Same rep in the US. It is just the audiophile hipsters who can't wait to show how much they know by bashing Bose.
Are you implying that Bose headphones and speakers are a great value and quality?
Otherwise you are basically trying to paint a group of people as hipsters for what is seemingly an illogical reason.
As others in this thread have stated, their reputation online seems to be much less positive. There seem to be two main groups of people who contribute to that less positive reputation: (1) those with expertise in audio equipment who state things like Bose doesn't have nearly as good range of sound as professional equipment and (2) those who don't provide an explanation beyond "Bose sucks" (analogous to the anti-Mac vitriol that was widely seen until the late 2000s).
stonemetal presumably labeled the latter group as "audiophile hipsters" because their behavior appears to be the result of thinking it's cool to criticize products that are popular among mainstream consumers but which they believe to be deemed inferior by experts.
It's not about "range of sound", it's about producing sound accurately. A more accurate frequency response won't sound exciting, but you'll hear slightly more of your music because nothing is hyped. It's a matter of personal taste and suitability to the task. I wouldn't mix a song on any Bose equipment, but I wouldn't be frothing at the mouth if I went to a friend's and they had a Bose system. I'd still prefer a £300 pair of studio monitors over an equivalent Bose setup, but that's my opinion.
When it comes to Bose I have only come across two opinions pretty good but expensive or utter crap let me tell you how my hand built tube setup is so much better.
The PSB is nicely designed, too -- for instance, the cord unplugs at both ends, and can be plugged into either side of the headphone.
I've never liked the Bose sound, but I recognize that they do some things well; those just aren't the things I care about the most. I wouldn't say they're overpriced, though -- it's hard to argue that when their products sell so well. Maybe some of the others are underpriced ;-}
BUT, they are the most comfortable on-ears I have ever owned and possibly the most durable headphones I've owned. The model was recently updated, and I think the changes are improvements.
In that light, if you want a really comfortable, quite durable pair of portables, They are a reasonable choice.
You have to stand in awe of their excellent capability to convince so many that their cheaply made 1000% markup junk is worth the money.
So, if "anything half the price" is supposed to outperform Bose, would you be willing to point out something half the price of an equivalent Bose product and show me some kind of unbiased test that demonstrates it?
I feel like I hear this kind of sentiment a lot, but I almost never see any evidence to back it up.
Bose doesn't cater to the high-end audiophile market. They don't sell big, bulky, expensive equipment that audiophiles go for. Instead, they sell small stuff that's expensive for it's size but cheap compared to audiophile equipment. And I think that it it does pretty well for its size and price. Sure, you can get better sound quality out of bigger, bulkier, more expensive equipment. And you can get reasonable audio quality out of other small, cheaper gear. But I'm wondering if you can get gear that beats it in every way; smaller, cheaper, and better?
I have never done any kind of blinded experiments, or measurements of frequency responses, or other such scientific comparisons, so I can't say for sure. And that's why I'm asking if you know better. Is there something out there, at a similar size and price point, that is better than what Bose offers? Do you have good evidence for this?
I would maybe agree that Bose has cultivated a reputation among ordinary consumers as "the best" which is not accurate. There are other equally good brands with a similar price point that don't get as much attention. There's also audiophile gear which is much better, but also much more expensive. What does not exist, though, are products superior to Bose as half the price. (Assuming you're not factoring in used gear or some kind of blowout sale) That goes for any brand, though.
My bose QC's lasted 6 months of mild air travel and then the headband broke in half. Only way to fix em was buy a new pair. Also I could wear my QC's for about 4 hours and then my ear would hurt. I can wear the sonys for 12+ hours no issue. But that's just my freakish shaped head so it's personal.
That said I don't really give a crap about the sound quality. They sound good to me and they're a good price. My previous pair lasted 10 years.
All the audio engineers I've ever asked have a set of the sonys because they're supposed to be a good representation of a middle of the road system that everyone has. They're good but not amazing. But that's what you want when mixing. A representation of the middle and one of the high end. Most people will be listening on the crap to good stuff.
Those Sonys are great phones designed to be tough. They're mean to be used in a studio, get sat on from time to time. Have the cables yanked, etc. They don't have noise canceling and they don't run on batteries, so I consider them a different piece of gear from the Bose noise canceling phones. But I have no doubt they're probably tougher than most phones, Bose included.
An audiophile tube amp is not going to take abuse either - it's meant to be treated in a delicate way. The tradeoff for that is that it will deliver pristine quality. The Bose stuff is not quite that fragile, not quite that good either. But the point is that all gear is designed for a certain purpose and comes with certain tradeoffs.
Bose in-car and Bose noise cancelling headphones are a different matter, as their noise cancelling is first rate.
There is plenty of evidence.
> There is plenty of evidence.
What are good sources for this kind of evidence? I'm actually interested; I find it hard to find good information on audio quality, because there's so much audiophile garbage out there.
Bose is completely overpriced. As is Apple, Monster and a ton of other "high end" electronic brands. But there is no better audio equipment for the average person than Bose. For a home theater or headphones or bedside radio, Bose wins every time....if you're willing to pay. And like I said, I worked in the store, A LOT of people are willing to pay for that quality.
In fact I don't know anyone that has bought Bose (apart from coming in their car or for headphones in noisy environments) that has done serious listening to other systems.
To my (granted mostly non-audiophile...though I am the type who insists that vinyl sounds better...) ears, they've always sounded pretty good and aren't that expensive compared to most high end offerings.
In my experience every thread which criticizes Bose offers better alternatives. This is true at least for reddit's r/audiophile.
Of course, these are all audiophile nitpickings that a casual user would almost never consider.
So does the use of a jet engine a few meters away. ;)
I don't use headphones with noise canceling but I semi-regularly wish I did.
There's a boutique audio store down the street from me that sells RCA cables which are more expensive than a Bose iPhone dock. An entire "audiophile" system is easily in the 6 figure range. If you're into that kind of gear then obviously Bose must be low end equipment for you.
For the rest of us, though, I think you pay a little more for Bose and, for that, you get a little bit better sound. It's one step above consumer gear, but still well below audiophile gear. I think it's priced appropriately.
i was surprised when i saw the (low) price of some of their stuff (i have never bought bose, but i looked on amazon to see what people were comparing to). but, at least in the uk, there's quite an industry of small firms producing "budget audiophile" gear that is comparable to more expensive equipment. eg mission, creek, music fidelity value series. and there are new chinese builders like audio-gd who are trying to get in on the market too.
also, they are most famous for their headphones, i think, and those tend to be more mainstream (there are not so many boutique headphone manufacturers - i guess you could call grado one, but otherwise sennheiser, beyer etc are pretty mainstream). headphones are common and easy to compare - when you do, bose headphones appear expensive, poorly made (maybe that's not the right description, but they seem "delicate" compared to the sennheiser HD25s i use for travelling) and not that great-sounding. but then their noise cancelling is good, which is what they are charging for. so it's true when people say the sound quality is relatively poor, but also true when people say they are hard to beat for noise cancelling.
finally, their music systems seemed to be aimed at "home theatre" (ie tv) while much of the audiophile scene is music-oriented, and the sounds are quite different (especially at lower prices). audiophiles typically care most about mid-range detail, while home theatre is all about the bass.
so it seems largely to be comparing apples to oranges and / or people with specialised knowledge being able to find better (but relatively obscure) value, which is often true.
[edit: listening to good music on good equipment is a real pleasure. as i said above, you can find this kind of thing at bose prices, if you look around. try asking at audiophile shops - they're not idiots, they know that the top end stuff is not for everyone, and they may well have some lower priced kit too (which they probably sell to their friends, since people who work in retail typically can't afford high end audiophile gear anyway....)]
I can't remember what magazine it was, but a couple of years ago competing against very expensive gear, a ~300$ NAD amplifier beat out other 5 figure amps for sound quality. and 2000$ speakers were the runner up up 40.000$ speakers.
$5K-ish, spent the right way and set up properly, will give you a system that will let you imagine you can tell whether or not the stand-up bass player had a beard. But to really get to that level, even with an unlimited budget, you really have to care about the system as much as the music it plays. Placement matters. The room matters. And I'm as willing to play that game as anybody (nobody who isn't would ever have bought a Basis Debut Gold Standard turntable with a Wheaton Triplanar tonearm mounting a Koetsu cartridge back when it mattered), but I understand that arranging your speakers, your furniture and your life around the requirements of a stereo system isn't for everybody. Frankly, a Bose box (or, in a time long past, a set of 901s instead of "real" speakers) gives better results in most cases when placement is an afterthought (if it's ever a thought at all). Does it cost more than it "should"? The markup over materials may be high, but it sells well enough at the price that nobody's been inclined to reduce prices, so I'd say not.
Now if you want to debate about sound quality, yes Bose has a very distinct sound that may or may not be desirable. Particularly audiophiles do not want the signal processing that Bose stuff tends to give you.
Bose sucks...because they suck. I'm not an audiophile, but Bose makes some seriously bad sounding products.
Yamaha makes some seriously good sounding kit at a good price.