be addressed first on the high end audio page, which gives indicators as to what high-end should be, but doesn't give a clear-cut definition. In particular, that page doesn't provide a clear way to say that something is not high-end. In my opinion, it is defensible for Wikipedia to make precise definitions and distinctions, for the sake of clarity, where there is no universally accepted precise definition, as long as whenever the Wikipedia definition is used, it is made clear. E.g. something like For the purposes of this article, "high-end" means (insert precise definition here)...see the "other definitions and controversy" section for more information on the definition of "high-end". Maybe that just moves the problem, but maybe it would help clarify things.
• As pointed out above, there may be a useful distinction between "high-end" and "audiophile". That is another topic that could be explored on high end audio. If those terms really are essentially synonymous, maybe another term is needed to describe certain products, e.g. "high-quality", meaning "in the broad consumer sector, but qualitatively better than most such products." Not sure if that would be a description that some of the editors here would apply to Bose.
• Continuing that thought, it would be useful to know what is more important in judging a system as "high-end": (1) Sound/music reproduction quality; (2) the target market; (3) number of units sold (as in, small specialized manufacturers are more likely to be high-end?); (4) price. All of these criteria seem to have come up in the previous discussion. Which criteria are necessary/sufficient for labelling something "high-end"?
• About verifiability and sources: I think that this is a tricky situation and both sides of the argument have merit. ASH1977LAW cites multiple sources using "high-end" to describe Bose, and these sources are generally credible, but not specialist magazines. Others refer to more specialized/expert sources to the contrary, but they seem to be more of a blog nature, hence a bit harder to defend; also they may not explicitly say "Bose is not high-end".
• My impression is that it goes back to an ambiguity in the way people use the term "high-end." The generalist sources seem to be using it in one sense, roughly the "high-quality" I mention above. The specialist sources have a narrower definition, perhaps requiring 3 or 4 of the 4 criteria I mention above. Again, clarification of the meaning(s) of the basic term is crucial.
• As to issues of civility, I didn't read any of the archives, but I found the discussion above to be stretching the bounds of civility. ASH1977LAW clearly has a minority view among the people involved in the discussion, but he (she?) gives citations for his view and is civil, if perhaps verbose (also a failing for me). So accusations of disruption seem unwarranted. -- Spireguy 19:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Spireguy. This third perspective has certainly been helpful. I think that you do indeed have the meat of the matter when you say that the definitions of high end that have been used by different editors have differed. Since so many sources say that Bose is high-end we can not in good faith say that it is not... however, edits to the high end audio may be helpful to clarify that high-end audio equipment and audiophile equipment are seperate terms. I do not beleive that this is something that I and my fellow editors had considered. Perhaps the creation of an audiophile equipment page would be in order, with companies reviewed in these two certain specialist magasines having the is a producer of audiophile equipment added to their pages. It should of course be noted that these specialist magasines have reviewed bose products but have not refered to them as high-end products... but then again they do not often use the term high-end in their reviews often at all. Also it may be helpfull to note that the all of the external links from the high-end audio article mention Bose (with the exception of Stereo|411): pure-hifi.info - Resource site for high-end audio, technology and music groupe, Manufacturer Links Audiophile Manufacturer Links - Extensive quantity of high-end audio manufacturer links The Audio Circuit Information on and user reviews of loudspeakers, headphones, amplifiers, and playback equipment Stereophile Magazine a specialist audiophile publication Avid Listener A directory of hi-fi equipment manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and information resources Enjoy the Music.com - High-end audio equipment & music reviews, show reports, and educational information eCoustics.com - Resource site indexing reviews of high end audio and video gear (and more) from around the web Testing audio fidelity with absolute dynamic range. So clearly most or all of the high-end audio publications and sites (and some audiophile sites) are using a different definition of high-end audio that includes Bose too. Clearly Bose is widely considered to be high-end audio, and so I support your suggestion of the creation of an audiophile equipment page or perhaps a sub-section in the audiophile article itself.ASH1977LAW 07:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Good oh, so we'll carry on as we are. Greglocock 11:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Greglocock, I initiated this dispute resolution process at it's most informal level (3rd opinion & request for comment) in order to resolve the current situation. I feel that Spireguy has had useful things to say. ASH1977LAW 13:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so you didn't get the result you wanted this time. If you want me to be polite to you then you'd better start by being polite to me, by which I mean actually trying to understand the logical arguments I make, rather than posting a zillion paragraphs of waffle. Greglocock 21:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so you didn't get the result you wanted this time. What I want is to see a good article with statements backed up with citation, and an amicible resolution to this dispute. I have always tried to be polite and civil to my fellow editors, but it seems that a lack of communication at some basic level is occouring. I have tried to understand the arguments that you make, but find that most often I can not follow the logic of your arguments, just as it seems that my statements are insufficiently clear for you to understand (and if this last is the case I can only appologise for my lack of clarity). Of course politeness and civility on wikipedia are policies (not options) and it is my hope that all involved in this dispute can adhere to wikipedias policies and cooperate to improve this article.ASH1977LAW 23:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As another outsider, I came away with much the same impression as Spireguy did. I find it dispiriting that the professed audiophiles in discussion appear to have little respect for Wikipedia's processes regarding reliable sources, preferring to attack those processes and those following them. I don't think Bose are so powerful as to completely suppress any reliable sources who would explicitly make the case for them not being a "high-end" audio company, however high-end is defined (and as Spireguy says, this is another area where it's difficult to make an objective call on WP just now). Chris Cunningham 15:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the citation of the obvious important case where Bose most definitely DID suppress criticism in the press have been repeatedly removed from the article, it seems a little unfair to make that statement. FWIW I'm not an audiophile (or at least equipment junkie), my stereo is 20 years old, but I am a professional noise and vibration engineer, and work in a consumer oriented industry, so I read Bose's technical claims with glee. Greglocock 21:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There is now an excellent citation for the legal action you alude to, as well as the dislike that certain sectors of audio-enthusiasts have for Bose (previously the citations were from unsuitable sources if I recall correctly). I should point out that the end desicion in the legal action was that the reviewers had made claims which were (and I must admit my memory on this is shaky at best) somehow incorrect or misleading (as I say, I'd have to look up the exact ruling and the wording) but that it was their right to do so under US law. As to Bose's technical claims, as you have pointed out in the past, they do not publish technical claims just marketing - asking customers to make up their own minds. I look forward to reading through the two documents linked to today and strengthening the article (particually with regards to cold fusion research) and hope that these two new sources of information aid you in making helpful edits also. ASH1977LAW 23:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As to everything else. I would have to agree with Greglocock and ASH1977LAW on both of their points. I do not believe that Bose in general is considered to be makers of High End audio products as a whole. But some of what they do sell is Considered High-End in those particular areas. The SoundDock is considered an High-End iPod speaker system, the Wave is considered to be the Parent of High-End table radios, QuietComforts are considered High-End noise canceling Headphones (and like the Wave Created this market). So what is happening both of you are arguing the same point but from either end of the spectrum. -- UKPhoenix79 02:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

... getting back to your 1st point I still feel that there saying that Bose is High-End is misleading... Maybe saying that Bose has some high end products... or having something that gives it a qualifier before it as to allow people to to know that individual products may be seen as high end. I think that would resolve this issue. -- UKPhoenix79 03:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This however still leaves us with the problem that there are multiple citations for Bose being high-end and these seem to be the majority opinion out there beyond this discussion. If nesicary a seperate citation could be found for each individual product but surely that is going a bit far. Finding a Bose product not described as high-end is going to bew a challenge. The musician systems I have no problem with describing as professional as this seems to be the case (though we'd need citations for this). In order to move this dispute closer to resolution I've got no problem with an expanded opinions section and for the high-end at the begining of the article to link to the opinions section instead of high-end audio and to provide further information in the opinions about Bose section. Is this compromise amenible to everybody concerned? ASH1977LAW 08:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Going to Absolute Sound and searching for a review for Bose yields this http://www.avguide.com/products/product-3785/ but I'm not sure that this is applicable to the current discussion.ASH1977LAW 10:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

damn Greglocock in a way both uk and ash agree with you, one on the high-end the other (below) with lawsuits and all you do is yell at both of them... why are you yelling at both of them and ignoring what they are saying? even during the arbitration they said that ash was civil and you wernt. read what you've said it might surprise you.

AviationX/NASA

The article currently says that the AviationX headset is used on the shuttle. I can find citations for bose headsets being used on the shuttle, but not that it is the AviationX headset. Whilst it's not impossible that this is the case (indeed it is probable that it'sw not the AviationX or the Crewman headset but a 3rd model altogether), does anyone have any solid citations that it is specifically the AviationX model?ASH1977LAW 17:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Little time to search but http://www.bose.com/about/history/index.jsp says Bose is in the space shuttle. I'm sure google can turn up more. -- UKPhoenix79 19:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've spent this morning looking, but I can't find anything more concrete than "Bose headsets" being used in the shuttle. I don't want to remove the section saying that it is the AviationX just yet though, there is no proof that it is or isn't. Frankatca, do you have any information on this?ASH1977LAW 07:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Link to Bose spottings at top of talk

I've removed this. it's original research and doesn't appear to be pertinent to current discussion. Chris Cunningham 15:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that. There was previously a 'Bose spottings' section in the article itself but concensus indicated that it had little to add to the article and was original research so it was removed. This was about a year back if I recall correctly. No one has reinstated it or made a case for doing so on the talk page so the removal of the link is probably the best course of action. ASH1977LAW 16:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Litigation history

UKPhoenix79, I hope you don't mind me splitting your comment into two sections and placing the discussion about the litigation history of Bose here. If so please change it and accept my appologies. ASH1977LAW 08:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

A litigation history is not necessary ALL large international companies have these... Dell, Apple, AMD... just thinking in the PC market. Why are these particular ones significant? The breakup of AT&T into smaller companies in the 1980's was significant. Microsoft v. the United states was significant, Bose vs CEDIA?? If we were to do this Sony, Intel, US Steal, BP, Exxon.... and SOOOO many more pages would be filled with this... I don't think this belongs in the least. UKPhoenix79 02:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the article has been vandalised again by the other Bose fan-boy, removing the 'excellent citation'. So, while you two continue to delete all substantial criticism of Bose even when supported by 'excellent citation's then I shall continue to monitor your editing actions and comment as I see fit. If you two really think that suppressing information is a good idea then I really wonder why you are on wiki at all. Greglocock 02:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

huh? I'm guessing that your talking to me! I actually think that the criticism section needs some work and that calling Bose High end might be stretching it... But if you want to insult me thats saying more about you then it is about myself... Just read why I removed that. Every large company has to deal with court issues especially when protecting copyright or patent issues. How many times did have companies been sued by the Movie industry because they made software that circumvented the copyright protection on a DVD? I just dont think that this is the right course of action. Though I do believe that the opinions section coud be worked on some more to help improve... Any suggestions? -- UKPhoenix79 02:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

ASHLAW has repeatedly claimed that his citations are sufficient proof in themselves that Bose makes high end audio. I disagreed and pointed out that one reason that Bose is not reviewed in high end audio magazines (who would be a more reliable guide as to the acoustic excellence or otherwise) is that Bose's litigous nature has discouraged any serious attempt to review Bose audio products in those magazines. The third party guy came in and pointed out that ASHLAW was at least providing cites, and I pointed out that every time someone posts cites about Bose litigous nature, in order to explain the lack of good cites from high end audio magazines, one of the fan boys removes them. Which you have now done. Incdentally there are plenty of criticism sections and lawsuits on wiki, eg Ford, Apple Corps v. Apple Computer, Firestone and Ford tire controversy, Ford Pinto as ones that I have some interest in. Greglocock 03:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Greglocock, please remain civil and restrain from insulting your fellow editors. UKPhoenix79 has given reasons for his deletion and asked you for suggestions as to how the opinions section could be improved. This is an exact repeat of where we were last year and I think the result is likely to be the same. A quick search over the net shows that all of Bose's direct competitors have sued others for exactly the same reasons, most of them are actually more likely to sue than Bose. Bose is unremakable in this respect. If one of the lawsuits was remarkable in some way or had made national headlines then perhaps it would be worthy of an encyclopedia article. Now, as it happens I don't agree 100% with UKPhoenix on this one and am finding myself (partially) agreeing with you. I think that the Consumer Reports case warrents inclusion on the Opinions about Bose section as it was the reviewers printed opinions about Bose that caused the trial.ASH1977LAW 08:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

And Bose v. CEDIA is a large as say the exploding tires of Firestone? That was a large event one that actually caused the deaths of hundreds of people (more perhapses)! What I am saying is that since there are hundreds of thousand of lawsuits that occur every year in the US alone and the majority of those are corporations that it is silly to create a list for every company out there. If a company like Lloyds of London had that done it could be longer than the actual article itself... heck its been around for over 400 years! I have seen no evidence that Bose is more litigious in nature than any other large corporation... Are there actions so unusual to other corporations? From what I understand protecting intellectual property rights and trademarks are not unusual. -- UKPhoenix79 03:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"deaths of hundreds of people " check the facts, not hysterical claims by lawyers. Simlarly Pinto. How many deaths did the Apple case cause? Greglocock 04:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

you might want to check them yourself it has been estimated that over 250 deaths and more than 3,000 serious injuries resulted from these failures sounds like hundreds to me!

How many deaths did Marbury v. Madison, Holy Trinity Church v. United States, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ... wait didn't an old man get shot by vice president Cheney because of this case? Never mind... Well at least it wasn't a death. But those cases are far above anything a single corporation case and even these don't come close to large cases such as Roe v. Wade or Brown v. Board of Education. No I'm not saying that it has to be these large to make a comment in an article... Wikipedia would be the lesser if it did. I'm saying that cases listed are not outside common business practices and that court cases that match these level of patent protection, copyright infringement, etc. would clutter up every Business page inside of wikipedia. Some limitations need to be in place. -- UKPhoenix79 07:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we are in danger of losing sight of the point here. UKPhoenix79 is indeed right when he says that the cases listed are not outside common business practices and were not particually newsworthy in their time (with the possible exception of the Consumer Reports case).ASH1977LAW 08:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Can someone check both the spelling and the facts of the libel case in question? I've today waded through pages and pages of legal-speak. The end result seems to be that Consumer Reports made a 'mistake' and their review was in error and misleading, but no actual malice was intended and that as such damages for the libel would not be awarded. My spellcheck is still down so if someone could give it a once-over it would be appreciated. ASH1977LAW 12:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC) OK, I've triple-checked the facts both from the court reports and other cases that use this case as precident. Consumer Reports was found to have printed falsehoods and used misleading phrases (in other words Defamation or Libel) and Bose was awarded damages. Later Consumer Reports contested the damages but not the verdict itself, and the Supreme court ruled that there was no evidence of Actual Malice and therefore under their interpretation of the US Constitution no damages should be awarded and the supreme court reversed the descision of the previous court to award damages... but not (as commonly reported on audiophile blogs and sites) the actual libel ruling itself. Since then Consumer Reports have used the no Actual Malice defence in a couple of libel cases bought against them, thus avoiding paying out when they are found to have defamed a company. I'd still like someone to double-check the spelling and grammar though.ASH1977LAW 12:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This discussion still did not make any sense. If there's no actual malice in a case of libel against a public figure/company, there's no libel. Truth is one defense to libel; lack of actual malice is another. To say that Consumer reports libeled the company but there were no damages is not correct; CR did not libel Bose and the statement was not defamatory. I have also deleted the citation that the ruling damaged CR's credibility; as the article cited was published in 1982, before the judgment was reversed by both the Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court (1984), it is not authoritative.Jedgeco 19:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

A public figure who is libeled can not be awarded damages if there is no proof of actual malice. Consumer Reports have used this a couple of times to avoid paying damages after being found guilty of libel. The ruling in this case was that the statements were false and defamitory and whilst libel it was ruled that the Bose corporation was a public figure and that there was no actual malice therefore Bose could not claim damagesASH1977LAW 10:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

ASHLAW, you asked for assistance, and I'm providing it. I'm going to presume you don't frequently read court opinions, because there are several flat-out errors in the article and in your discussion above: 1) Nobody is found "guilty" in a civil case, which a suit for defamation is, the defendant is either "liable" or "not liable"; 2) saying "the final verdict..." is both wrong and grossly misleading. It is wrong because a "verdict" is rendered by a jury; in this case there was no jury trial but a bench trial (i.e., the trial judge is the trier of fact). It is also misleading because the trial court's judgment was reversed by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and the reversal was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court, thus, the trial court's decision was not "final" in any meaningful sense; 3) there is no "Federal Supreme court"; its the United States Supreme Court, or the Supreme Court of the United States ("SCotUS"). The issues are complicated, so I salute you for making a good-faith effort to parse them, but you're wrong.

Moving on to the substance of your claims: The ruling in this case was that the statements were false and defamitory and whilst libel it was ruled that the Bose corporation was a public figure and that there was no actual malice therefore Bose could not claim damages. That there was a finding that the statements were defamatory (i.e., false) is for all intents and purposes irrelevant. Without the required state of mind (actual malice), there is no defamation in a legal sense. Furthermore, look at the 1st Circuit's opinion (which was affirmed by the SCotUS), which very clearly says "CU [Consumers' Union] appeals both the finding of liability and the assessment of damages. We reverse on the issue of liability." 692 F.2d 189, 191 (1st Cir. 1982). See also the 1st Circuit's concluding statement: "Due to our holding on the issue of liability, there is no need for us to review the district court's findings on damages." See also the Supreme Court's opinion affirming the appellate court's opinion: "The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed." I should further point out that the issue for the Supreme Court was not damages, but (a) the standard for reviewing a trial court's finding of actual malice, and (b) whether mere proof of falsity was sufficient to show actual malice.

In short, (1) the court of appeals reversed the trial court's finding on liability (i.e., whether CU was liable for defamation); (2) the SCotUS affirmed. Your characterization of the case is not correct. I have edited my previous edits to try to be more precise, so I would appreciate it if you would not make further edits.Jedgeco 17:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I am reinstating the citation that the ruling damaged CR's credibility; as the judgement was not reversed, just the award for damages ASH1977LAW 10:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

As I've explained above, the trial court's judgment on liability was, in fact, reversed. (1st Circuit Court of Appeals: "CU appeals both the finding of liability and the assessment of damages. We reverse on the issue of liability.")Jedgeco 17:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Incidently, this article reads like a marketing piece rather than an encyclopedia entry. I've skimmed the lengthy debate above. I get that sources are cited, but many of these sources are not in and of themselves neutral or credible sources in the audio market.Jedgeco 19:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree entirely. I suggest you use your fresh eyes, and delete all the unencylopaedic parts, if you have the time. A clean sweep would be a better start IMO. Greglocock 23:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to, but seeing as ASHLAW is going to revert any edits I make, I see little point in putting in the effort. The section on the Consumers Union case, however, was clearly factually and legally incorrect and inaccurate, so I have edited that.

Please assume good faith. Thank you for looking over the Consumers Union section. You have a better grasp of the legal situation than I an are better qualified to edit that section. Thank you for your most helpfull edit. I'm glad to see you being bold and fighting for what is right (and explaining your edits on the talk page). Wikipedia could use more editors like you. Of course I completely disagree with you on the reliability of the citations for 'high-end' and am quite miffed that they have been removed, but then again the world would be a poorer place if everybody agreed about everything. I'm going to leave the article alone for a while to give me time to get un-miffed so I can edit with a clear head. I'll go for a walk in the park, watch a movie or two and then come back to it. I look forward to working together with you to improve the article. ASH1977LAW 11:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed it. Most of the cited 'resources' don't state that Bose sells high end products. For example, the WetFeet one is a job/company description for Bose, most likely written by Bose. The article with the alarm clocks doesn't refer to Bose as 'high end' at all; it only states that Bose used to be the big name in fancy alarm clocks. etc. etc. [User:invrnrv|invrnrv]]

All of the cited sources state that bose is a producer of high-end systems. "The WetFeet one is a job/company description for Bose"... this is correct, infact you might notice that it describes Bose as a producer of high-end audio systems. We have no evidence to suggest that the text of that was produced by Bose. However, I take your point that it is likely (being a recruitment site) to be based upon a text supplied by Bose and is therefore suspect. As such I agree with you that it should stay out. ASH1977LAW 17:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Stereo Speakers

Can someone create the stereo page? I'm sure the 901's can be added with many references. Any one know where to find info about the other older stereo speakers?--64.240.163.221 23:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, good idea. Hmm... I'm not sure though that there is anything (that is citable) that can be added to that page that isn't already on this one. ASH1977LAW 10:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

i'm sure that it can be found. After all they have been making stereo speakers since the 60's. Some info I'm sure can be found in Bose's own website like this one [3].

Wikified?

wikification drive

1. Check if the article is a copyright violation. Done.
2. Check if another article already exists on this subject. Done.
3. Wikify! Make links to other articles, format the lead (first sentence), and arrange section headers as described at Wikipedia:Guide to layout. Done.
4. Articles that have the correct formatting, but are messy should NOT be tagged with the wikify tag. Use cleanup or copyedit instead. Done.
5. Remove the {{wikify}} tag. Done.
6. Enhance your edit summary. -/- This is this bit here.

Not in copyright violation, no other duplicate article, links/sectionheaders/etc are fine, article not messy, wikify tag removed. ASH1977LAW 11:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

High end citations

Let us take the citations one at a time. C|Net reviews high-tech products. The Register is a technology news site aiming to provide objective content. Forbes bills itself as "Home Page For The World's Business Leaders" and is the most widely visited business web site. It features in-depth coverage of current business and financial events and of high-end lifestyle. WetFeet is a job site, and describes Bose as “arguably the number-one manufacturer of high-end audio equipment, with sales accounting for 25 percent of the world market.”, so whilst it is unqualified to comment on and review individual products it is qualified to talk about the company itself. Popular Science is a reputable magazine (with a 135 year history!) with a focus on science and technology. PCMag.com is the name for the online part of PC Magazine provides reviews and previews of the latest hardware and software for the information technology professional. Note that PCMag has only reviewed systems that are applicable to it’s target audience (the iPod docking station and the multimedia computer speakers). Also it is important to note that one reviewer (also from PCMag.com) states that Bose is a company that produces high-end products and the other reviewer says that while most people [view Bose as a producer of high-end products, that “audio-snobs” are unlikely to hold that view. Flyingmag is aimed at pilots and has reviewed the aviation headsets. So, to recap: Three publications reviewing high-technology products and the latest technology hardware and software A high-end lifestyle publication A site reviewing buisinesses A highly respected science and technology magasine with over 100 years of publication history A publication aimed at pilots which reviewed the aviation headsets … all have said that Bose is a producer of high-end audio products. All are qualified to speak on the subject and are respected and well known in their respective fields. All are excellent citations for Bose being a producer of High-End audio systems. We have seven separate and dissimilar, highly respected and trustworthy sources saying the same thing. I think it is fair to say that Bose is indeed a producer of high-end audio. I am therefore restoring these citations forthwith. If you care to discuss WHY you consider these citations to be 'low quality' please do so, I am always pleased to listen to well thought out logical arguments. ASH1977LAW 16:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

With some misgivings, I'm going to put my oar in again briefly. I'm not going to mess with the page only to see it reverted, and I don't expect what I say will have any effect at all on your thinking, but I want to say it for the record, particularly for future editors.

Part of the problem here is that we're dealing with two different audiences— WP readers at large and audiophiles/specialty audio enthusiasts (there are a fair number of the latter among the former). The term "high-end" as applied to high-fidelity consumer audio equipment means something rather different than the term as generally applied across the marketplace. Some weeks ago, I described some of the factors that would confer legitimate high-end status on an audio product. (I think those posts are now archived.) In essence, you're saying that those factors are irrelevant. For a general audience, perhaps they are. But when an audiophile reads in an encyclopedia article a suggestion that Bose is a high-end audio brand, he or she is liable to cringe, guffaw, or react in some other way that doesn't speak well of the encyclopedia. Why? Because they find the suggestion completely at odds with our own experience and knowledge. Within the audiophile community, which is decades-old and vast and contains a diverse array of people whose opinions often clash, there long has been near-consensus about Bose speakers, and that consensus isn't a positive one. With the advent of the Web and the proliferation of message boards, discussion groups, and the like, Bose-bashing has become a popular pastime for those with nothing better to do. Mostly, though, within the audio community Bose speakers are simply ignored, considered unworthy of a second glance. For an audiophile to read that they're "high end"—which in audiophile parlance means they're part of a rarified subset of specialty (i.e., non-mass-market) equipment—is simply akin to reading to a gourmet reading that Big Macs constitute elegant dining. And any number of glowing references in Fortune, Business Week, and The New York Times to the tastiness of Big Macs wouldn't mean a thing because, to a gourmet, mass-market publications published for a general audience don't have anything to say about food. Neither, for the audiophile, do Forbes, Popular Science, and C|Net have anything to say about audio.

My suggestion to future editors on this article is to avoid qualifiers such as "high end" entirely because (1) they mean entirely different things to different people, (2) they impart a value judgment and thus are not purely descriptive as befitting an encyclopedia, and (3) they're inherently, irrevocably controversial and needlessly provoke edit wars, resentment, and impasse. I suspect that, as the Bose Corporation continues to diversify and their speakers become even more of an incidental part of their product line, this will all become something of a moot point. Then again, I'm probably being too optimistic. Rivertorch 17:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Rivertorch, thanks for weighing in. I agree entirely, especially w/r/t "high end" not being descriptive. Your point about the company diversifying is also relevant to this discussion: two of it's most popular products are the Wave radio - which is modeled on a clock radio - and their iPod dock system. Neither of these products is pitched to a "high-end" market. Jedgeco 22:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

As it happens I agree (partially) with you Rivertorch. The term 'high-end' means seperate things to two seperate groups of people. I agree 100% that most people who would describe themselves as audiophiles have a different definition of high-end than is commonly accepted [4][5] [6] [7]. You will note that the wikipedia high-end page states that high-end audio equipment is not nesicarily audiophile equipment. 'High-end' is indeed a value judgement - but one should not avoid value judgments where you are saying "X is considered Y by Z (citations for Y considering X to be Z)" wither this being The Simpsons being considered by a particular newspaper to be the funniest show on TV or Daleks being considered scary by children or whatever. Provided there are citations to say who holds this opinion then it is all good. The current article states that Bose is widely considered to be a producer of high-end systems (and provides citations for this) and gives the minority opinions of 'audiophiles' as well, thus describing opinions about Bose in the 'Opinions about Bose' section. As to your 3rd point - yes as we can see the descriptor is controversial, but a subject being controversial amongst editors is no reason to not include it in wikipedia. ASH1977LAW 09:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Jedgeco... there are citations for the Wave radio and iPod dock system being high-end systems (one is a high-end audio system modeled on a clock radio , the other is a high-end iPod dock system). Why do you say Neither of these products is pitched to a "high-end" market and can you give a definition of the high-end market please? ASH1977LAW 09:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

A couple points in response: (1) While I'm loathe to cite WP's article on high end audio (which has it's own problems), one statement does ring true: "High-end audio can refer to the build quality of the components, but more specifically, refers to the ability to reproduce a recording with the highest fidelity to the original performance that has been committed to the recording." I do not see how Bose can possibly meet either standard given that (a) its speaker cones are made out of paper housed in a plastic cabinet and (b) none of the citations you have provided comment on the accuracy of Bose's sound reproduction. Ash, you have repeatedly cited this WP article, but we can objectively say that Bose's build quality is lacking, and you have not shown that Bose can accurately reproduce recorded music.

(2) A definition of the "high-end market" (w/r/t audio equipment) is difficult without resorting to something equally squishy like "the market for products meeting the needs/standards of those interested in high-fidelity audio equipment." As to why I say that neither the Wave radio nor the ipod system is pitched to a high-end market, it's because anyone looking to get high-fidelity sound is going to use a clock radio or an mp3 player to get it. (As RT sums it up nicely below, "[A]nyone laboring under the misapprehension that high fidelity emanates from clock radios has never experienced high fidelity.") While the Wave radio and Bose Ipod system are probably better than a standard GE clock radio or a boombox, they're not playing the same market as a pair of, say, Paradigm or NHT loudspeakers. A clusmy analogy would be that the hamburger at Applebees is better than the one at McDonalds, nobody chooses between either of those and a steak at Peter Lugar's. Furthermore, if you're saying that, for example, the Wave radio is high-end for a clock radio, again, that just demonstrates what an inapt term "high end" is.

(3)I'd sign on almost entirely to Rivertorch's response below almost without reservation. S/he's nailed it in every respect. Furthermore, Ash, I think that you sum up my main objection when you write "Provided there are citations to say who holds this opinion then it is all good." No. The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to "report the controversy" but to reach something approaching an objective lay of the land. I think that this attitude, while I assume in good faith, is gaming the system. Citing a bunch of citations while ignoring Bose's lack of acceptance among actual users of high-fidelity audio equipment destroys any objectivity the article might have.

I've looked extensively at your "high end" citations. None of them give any criteria that they used to asses Bose products as "high end." Several of them are not even evaluating Bose products but instead are profiling company representatives. Typically, the "high end" description is essentially tossed off or stated in dicta. And finally, my running objection, none of them are made by objective parties for whom there is any indication that that party makes it a practice to review high-fidelity audio equipment. (For example, the author of the review from the Register that you cite seems to review primarily cell phones. One of your citiations is to a job search site. I would provide specific objections, but this is getting long winded enough as is.) And as pointed out elsewhere, we cannot simply look at this in a vaccum, ignoring the fact that (a) Bose spends a lot of money advertising in many of the publications you cite, and (b) Bose is a highly litigious company, and the risk of being sued chills speech.

Moving forward, I'd like to make some concerete observations that I hope can move us all forward. First I think that the article should respect the difference between "high end" as it is understood in the consumer/lifestyle market (i.e., as a synonym for expensive and stylish) and "high end" as it is understood in the audio market. Since we are dealing with an article on audio equipment, I feel that the latter understanding should control. Second, as I've said elsewhere, all the references (and cross references) to Bose being "high end" give the reader the distinct feeling that the article is trying too hard to make a case. I would suggest a single reference to Bose making "high-end lifestyle" products, which acknowledges both that Bose aspires to compete in a more expensive market than some other companies and that "high end" is not being used to imply that Bose is or is intended to be an audiophile product. Jedgeco 19:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I really don't know what to say except that I give up. I expected this, so it's not as if I'm surprised. Final thoughts:

Terms such as "audiophile" and "high end" aren't set in stone, but their definitions represent a near-consensus reached many years ago during the growth and flowering of an industry and a culture which have always valued good sound over marketing hype. There has never been anything approaching consensus on how to achieve good sound, and Bose speakers' total lack of acceptance within the high-end community has less to do with their unconventional design priorities or questionable advertising claims or even their build quality (or lack thereof) than it does their sound. If the goal is to accurately reproduce music in the home, there are demonstrably better alternatives at every price point (and at price points beyond, since we're speaking of the high end). At any rate, in the world of consumer audio, high end status has always—above all else—demanded something approaching high fidelity, and anyone laboring under the misapprehension that high fidelity emanates from clock radios has never experienced high fidelity. That used to be their loss alone. Now, through the miracles of the World Wide Web, it is society's loss as they inflict their inexperience (all properly backed by throwaway citations in equally ignorant general-audience publications) on the world at large.

A slavish adherence to the letter of the law (i.e., certain WP rules) rather than its spirit will doom innumerable articles to mediocrity at best. The presence of rules isn't supposed to be a signal to shut off our brains, stow our critical-thinking skills safely away, and revel in our ability to have a pat answer to every objection made to the wrecking of a pretty good article. Citations are no substitute for good writing—something no longer found in the Bose article, which has slipped well below mediocre—and an overabundance of them in an article suggests not only poor writing but also sloppy thinking. More specifically, the mere existence of a statement relating to something isn't sufficient cause to cite it in an article. Due to their advertising priorities, publications of the sort recently referred to as "reputable" are delighted to print fluff pieces gushing over the latest Bose product. Due probably both to fear of legal reprisal and a total lack of interest by both editors and readership, publications specifically dealing with high-end audio—rather relevant in this debate, no?—are silent when it comes to Bose, leaving negative comments largely to discussion boards (where, incidentally, amid the mindless bashing and stupidity, there is occasional evidence of intelligence and critical thinking skills). This imbalance is probably immutable. (As for that legal-reprisal question, it's a bit complex: Bose's behavior in this lawsuit was unprecedented and reprehensible, Consumer Reports wouldn't know sound quality if it came up and bit them on the ass, and jurists are liable to make silly decisions when ruling on technical matters about which they know nothing. Not unlike WP editors, those jurists.) Pax. Rivertorch 16:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an invaluable contribution to the conversation. While I understand your weariness, thanks for taking the time. Jedgeco 19:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree entirely. (Brevity being the soul of wit. )Greglocock 23:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The argument that a product is intrinsically better due to its popularity is argumentum ad populum. A popular book on string theory may outsell a textbook, but the latter contains *much* more information than the former. In the case of some high-end products, they are limited runs and only stocked at a few dealers. A factual statement is that Product X sold 1,000,000 units and Product Y sold 10 units.66.19.69.111 05:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The magazines/sites that Ash1977law is referring to have almost nothing to do with audio. I don't see waterfall plots in Forbes, nor detailed reviews containing descriptions of the drivers and crossover.66.19.69.111 05:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

A Core Issue

In October, 1968, Dr. Amar G. Bose presented a landmark paper, now ancient history, at the 35th annual convention of the Audio Engineering Society, entitled "On the Design, Measurement and Evaluation of Loudspeakers" which discussed what was then a significant issue, and which remains one to this day. In his opening remarks, Bose said:

"At first it may seem rather strange to be disucssing basic problems of design and evaluation of a device that has been in use for many decades and for which analysis and design is discussed in almost every text on applied acoustics. The very fact that engineers are continually striving to improve the loudspeaker would almost naturally imply the existence of a measurment and evaluation criterion by which they meter their progress.

"However, when we look more closely into the problem we find that present measurement techniques fall far short of reaching the goal of complete objective evaluation of speakers. This is not surprising because to obtain a complete set of objective parameters for loudspeaker measurement would require a knowledge of a sufficient set of physical variables and their correlation to hearing to not only characterize all sounds that we can distinguish but to assign a quantitative measure to the magnitude of the difference between these sounds. It is recognized by all serious researchers of the auditory process that this goal is still remote. At present we have, as examples, an approximate notion of what fluctuations in the magnitude of the Fourier spectrum of pressure are detectable on complex signals like speech and music, very limited knowledge about dectable phase variations, and almost no quantitative knowledge concerning the subjective effects of spatial aspects of complex signals incident upon a listener."(AES Preprint #622 (H-3)

In the years since, the picture has apparently changed very little in quantitative terms. The importance of the spatial aspect is now more generally recognized than it was in 1968. Nonetheless, "Hi-Fi" remains largely undefined except for those for whom absolute measurements are paramount, however unrelated they may be to perceptual differences. Frankatca 19:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, so Bose had designed his speakers in accordance with his theories. That is his right. What is wrong is that hardly anybody else who works in the field agrees with him, yet this wiki article assumes, and various editors reinforce, the impression that he is right. Incidentally I find it amusing that links from 2000 are deprecated, yet a link from 1968 is quoted with approval. Almost all serious speaker manufacturers aim at a frequency response without 10 dB holes in them, for obvious reasons. Bose thinks he can get away with it, and after all, he's only had to fool some of the people some of the time, to get rich. And to be honest that quote is wrong - if we didn't understand how the ear responds to sound then how come a 320 kps MP3 sounds so similar to the CD? It's not a happy accident. Greglocock 00:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

editing subjective sentances

"While the company's legal department works primarily to protect the company's many patents and trademarks" how is this relevant are you suggesting that other legal departments don't do this? Is there something special about Bose that this needs to be said?

I'm not sure what you're asking. I deleted this for 2 reasons: 1) it's not verified and unverifiable. Bose is a private corporation, not subject to SEC reporting, so we have no idea what its legal department does; and 2) no, that's generally not what in-house legal departments do; it's work that outside counsel does. Jedgeco 18:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"some past legal actions have caused much criticism." How many all, one? This is subjective to the person and not provable "some past legal actions" "caused much criticism" these are just poorly chosen words and the beginning sentence is not needed in the least. How does these sentences add to this page? Also what is wrong with creating links for the plants the city's are in? It seams like the right thing. Whats wrong with that?

W/r/t to your first 3 sentences, agree entirely, which is why I deleted it. W/r/t to the links, I didn't scroll down enough to see that reverting would delete that, so sorry if I threw some baby out with the bathwater.

My beef is your adding "knowingly" before "false," and "damages" after libel. As I make clear above, the effect of the Supreme Court's (and First Circuit's) holding is not that CR was liable but Bose Corp. couldn't collect damages; the result is that CR was not liable. ("CU [Consumers' Union] appeals both the finding of liability and the assessment of damages. We reverse on the issue of liability." 692 F.2d 189, 191 (1st Cir. 1982).) Furthermore, there is also no such thing as "libel damages." As to "knowingly," a "knowingly" false statement is not the standard for libel against a public figure; the standard is "actual malice."

Also, please have the courtsey of loging in and signing your posts. Jedgeco 18:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

oh never mind I originally removed the first statement and somehow I thought you were adding it back in. Sorry. Didnt care about the other changes. might create an account later.75.80.57.57 19:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

There were suits against Consumer Reports and Speaker Builder, as i recall. The former was about a review, and the latter was after an article on 6th order aligments which apparently violated a US patent.66.19.69.111 05:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

I was hoping that we could get this talk page moved to the talk page of the main article i.e. "Talk:Bose Corporation" instead of being redirected to "Talk:Bose (company)" thanks -- UKPhoenix79 01:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This seems utterly uncontroversial; you should post it at Wikipedia:Requested moves if you've not already. —ptk✰fgs 05:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Already did by the time I posted this on the page, but put notification here anyway since it was requested to do so. I'm glad that there is something that is not controversial for once with this page :-D -- UKPhoenix79 06:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This article has been renamed from Talk:Bose (company) to Talk:Bose Corporation as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 06:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Bias

2nd post retracted. 1st post was deleted due to typographical errors.66.217.165.68 20:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

66.217.163.200, you edited out part of your original post, "One resolved to a small county near Boston, Massachusetts. Another resolved to a netblock used by a few corporations, guess which ones." If this is accurate, please elaborate. If there is evidence that Bose Corp. itself is using this article as marketing, that needs to be dealt with. Jedgeco 17:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sign Comments Please

Unsigned comments are usually one of 3 things:

1. Trolling 2. People who either can't read, or arrogantly think they are above etiquette. 3. People hiding their IP address or Wikipedia nym.66.19.66.81 22:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My view on the ideals of high-end and upper mid-fi

High-end audio boutiques include Overture (Lexington), Cumberland Audio Group and Nicholson's (Nashville), Hi-Fi Buys (Atlanta), and Sound by Singer (NYC). I have *never* seen Bose at any of these, except perhaps HFB. However, they carry a variety of products, and asking about high-end gets you pointed at Apogee, etc, which are thousands of dollars more than Bose.

Stereophile -- rarely reviews Bose The Absolute Sound -- never reviews Bose (TTBOMK)

In addition, direct-reflecting systems are rarely seen in the high end. There are arrays like McIntosh and Genesis. There are front-back bipole systems like Mirage. If the direct-relecting technology were so great, companies would license it from Bose, Mirage, and other patent holders. duh!66.19.66.81 22:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Factual Error

Bose does *not* hold all the patents for acoustic noise cancellation. I know that because I wrote a (non-thesis) paper on it in school. Yet this article has an advertisment tone, e.g. "proprietary technologies" and "world's most accurate calorimeter."66.19.67.88 23:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please -- when you notice garbage like that creeping back into the article -- hit the nearest edit button and take out the trash. —ptk✰fgs 00:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Reference Syntax Fix

I've caught a lot of coding errors, namely in the Reference section of the article. I've seen a LOT of duplicate footreferences in this article that it would make more sense just recoding the references so that we would avoid overciting sources. The article is adequately cited, but the coding needs to be fixed so that links aren't duplicated. Just my 2 cents. 17.255.240.226 01:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Archives

I have created 2 archives today. The first one is a third archive containing general discussions about Bose. The second one has been pooled from all 3 archives where the Intellexual website is discussed. I hope that this will streamline the archives and make it easier to follow discussions, especially about that controversial web site. -- UKPhoenix79 04:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Unsuccessfully HUH?!?!?

"Unsuccessfully sued"?!?!?

Don't you guys think it sounds a bit too wordy? The paragraph which the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals reversed Bose's suit—I honestly feel that "Unsuccessfully sued" sounds a bit too wordy to me. 71.57.74.109 03:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Strange that you focused on shortening one of the shortest sentences in the entire article. A bit of a coincidence given that single word has been a point of contention lately. However, if you'd like to apply more precision to the article, it wouldn't hurt. In the meantime, I'll add that word back in since it helps the reader understand the outcome of the case without having to read the entire paragraph to get there.Mattnad 13:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't look at me, I've stayed away from that for a while now. I think its funny though. I guess I'm not the only one :-) Don't forget, that single word was added very recently. -- UKPhoenix79 18:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply from 71.57.74.109

I'm not going to "see-saw" edit because some people may think that "unsuccessfully" would sound good (but reading the paragraph without the unsuccessfully it should still suffice that the US Supreme Court favored the appeal), but it should be mentioned as being more of a pyrrhic victory since although Bose seems to be confident with their campaign against Consumer Reports, the US Court of Appeals and US Supreme Court appealed in favor of CR since they found no wrongdoing, so it may go either way. But I'm just suggesting the paragraph not to be too wordy but still reflect that the US Supreme Court favored the appeal.

Just my 2 cents. 71.57.74.109 14:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Etymotic and Ultimate Ears

Bose is NOT a competitor of either of the two because of the reason:

• Etymotic and Ultimate Ears makes IEMs (In-Ear Monitors). IEMs are "earplugs" that act as earseals to prevent noise from entering your ear canal through a special earseal isolation process.
• Bose does NOT create IEMs as of this time, instead they only create earbuds and headphones. Sennheiser and Grado would qualify to remain because Bose, Grado, and Sennheiser creates headphones and noise-cancelling headphones, though Grado has no noise-cancelling headphones as I speak.

Unless Bose has a noise isolation "earplug" on the works, then Etymotic and Ultimate Ears shouldn't be considered as competitors because IEMs are different from Headphones and Earbuds. 71.57.74.109 17:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Lack of THX

Like UKPhoenix, I don't think Bose's lack of THX certification is fair as a criticism, but it is evidence that they do not meet high-end specifications for Home Theater. I would think that the article could include this point, just not as a criticism.

Just today I sampled several "high-end" manufacturers of home theater equipment, including Krell, McIntosh Labs, Classe, Pioneer Elite, Carver, Sunfire, Denon, Martin Logan, and a few others. THX certification is always found on the most expensive ($10,000 ) speakers and electronics, but becomes less common as you go down-market, usually below $750.00 for either speakers or electronic components.

The THX certification process is pretty stringent with minimum requirements for dynamic range and fidelity. So while it's not per se a bad thing that Bose does not have THX certification, it raises the basic question of "Why not?" If they are actually competing in a segment of the market that always seeks and has this certification, why don't they bother getting this certification? Given that THX certification is a marketing advantage and communicates quality and performance to the consumer, it's weird that Bose would not seek it out just to be different. Rather, it's evidence that their products cannot be THX certified and suggests in Home Theater (which is what THX is about), they are not "high-end."

At a minimum, we should probably review the list of competitive products given that Bose's Home Theater systems are probably not on par with brands that are THX certified. Thoughts? Mattnad 16:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, I solicit comments on this. And to UK Phoenix, if you have an issue with including on Bose's lack of THX certification in the article, please explain why? Simply reverting is not helpful. Regards. Mattnad (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As stated before by another editor "Not sure the lack of a THX certification qualifies as a fair criticism - after all, there are many great systems without that label" sorry. Lacking THX is not a criticism that is realistic and is nothing that is expected. THX is not a Technology only a test.

If Specific Receiver with this many min & that max using this wire that has a tolerance of a but not b using these speakers that have a dimension of such with decibel ratings of such are placed in this specific sized room with a width height and distance from points 1 through 6 where the speakers mist be placed using specific sized screen with projector that has a luminance of such at a specific distance from the screen you have THX certification.

If one component is not to Specs you do not have THX certification. When you go to a Movie theater that is THX that is great when you have home theater equipment that is THX it means nothing unless everything else including your room is also THX certified. Since A LOT of great High end Audio Equipment do not have THX certification (for good reason) that is not a just criticism. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the distinction isn't about Home Audio but Home Theater. You have misunderstood the point. Furthermore, it's not a criticism (although you seem to take it that way). The comment you have removed was in the section that talks about whom Bose competes with - in the context of home theater, the absence of THX is relevant. It's a fact so why not include it? What is your objection here? Mattnad (talk) 04:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Still doesn't make sense just because you have a system that is THX certified you must have a room that is as well. Not only that it makes it seam that almost all companies that Bose competes against are THX certified when a good portion are not. Not only that have you gone through the list and noted beside each company who does and does not have THX? Is this something so severe that it should be stated on each companies wiki page, or is this something that should be mentioned only on the Bose page? If a company still only did Dolby Pro Logic when everyone out there did Dolby Digital then that would be a notable fact, but this is just not the case. THX is indeed a great marketing tool but in real world situations that is all it is and not really notable for its absence. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's the issue, if Bose is "High-end" in home theater, then it's unique in that they don't have THX certification for ANY of their HT products - not a one. Given how mainstream and pervasive THX is, I don't really think it's a non issue here. Your opinion on the validity of THX in "real world situations" does not negate this fact. Moreover, your opinion on THX is not justification for leaving out a true, and accurate detail in the article. Other editors have introduced the absence of THX - perhaps to broadly in my view which is why I've tried to include it where it makes most sense. I'm putting it back in, as specified, in the home theater section. Mattnad (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestly what the hell, though it may seem that THX should be standard in high-end systems, some manufacturers chose not to deploy THX compliance and for good reason. While I am displeased and agitated about Mattnad's insertion of "non-THX compliance" in this article, keep in mind that a company shouldn't be slammed if they create high-end products without THX. I will have to do an Internet search about this issue, but it may be accreditation issues and/or possible conflicts of interest that Bose might not have chose to make its systems THX-compliant. More in a future message. 71.57.74.109 (talk) 03:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: THX is more like a certifying/accreditation company which caters mainly to filmmakers, game developers, and musicians, but one thing is for sure: it may be possible that either THX chose not to accredit Bose neither Bose chose to obtain THX accreditation. THX requires a certain "quota" to have a certain product and/or idea to be accredited and to state that Bose lacks THX is just WAY OUT of the question, so to make it a bit more neutral it should state that Bose has not sought to accredit its products with THX. Bose has reasons why they chose not to accredit their products with THX--they believe that it would increase the price of the products, as accrediting products with THX accreditation costs money too. So although Bose products might not be THX-accredited, it shouldn't really mean that Bose should be one-handedly slammed for lacking THX certification. 71.57.74.109 (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit commentary: I'm not going to nuke the THX clause but I will have to tone down the language because it sounds a bit too outrageous and a bit too POV. If it is deduced that stating that a Bose product is not THX-accredited turns out to be biased, then action is likely going to be taken. When mentioning that Bose products aren't THX-accredited, it's imperative not to slam Bose's lack of THX accreditation too harsh that a possible flame war might erupt. So, toning down the language so that it doesn't sound too harsh for now!!! 71.57.74.109 (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid coloring this with hyperbolic terms like "outrageous" and "slamming". There's nothing "outrageous" about noting this difference between Bose and other high-end products in the Home Theater (HT) segment. I personally found early inclusions about THX too broad which is why I removed them as well. The sentence was focused on HT, and there THX is a factor. You've muddied the waters a bit by eliminating the context, but what ever floats your boat....

As an aside, I find it interesting that this fact so upsets the similarly voluble Bose defenders. It's fair to say this is one more area that Bose avoids (or fails to meet) third-party testing of their products. I suspect that concern among UKP and the anonymous editor has to do with the dissonance between Bose's so-called "high end" positioning but not having THX when the other expensive, HT brands, do. Is it possible that Bose matches them only in price but not performance? Mattnad (talk) 07:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Rebuttal to Mattnad's comment: Honestly "things" sound more neutral if you just said "X product is NOT THX-certified instead of criticising a premium product for not being THX-certified. From what I can see it appears that you seem to be biased towards THX certification in high-end products. The reason why I toned that statement to "Bose products are not THX-certified" was to state that Bose products have no THX certification on a more neutral tone. Period. Likely action is going to be taken on this clause, but honestly, if you decide that Bose's lack of THX has to stay, it's better to say "X products are not THX-certified" than to deduce THX as being a prerequisite for a high-end product, as not all high-end products are accredited by THX. There could be also some reasons why Bose didn't want to pursue THX accreditation on their products and amongst them could be a possible conflict of interest with their technologies. I'm not being too biased, but holding the fact that not all high-end products are accredited by THX, it would be more neutral to say "X products are NOT THX-certified", don't you think? Think about your bias towards this "THX prerequisite" on the long run. 71.57.74.109 (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm open to learning. If you can find other premium home theater lines that are not THX certified, then present them. When I looked, the non-Bose premium products HT all have it. It's the cheaper lines that don't have THX. So perhaps Bose doesn't want to compete with brands that are THX certified - then we can mention that. You may not agree, but THX is a recognized certification process. Assume all you want about Bose's reasons but it doesn't change this fact. I believe you see this as a criticism because you want Bose to be represented as a premium product in all respects. Unfortunately for Bose, THX is one premium label they don't have and that's interesting and notable. And beyond this, what's the purpose of eliminating any criticism (real or imagined) of Bose's approach to the market. It's out there - are we just a brochure for Bose products? Mattnad (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, and I don't want to argue any further (since this leads to a possible flame war)—should Bose have the guts to certify their products under THX accreditation, then they would have to share their protected patents with other THX-accredited manufactuers, a key reason why Bose refuses to accredit their products under THX—a possible conflict of interest. In fact, you should also see whether or not Bang and Olufsen are accredited with THX as some high-end guys chose not to accredit with THX—as THX requires that you share your technologies and work as a team to improve on other technologies and to somewhat "daisy-chain" all technologies to a point where the sound output is optimized. Bose is NOT limited to the HT market as they compete in multiple markets and that's why to mention THX is highly discouraged. You should look at other manufacturers to see whether or not they also compete outside the HT market as just putting all your eggs in one basket is much like judging a book by its cover. 71.57.74.109 (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If we want to go there we need to list this on ever page out there that does not have THX, we also need to specify that these are one of the few systems out there that self adjust to the rooms acoustics, or that it is among some of the others that have HDMI audio pass through, or comes with heavy gauge wire in the box, that they come standard with radio frequency universal remotes unlike all others listed, and they have smaller sized speakers, or that they are an American made company with phone support in the US not India.... It just gets silly. Either the Lack of THX is a criticisms or it is not because including it in the list of competing companies with the statement that it does not support THX make it seam like a criticism. But even since Bose does not support THX it means very little unless your a movie theater or a recording studio that has built there rooms to THX specifications. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. A pretty high hurdle you've set for this point - if you want to edit every other page out there go for it. But in the meantime, we can still have this point. I also like your idea of mentioning Bose's auto-calibration - that's a helpful and useful fact. I personally don't think we need to go to every single other article on audio equipment to have standardized specification lists (which is hard since Bose doesn't publish measurements like most manufacturers). Bose has set themselves apart from other makers in many ways. THX is one of them. Relax - it's not the end of your world to have it here. Mattnad (talk) 14:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

look its simple this is a criticism so it belongs in the criticism section not the competitor section... if it is an unfair criticism then it doesnt belong in the article.

Is it just me, or does this look like waaaaaaaay too much effort to include a basically innocuous note that Bose doesn't (yet) have THX. It's not that big a deal guys. I love my Bose gear, but not because it's the pinnacle of great sound. They make a great compact and well designed package for smaller spaces. Yep it costs more - and I pay for that because the aesthetics are also important to me (like B&O mentioned above). There's only so much you can do with little speakers - they know it, we know it, and that's OK. To the Bose goal tenders, step back for a second and really see what you're doing here. Bruno23 (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You know why THX certification is a fallacy? If THX was a test that speakers and movies or video games needed to pass in order for the sound to be just as the creator/artist/manufacturer intended, then ALL THX stuff should sound and physically be EXACTLY the same. That does not match with some THX systems being only 2.1, while others are 5.1 or 7.1. Also some of them having small woofers, while others use huge woofers. I have also heard THX systems which either over-exagerate clarity or bass, adding or removing detail depending on how they alter the sound, so in fact all THX systems, even those from the same manufacturer, end up having different sound. I am pretty sure that the original producer or artist either wants their stuff to be heard in stereo mode or surround mode as well (I say this to explain the 2.1 vs 5.1 argument) I am sorry but THX certification is b/s when it comes to hardware. In the software side, I have played THX certified video games with poor surround and sound quality, when paired next to uncertified ones. I can only say that THX certification shines with THX certified movies. Those movies usually have better sound than non-certified ones. But take the Dark Knight for example, it is not THX and sounds amazing. 206.248.68.82 (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Rant from an Anon

THX is NOT exclusive to HT products--certain products outside HT are also eligible for THX accreditation provided that they are willing to share their patents and/or formula with the association. Take computer speakers for example. [8]

Conflict of interest may be a reason why Bose chose not to accredit with THX. I really don't think that THX should be a hard criticism IMO, but other people may think that should be so. So be it—THX shouldn't be limited to just HT products, so see the citation from my rant if you don't believe me. 71.57.74.109 (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thank you for letting us know that Bose is missing this certification in their computer speaker products as well ;-) BTW, you keep bringing up the conflict of interest rationale for Bose not having THX. Where do you get that from? Is this from Bose or your personal guesswork? Mattnad (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I wish not to side with anyone, but if you have time mister, please go to http://www.thx.com. From what I can gather and understand, THX is more of a trade organization which companies have to "share their ideas" and be willing to adhere to the organization's strict technology and/or audio performance standards. Some companies just don't want to share their patents and/or ideas so from my own point-of-view, some firms refuse to accredit themselves with THX. Take Bang and Olufsen for example. The conflict of interest is from my own point-of-view. Trade organizations are a coalition of firms sharing some sort of interest in some sort of industry, in this case, THX is a set of audio firms that share an interest in improving the overall audio performance of the industry. I don't want to go off-topic any further, so further discussions I will have to ensure it stays within the borders of this article. Bose believes that their inventions are for them only, and only for them alone so they exercised the right not to accredit with THX, and some companies also believe that Bose being THX-accredited also creates a conflict of interest to their inventions as well. 71.57.74.109 (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You know why THX certification is a fallacy? If THX was a test that speakers and movies or video games needed to pass in order for the sound to be just as the creator/artist/manufacturer intended, then ALL THX stuff should sound and physically be EXACTLY the same. That does not match with some THX systems being only 2.1, while others are 5.1 or 7.1. Also some of them having small woofers, while others use huge woofers. I have also heard THX systems which either over-exagerate clarity or bass, adding or removing detail depending on how they alter the sound, so in fact all THX systems, even those from the same manufacturer, end up having different sound. I am pretty sure that the original producer or artist either wants their stuff to be heard in stereo mode or surround mode as well (I say this to explain the 2.1 vs 5.1 argument) I am sorry but THX certification is b/s when it comes to hardware. In the software side, I have played THX certified video games with poor surround and sound quality, when paired next to uncertified ones. I can only say that THX certification shines with THX certified movies. Those movies usually have better sound than non-certified ones. But take the Dark Knight for example, it is not THX and sounds amazing. 206.248.68.82 (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Early History

This statement in the current version is somewhat inaccurate: "The principal weakness, in Bose's view, was that the overall design of the electronics and speaker failed to account for psychoacoustics, i.e. the listener is part of the system."

While it is true that Amar Bose eventually came to the belief that consideration of psychoacoustics would improve listener experience, his initial belief as an electrical engineer was that the problem was frequency response. As the third President of Bose Corporation, I have heard Amar Bose explain his slow journey away from the tradtional "linear" electrical engineers view of speaker design to his current more complex view that includes psychoacoustics.

His puzzlement over how speakers that measured well in the lab could sound harsh led him to some years of research in which he slowly came to an understanding that improvements were less a matter of improved frequency response and lower distortion than issues of then little understood psychoacoustics, and in partiuclar the issues of directionality of the higher frequencies in their arrival at the receiving diffraction object, the human head and pinna of the ears. He discusses these issues in some detail in the 1968 Audio Engineering Society paper "On the Design, Measurement and Evaluation of Loudspeakers." Frank E. Ferguson Frankatca (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Mmph...

Stores located in UK airports, and factory outlets discount prices on some products and sell both new and factory renewed (retested open-box) products.

Don't you think this sounds a bit like marketing language guys? Need your feedback on this. Not making radical edits but I would like to get a verdict on your feelings on this. 71.57.74.109 (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit promotional, but not offensive. I suppose we could limit it to mentioning they have retail outlets if there are no objections from other editors. Mattnad (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest trying to tone down the "Retail Store" clause a bit just to simply reflect that Bose owns and operates retail outlets and/or sells its products through authorized third-parties, just to avoid any marketing being imminent. 71.57.74.109 (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why UK airport thing got added recently. So I think that should be removed since its kinda silly, but the rest works for me. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Does anybody know how to pronounce "Bose"? I think it'd be handy to have it in the article, if anybody does know. The Baroness of Morden (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Big clue. It rhymes with "no highs, no lows". Greg Locock (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Or, just say: Bose, like a rose! frankatca Frankatca (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. I added the Pronunciation to the page /buːws/. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 07:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, UKPhoenix79, it is appreciated. The Baroness of Morden (talk) 09:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad you like :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It was a joke with a serious point. Since the original source that cannot be named provides objective proof of the little ditty it can scarcely be claimed to be untrue- bear in mind that for much less than the cost of a court case I could get the frequency response of a Bose system measured by another third party. I agree, the little ditty does imply that the performance of the said speakers is rather inadequate. If repeating that is defamatory, in the USA, I would be most surprised (in the UK, sadly, the same standards do not apply. That is, in the UK a true statement can still be legally defamatory). I also have no hesitation in calling idiots, idiots, and liars, liars, and lying scumbags, lying scumbags. Do you have a problem with that? I hope not. And never, ever, delete my comments without asking me. Greg Locock (talk) 09:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Man you need to mellow out. Please Wikipedia:No personal attacks you have a bad habit of that here. I realized that what you said was a joke and removed it because it can be taken as Defamation and not appropriate on an encyclopedia. so I removed a joke... nothing less... and then you got ticked off and removed my comment.... Kinda hypocritical would you say?

The laws are very similar in both the UK and US (common law) but I don't know what you mean by true statements can still be defamatory, can you elaborate on that since I'm intrigued. That site you mentioned is anything but objective! But if you were to listen to Bose products you'd realize that the saying is actually false in every way. It should be All highs and All lows, since most of them lack good mids. Go and listen to them and see what I mean. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Respectively;I made no personal attack, it was a warning, take it seriously or not as you choose. Since wiki doesn't operate under UK law then there is no defamation (see later). The Talk page is not part of the encyclopaedic article, obviously. I removed your comment precisely because you removed mine. In the UK you can still be successfully sued for libel even if the statement is true. I am lead to believe that in the USA the truth is an adequate defence. The site that cannot be named is not especially objective (few audio magazines are), the measurements made and displayed in that article, are objective, that is they are made with measuring instruments, and do not rely on anybody's opinion. I have listened to various Bose products, over the past 28 years of listening to audio systems - as a result I have never felt even slightly inclined to buy any Bose gear, except their antinoise headphones, which are a decent, albeit expensive, piece of kit. Greg Locock (talk) 10:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The removal was why I said it was hypocritical, and really but basically git off that high hoss? I'll assume that you meant to say get not slyly trying to call me a git (even though I & E are nowhere near each other on keyboards). Your statement that you can be sued for stating a fact in the UK is not showing me cases or articles in wikipedia showing me this fact. According to wikipedia Allowable defenses are justification (the truth of the statement), fair comment (whether statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest). The link you mentioned is NOT from an audio magazine as you claim but from a personal website that CLAIMS that the tests are real & that the testing facilities are authentic. So the data is actually in real question. But I do agree about the headphones and the prices. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

English defamation law"it was no defence that the pamphlet repeated claims already published, or that the defendants believed them to be true " "a large multinational corporation should be allowed to sue for defamation, and need not prove the allegations were false ". Emphasis mine. McDonalds vs a couple of people, in the UK. McDs won. I'm glad I don't live there. If I wanted to call you a git I would have done so. To be honest that is so far down on my spectrum of insults it would be akin to paying you a compliment. Greg Locock (talk) 10:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating thanks for the clarification. Nice that they got a higher court to change those laws (much like the us supreme court). But at least things like that never happens in the US! But please watch your words, they do come off as aggressive even if you did not intend it, and watch your spelling too. Use Mozilla Firefox at least it lets you know if you misspelled something. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 11:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, Phoenix, wouldn't /buːws/ sound more like "booze", or am I misunderstanding the pronunciation somehow? MadCabbit (talk) 08:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL I think your right!!! So I decided to see what Rose would be since it sounds the same. They say rohz, so I guess it should be bohz... Funnny!! Thanks for catching that silly mistake. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 08:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"

Jamo link

The Jamo link re-directs users to a page about the hangul language, not an audio manufacturers page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.107.1 (talk) 09:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I fixed the link and directed it to the companies website. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 09:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Market share and "the lists"

It's been a while since I've looked at this article, and now the market share section stands out to my eye. What's the purpose or value of a long list of company names that Bose may (or may not) compete with? It's actually a little boring to read and seems arbitrary - especially because it's just business names. In the spirit of brevity and focus, might we eliminate these lists? I haven't seen similar lists with name only for other product-oriented articles. Comments? Mattnad (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me. Anybody know of a reason to keep it? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. I moved the "In 2006 Bose ranked second in Home Audio retail, behind Sony (based on retail point-of-sale data for the period of January through October, 2006)." to the intro paragraph since it's high level and relevant. Mattnad (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Along the same lines, the statement "100 percent of its profits are reinvested back into the company" is no longer supported by the reference given (may or may not be true). --Garagefloor (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That page still supports the statement (look carefully), but in reality it's meaningless. They don't explain how they calculate their profits. For instance, the owners, who are also active in management, could give themselves large bonuses which are expensed before net profits are calculated. Likewise, they could choose to issue dividends to their investors and then calculate the final profit after all of that. Mattnad (talk) 10:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I see the statement (now), but since it can not really be proved and sounds more of a marking line than a bonafide fact, I think it could be removed.--Garagefloor (talk) 03:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. Go for it. You make a good point. Bose is using that statement as a proof-point of their commitment to R&D, so it's part of their positioning. Since they are a private business, there is no way to verify what that really means. Mattnad (talk) 10:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ad tags

I have added ad tags to two sections which read like straight lifts from Boses website. In particular the first semntnece on the L1 section adds no information, just blurb. Greglocock (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok I'll have to work on that a bit later. I have put up the correct tags for the section. -- Phoenix (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added the same tag to the "research" section. Looks like someone copied directly from a marketing piece. Shamwatch (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I RV'd the last one since its actually taken from interviews like this and this. Also what would they be selling? -- Phoenix (talk) 06:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes people really should stop editing your page. To point out the blindingly obvious many adverts consist of quotes. The article is promoting Boses technical credibility, which is very similar to how Bose bamboozles the general public. That's what it is selling. Greglocock (talk) 07:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that an article about an audio company should not cover how they got started or the first product that was publicly sold? And please assume good faith and keep this civil. -- Phoenix (talk) 08:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

AGF has to be earned for serial offenders. CIV is not a policy I have much belief in, mainly because as Einstein said, there are only two things that are infinite, the universe, and the stupidity of wikipedia. He wasn't so sure about the first. This article would be far more encyclopaedic if it really attempted to maintain a balanced view rather than being largely a glowing reproduction of publicity material from bose. Greglocock (talk) 10:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

So you WP:Assume bad faith? If you check my record you will see that I am actually a good editor so please don't let disagreements over personal preferences get in the way. What if this was an Apple or a Porsche 911 article? It would have quotes from the creators from numerous interviews over the origins of their first and most famous products. Its obvious that you were going for a joke, but just for fun I think that I will give the correct quote Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Of course you could have always gone with the obvious P.T Barnum quote, but I think that we will agree thats a bit overplayed. -- Phoenix (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not journalistic: "Although these speaker systems accurately emulated the characteristics of a simulated, massless, ideal, spherical membrane" It would be (barely) if this was added: "Bose says..." This section is written as gospel. Even if taken from other sources, these interviews were obviously massaged by Bose PR. Shamwatch (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That is regarding a product that utterly FAILED, how is that an ad? When you read interviews on any product development, those that created them are happy to explain what they did and the logic behind its creation. The Apple Lisa or the Ford Pinto are great examples of failed products. They had sound reasoning for developing the products the ways they did, and there were very good reasons that they failed, just ask those that created them. -- Phoenix (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) I think the whole research section has issues with PR speak and jargon. Probably not to the level that requires tagging, but it does read like it was drawn from a PR/marketing history. Here's an example "Before hearing his new design for the first time, although confident that his new design would produce a dominance of reflected sound arriving at the ear of the listener, faithfully replicating that aspect of a "live" listening experience, Amar Bose was unsure as to whether his new "direct/reflected" design would be a small audible improvement or a large one over his earlier design and the best commercially available loudspeakers." This is not even cited, but I'd guess it came partly from a brochure. Mattnad (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Amar Bose has given many talks in which he recounts his slow journey from mathematician and confident electrical engineer to a much humbled audio designer. During these lectures (and in the two-part article that appeared in the MIT Technology Review, August 1973, "Sound Recording and Reproduction" Part-II) he provides a detailed discussion of his slow recognition that the spatial properties of sound play a significant part in the perceived quality of sound, a psychoacoutic factor not portrayed by the linear measurements made by electrical engineers in the lab. The first commercial speaker Amar Bose designed was the model 2201, an eighth of sphere with 22 small speakers deployed over the surface. Bose cites in the AES paper listed above the experiment in which listeners were unable to accurately discern the sound from that eighth-sphere design from the same musical selections played computationally by a pulsating, massless, spherical membrane. However, in reality, the 2201 speakers were perceived to be "harsh" in home listening. And that failure led to further research during which it became apparent that the radiated high frequencies were highly directional in their arrival at the listeners ears from the 2201, unlike the omnidirectionality (in their angle of arrival at the pinna of the listener's ear) of the high frequencies in most live performances. The first mock-up of his second speaker, the model 901, with 8 drivers facing the rear wall and one facing forward, assured that the high frequencies would be more omnidirectional. What was not clear was whether that simple change would make a significant difference in perceived quality. Most early listeners of the 901 did perceive the ambiance and quality as significantly different, and for most who heard them, superior. Frankatca (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Specifications ?

Currently BOSE advertising does not contain specifications of their products. No distortion, No Separation, No Watts RMS. Why not? Because it's only BOSE Sound. Not Bose audio, or Bose HiFi. If they were to become a Stereo / Hi-Fi company they would have to list their Specs. Also Hi-Fi/ Stereo manufactures have product reviews done buy Audio Publications. Publications that ask the manufacturer for a review product, generally at an Audio Show and only after a favorable first impression. Bose uses Gadget magazines and News publications that want Bose advertizing revenue, so a favorable review is in the publications best interest.76.69.94.14 (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Distribution .

In Canada, Bose is distributed by Appliance Canada. Audio companies sell directly to Audio / Home theatre stores, or use Audio distributors to market their wares.76.69.94.14 (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

unscientific nonsense

..."as well as the fact that they cannot reproduce a large portion of the audible spectrum."

This is unscientific nonsense. You could argue that it is appropriate for an article advertising a product that relies on technobabble and an easily swayed audience, but the idea ultimately is to tell the truth and expose bogus reasoning, not encourage it. Oh and while we're quoting WP policies, WP:OWN might provide some gentle amusement. Now, obviously you aren't going to get an RS that slams Bose products, the upside is tiny, the downside is a lawyer's paradise. They don't really need to, nobody dies if they buy a poorly constructed piece of gear for an inflated price because the salesman told them it was good. It's a luxury purchase, if you choose to spend your hard-earned cash sending someone else's children to uni, that is your right. Greglocock (talk) 03:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok so I removed this comment saying that I wanted to keep talk page civil. Please WP:Assume good faith So you reverted that saying that I was wikilawyering. I am sorry if you Disagree with 3 different editors, two of which I dont believe have ever edited on this page before, but there is no reason to be uncivil. The reliable source policies on wikipedia are actually a good idea and one that you have championed on other articles I am sure. And your lawyers excuse is very flimsy as our previous conversations have shown. So please be civil and dont try to start arguments for no reason :-( -- Phoenix (talk) 04:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Article format: lead section

I have twice removed bits from the lead section which are not reflected in the article body; specifically about how Bose equipment can be found at this or that well-respected place. The reasoning I have used (twice) is that the lead section, per WP:LEAD should be a summary of the article, and not introduce ideas that are not in the article body.

Beyond the normal formatting of the lead section, I would also resist putting the removed text into the article body, as there is no need in an encyclopedia article for unencyclopedic connections to these other institutions. An encyclopedia article is one that ought to explain connections, not list them. For instance, which Olympic stadiums have Bose gear? What Bose gear is this that is found there? What about the Panasonic, JBL, Meyer, L'Acoustics, Crown, etc. gear that forms the great majority of sound equipment in those stadia? Binksternet (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok that sounds reasonable. My guess is this should be placed in the history section. -- Phoenix (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

CNET reference

I have pulled out this reference, first because it supported an assertion that Bose made high-end audio gear, and second because it was re-introduced to support the assertion that Bose "specializes in audio equipment", a fact that nobody would ever question.

• http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-7866_7-6218554-1.html C|Net "Classy compacts: high-end CD radios"

This review was used to support the statement that Bose makes high-end audio gear. Bose does not make high-end audio gear, except for noise-canceling headphones and aviation headsets, though other companies such as Grado, Sennheiser, AKG and David Clark make better ones. High-end audio is a term that is very much debatable; one man's meat is another's poison. To most high-end audio enthusiasts, Bose is a joke. Returning to the URL above, CNET's Senior associate editor John Falcone lists Bose as the one company that originated the category "luxury tabletop radio" (a misnomer if I ever heard one), then says that others such as Boston, Polk and Cambridge have picked up and improved upon the market segment. So, Falcone is saying that Bose was, in the past, the founder of the category he calls either "luxury tabletop radios" or "high-end CD radios", but he does not make the same assertion for 2005, the year that his review was written. Nor does he address the 60 years of tabletop radio products, many makes and models some of which were quite luxurious, that preceded Bose's 1984 entry to the field with the Wave. More generally at CNET, the category "Best Wi-Fi radios", CNET does not list Bose at all. When searching CNET for "high-end CD radios", Bose does not appear in the results. Falcone compares tabletop radios here, but no Bose. Falcone is wrong about Bose originating the category of "luxury tabletop radios" (what about Crosley, Bendix, Wards-Airline, etc.) and he does not list Bose as one of the best "high-end CD radios" of 2005.

Re-introducing the link to support an obvious statement is unnecessary. The link is not needed. Binksternet (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally I believe that the High-End statement is a bit weak, but it does show what a lot of people on the street believe and is personified by not only one link but multiple sources. It was talked about before Talk:Bose Corporation/Archive 3#High-end: arbitration? Talk:Bose Corporation/Archive 3#High end citations. The problem with opinions is everyone has them. -- Phoenix (talk) 22:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Another link is this bit at Talk:High-end audio#Citations for Bose being a high-end system where User:ASH1977LAW lists the same old familiar URLs, followed by serious doubts from the only four other editors commenting in the thread... The high-end audio assertion here in this article is not only weak, it is WP:SYNTHESIS to make a general statement composed of a patchwork of lesser statements and throwaway bits. None of the sources says that Bose emphatically, across the board, makes high-end audio products. The third opinion you linked to, requested in 2007, determined that any claims to Bose being "high-end", or to Bose not being "high-end", should not be present in the article as the concept of "high-end" is too hard to define. This is a position I can agree with. Binksternet (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I want to be blunt on this. I do agree with your assertion, but these are links from valid verifiable and reliable sources. This section is about Opinions on Bose and as such they do back up assertions that people do believe that Bose not only their headphones but their products in general are High-end. Instead of starting an edit war can you bring this conversation to the talk page? Your edits have been good, there are just a few points that disagreements have been found. -- Phoenix (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is surrounding this statement

In some consumer-level publications, Bose is regarded as a producer of high-end audio systems.

They have been supported by a few sources including the Cnet review mentioned above. But a simple Google News search revealed more. I am sure that many are not appropriate but I believe that there is a general consumer belief about this and that is what the statement is saying. Even though we both dont agree 100% with the statement, I do believe that Bose is perceived as such in the general public. -- Phoenix (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

As discussed in 2007, the definition of "high-end audio" is all over the map, and cannot be pinned down. In agreement with the third opinion response, I see no reason at all why this article should include any statement about Bose in relation to high-end audio, let alone the statement "In some consumer-level publications, Bose is regarded as a producer of high-end audio systems." What about high-end audio publications—what do they say?? If that statement is taken out of the article there is no reason to have Tim Gideon provide his rebuttal in PC Mag, so there is a benefit that pro-Bose acolytes can enjoy. On the other hand, if the statement is kept, I will want to expand on Gideon's review, including his statements "not only is Bose equipment's sound quality not up to audiophile standards" and "true sound snobs would roll their eyes at this notion [that Bose is high-end]"; that Bose must "charge a lot ... in order to get across the idea that its product is a luxury item." Bose is all about pricing ordinary audio products high to meet an inflated brand awareness established by marketing, the marketing supported by huge profits dedicated to it rather than folded back in to R&D as stated in the article. Binksternet (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Can't we just agree "No DHTs = lowfi"? Any kid can put together a couple EL84s and a Hammond tranny; it takes more than this to actually sound acceptable. CNet is free to ridicule "high-end clock radios" (it definitely made me laugh), and in a sense they are right ($500 for a clock radio is kinda steep), but they are clearly referring to "high end of the market" and nothing else. East of Borschov 16:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to elaborate on your point that they are referring to "high end of the market", that's the rub. Bose is not at the high-end of the market, but is at the high-end of typically low-end segments like clock radios, all-in one systems, boomboxes and satelite speaker systems. They then take that niche positioning and work hard to extend that to their brand. That's a great marketing strategy but it flies in the face of the norm for the industry that depends on measurable performance to define High-end. This aricle does a some to identify this approach of messaging vs. measurement. For me, I'm OK with high-end being used in a focused way to refer to their niches (high-end, expensive clock radios for instance), but other editors have felt it's fine to generalize broadly and conform to the marketing spin. Mattnad (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

So for instance, when we refer to their in home speakers, we should be clear that they offer high-end satelite speaker systems. That to me is fair and true. But not that they offer generally speaking high-end audio since expert secondary sources don't support that (e.g. Audio-oriented publications, Consumer Reports).

Yea it is a great idea... and that is why he is used as a source for this statement "Bose is not a producer of high-end audio systems, because it didn't fulfill his expectations of what a high-end system should be". -- Phoenix (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What is a great idea?

I am unsatisfied with the sentence, "A reviewer in PC Magazine stated that he believes Bose is not a producer of high-end audio systems, because it didn't fulfill his expectations of what a high-end system should be." The "because" conclusion does not match what is in the article. Gideon writes that "Bose equipment's sound quality [is] not up to audiophile standards." Binksternet (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

As a general comment, I think we've encountered difficulties here because Bose promotes a wide range of consumer products that include high-fidelity claims and high prices for what are generally speaking not high-end audio form factors: CD/clock radios, boom boxes, and satellite speaker systems connected to integrated minisystems. By design, these are products in classes by themselves and are not expected to compete with full-range audio systems. This article does a very poor job explaining how Bose takes typically pedestrian products and makes them somewhat better and much more expensive. It's not lost on anyone who pays attention to the high-end of the market that Bose's audio offering are typically exercises in compromise. Nothing wrong with that, but most often it means giving something up.

So, being a maker of high-end clock radio is not the same as being a high-end maker of audio/video separate components. The fact that high-end is misused or has wide ranging interpretations among writers who are not professionally familiar with high-end as defined by audio oriented publications only confuses the issue more.Mattnad (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well said. Would you be in favor of taking out the phrase "high-end" from this article wherever it appears? Binksternet (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I think we need to be less sloppy about it's use or offer a substitute that's accurate given their positioning in both the market (really mid-fi when looking at the whole spectrum of audio) and in the segment (their clock radio is by far the most expensive and possibly one of the best out there and potentially "high-end" in that niche). Perhaps "premium" is term that can be used to describe their approach to the market segments they want to compete in. Mattnad (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of challenged references

MIT Inventor of the Week

• http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/bose.html MIT Inventor of the Week Archive

This 1999 puff-piece about Amar Bose says that his loudspeakers "are world-famous for giving high-end performance despite their modest size." It does not say that they are classified as high-end audio products. The article lists the Sistine Chapel and Olympics stadia as being places where Bose gear has been installed. No details are provided, though, no encyclopedic content about what models of Bose gear and why it was chosen, how it is performing, etc. Useful as PR ad copy, this bit is not useful as an encyclopedia reference for saying where Bose gear has been found. Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This source verifies that they are found in the Space Shuttle and olympic stadiums. -- Phoenix (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It is unencyclopedic, unenlightening and uninformative. Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to bring up the Space Shuttle or the Sistine Chapel or some stadium, do it with context and detail so that the reader is informed. As an example, check out the LARES article to see how that product is shown to be installed in the Elgin Theatre in Toronto, at Austria's Vienna Festival, in China at the Forbidden City, at the Brooklyn Academy of Music in New York, the Jay Pritzker Pavilion in Chicago and at the Carmel Bach Festival in California. All of these installations are described in terms of when or what or how. They help the reader understand the product. Binksternet (talk) 23:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Cisco NASA Publication

• http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/so/neso/vvda/avvid/nasa1_cp.pdf Cisco NASA Publication

This PDF is primarily about an easy telephone-like communications link established between the Space Shuttle and the ground, and Bose is only mentioned in passing: a "laptop with SoftPhone software and a Bose headset". No encyclopedic content is available here; no expansion of what model headset, why it was selected, what the astronauts thought about it, etc. This URL fails to help the reader understand what possible advantage might be obtained by choosing a Bose headset. Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This source verifies that they are found in the Space Shuttle. -- Phoenix (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No context is given. The passing mention does not help the reader understand anything about the product. Binksternet (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Unofficial Wiki and FAQ

• http://toonz.ca/bose/wiki Unofficial Wiki and FAQ

This link is to an unreliable source, full of unverifiable assertions, written by anonymous users. Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Not used as a source but a link for people who want to learn more. Could be placed in the external links if must be. -- Phoenix (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What part of unreliable and unverifiable did you miss? You use WP:V and WP:RS as weapons to take out other URLs but you turn a blind eye to this one. It is a wiki edited by anonymous people and it is unreliable, period. Out it goes. Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Otherwise we could include the article that's critical of Bose that has been excised by Phoenix79 in the past. Mattnad (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Forbes Magazine

• http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/10/BVDT.html Forbes Magazine

The editor-written article about Amar Bose in Forbes says that his company is "a major supplier [of factory-installed car stereos] for high-end automobiles" and that "high-end headphones" is one of the company's expanding product lines. The article does not support the statement that the Bose automotive system is a high-end one, but it does support the statement that Bose makes high-end headphones. However, using this URL to support a larger, general statement about Bose being a manufacturer of high-end audio equipment is WP:SYNTHESIS. Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Used with other articles to show that consumer magazines have the opinion that bose is a maker of high end products. This one is about Headphones. -- Phoenix (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly! Used in this way it violates WP:SYNTHESIS. Out it goes. Binksternet (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

At most, this supports a claim of high-end headsets and cannot be generalized to all bose products without other supporting reliable sources.Mattnad (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Popular Science

• http://www.popsci.com/popsci/bown/2004/autotech/article/0,22221,750663,00.html Popular Science

A dead link. The text can be found archived here at archive.org.

Tom Clynes of Popular Science writes, among other things, that "Bose's rental Cadillac isn't equipped with one of the high-end sound systems for which the Bose name is famous." Clynes has written other articles for the magazine, including ones about a new nail design, radio-controlled airplanes, ultralight airplanes and solar-powered airplanes. For other magazines, he has written about Ebola virus, armed uprisings in Third World countries, and has trekked and backpacked around the world. About Bose, Clynes was saying that he thought Bose made high-end automotive sound systems. Clynes is not an expert on high-end automotive sound systems. Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Used with other articles to show that consumer magazines have the opinion that bose is a maker of high end products. This one is about Automotive systems. -- Phoenix (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Your argument misses the point that Clynes has no authority on automotive sound systems. Binksternet (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

PCMag.com

• http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1764153,00.asp PCMag.com

This anonymous review from 2005, entitled "High-End, Affordable and Adaptable", a review of Bose SoundDock Digital Music System and two other competitors, cannot be used because it is unverifiable, having no author. Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Used with other articles to show that consumer magazines have the opinion that bose is a maker of high end products. This one is about iPod speakers. -- Phoenix (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Fails WP:V and WP:RS. Used to put together a WP:SYNTHESIS. Out it goes. Binksternet (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Consumer reviews are not WP:RS by definition.Mattnad (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Mahalo

• http://www.mahalo.com/bose Mahalo

This URL is to a search site that brings together information taken from a lot of other websites. The other websites are credited in footnotes. Some of the footnoted websites are reliable, some are not (such as Smart Indian, a self-published website containing an essay about Amar Bose.) If the information at Mahalo is found to be useful, Mahalo's source URL should be used as Wikipedia's source. Mahalo is not needed as an intermediary. Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, that's why I didnt reinsert it. -- Phoenix (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You reinserted it here and here in apparently unexamined reactionary reversions, but you did not reinsert it after that. Thank you for that consideration. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

intellexual.net

• http://www.intellexual.net/bose.html intellexual.net

This link was commented out so that nobody could see it, with an attached comment reading "This link violates two official policies of the English Wikipedia: WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable source. Please do NOT link this page. Thank you for your cooperation." I removed it completely, but Phoenix79 replaced it each time. I see no reason to put a hidden note about one unverifiable, unreliable URL in the article when there are scads of them. Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This was kept here because every week someone tries to re-insert the article. This just made it a lot easier then constant reverts. -- Phoenix (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that it is discussed on the talk page, perhaps the hidden comment is no longer needed in the article. Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The Register

• http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/18/review_bose_sounddock/ The Register "Bose SoundDock iPod speakers"

This article is a republished version of one that appeared on pocket-lint.co.uk, with Pocket-Lint owner/editor Stuart Miles credited by The Register with asking the question about Bose getting into the iPod add-on business, "can the company bring its high-end loudspeaker prowess to the world of personal audio?" Miles's rhetorical question was used here on Wikipedia to support a statement saying that Bose is a manufacturer of high-end audio products. Miles has no established authority on the subject of high-end audio, and he does not conclude that the Bose SoundDock he is reviewing is a high-end audio product. Using his throwaway question as a reference on the general topic of Bose being high-end is WP:SYNTHESIS. Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Used with other articles to show that consumer magazines have the opinion that bose is a maker of high end products. This one is about iPod speakers. -- Phoenix (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is funny, because Miles does not conclude that the iPod speakers made by Bose are high-end. Fail. Binksternet (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be WP:SYN by extrapolating a rhetorical comment (with little explanation of which speakers and applications) to iPod speakers.

As an aside, Bose may have some high-end SKU's (like headphones designed for commercial applications and some full-range speakers), this article has at times stretched these niche, flagship applications, to define the overall brand as high-end.

As a parallel example, Ford's GT model does not make the overall company a high performance brand that competes with Ferrari.Mattnad (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)