Bose Reputation

I have owned Bose products since 1976 and have been using Bose Professional products for over 10 years now. In that time I believe I've heard just about every positive and negative thing about Bose products.
I recently ran across a posting by a Bose dealer that touches on some of the negative issues that are quite often heard.
I know of 3 local music equipment dealers that had once carried Bose products but decided to drop the Bose line ( or maybe Bose dropped them ) because of some of the issues that are in this dealers post.
Personally, the only problems I've had with Bose were with my first pair of 901IV home speakers (which Bose eventually made good on) and a fiesty At-Bose-Guy on this forum.
I have found the Bose Guys and this forum to be exceptional in the world of pro audio. Great service and support! Yet it bothers me that Bose has somewhat of a negative reputation in the audio community.
Robert L

Here is the post made by the Bose dealer:

Bose has a long and checkered history of dissing the pro audio community and specifically consultants, who they have always felt didn't "understand" their products and that was why we did not specify Bose as often as Bose felt they deserved to be specified. The corporate personality of Bose is such that when things don't go their way they can get pretty ugly. I have had 3 concert hall projects "attacked" by Bose who came in the back door and attempted to get their stuff in with (among other things) falsified modeling data. They managed to get "all the way" with only one project and that was by giving the owners a sweetheart price. This same tactic was attempted on a number of other consultants' projects, so I never really took it personally. I just was offended that they 1) caused my clients to worry about how things would turn out, and 2) assumed I didn't know what I was doing and 3) they did not have appropriate ldspkrs for those spaces.

Bose also is almost always suing other manufacturers for the faintest hint at patent and/or trademark infringement and even went so far as to sue a reviewer in a HiFi magazine for writing a critical piece.

Their Personal Amplification System marketing scheme is simply a gross overstatement of the performance characteristics of a column ldspkr mixed with a rather cynical attitude towards live sound folks and targeted at gullible musos who would like nothing more than to minimize their equipment costs, equipment packaging size and its operational complexities. We consultants are only really concerned that churches will buy into this, frankly.

Despite all of that, I am obligated to use/specify Bose when and if their products do the job. I have no problem with this. The MA12 (which is the same ldspkr as is used in the PAS, BTW) is an amazingly effective "low-tech" ldspkr system that provides very useful behavior for some projects and/or spaces. They also happen to be reasonably priced.

I say "low tech" because while everyone else has been designing elaborate passive and active column ldspkrs with frequency shading and steerable beams, Bose simply developed a very good 2.2" driver to employ in a cloumn (with no fancy processing) and when applied correctly they work very well.

However, they should NOT be positioned behind the microphones, they cannot be used as both monitors and FOH ldspkrs and they most certainly can cause more harm than good in many spaces. Just like any other ldspkr.

I have used MA12 arrays in several church projects now and the results have been very good. I also use more expensive steerable line arrays (columns) and other types of ldspkrs when these are merited.
Original Post
Robert,

I hope that by you deciding to post this information here, we can get to the bottom of this. Thanks for the heads up.

This is not really an "L1" post, but clearly this dealer is upset with Bose and may be posting some things in spite (he is certainly writing erroneous things). Can you point me toward the dealer or the post and I'll have the installed sound guys try and work it out with him. He may not want any Bose contact, but I think we ought to try.

As far as the L1 comments he made:

quote:
Their Personal Amplification System marketing scheme is simply a gross overstatement of the performance characteristics of a column ldspkr mixed with a rather cynical attitude towards live sound folks and targeted at gullible musos who would like nothing more than to minimize their equipment costs, equipment packaging size and its operational complexities. We consultants are only really concerned that churches will buy into this, frankly.

AND

However, they should NOT be positioned behind the microphones, they cannot be used as both monitors and FOH ldspkrs and they most certainly can cause more harm than good in many spaces. Just like any other ldspkr.


To me, this points to some real training opportunities that our installed products team needs to work on with this dealer. Clearly there are tens-of-thousands of musicians who know the L1 works really well in its designed capacity.

Can you point me to the post so that we can try and help this company? I don't want to change his mind about Bose, but I want him have all the information. I hope that'll change things for him but we've got to be okay with some people/companies not liking us and our products. Just listen to a Chevy/Ford/Dodge truck debate by passionate owners and you'll realize we are a funny beast ... we human beings.

Thanks,
Steve

PS This is statement is false and I think it is shameful that someone would be so slanderous:
quote:
Bose also is almost always suing other manufacturers for the faintest hint at patent and/or trademark infringement and even went so far as to sue a reviewer in a HiFi magazine for writing a critical piece.
Steve wrote:
quote:
PS This is statement is false and I think it is shameful that someone would be so slanderous:
quote:
Bose also is almost always suing other manufacturers for the faintest hint at patent and/or trademark infringement and even went so far as to sue a reviewer in a HiFi magazine for writing a critical piece.


Hi Steve, this thing about Bose having sued a magazine because of an unfavorable review is one of those things that has never died. I've been hearing about it for years.
The following comes from Wikipedia.com:

In 1984, Bose Corporation sued Consumer Reports for publishing a review in which Bose speakers did relatively poorly. The review stated that the stereo image of the Bose speakers was unstable and "tended to wander about the room", undermining the basic Direct/Reflecting concept behind Bose's products. The final verdict ruled that Consumer Reports had in fact libeled Bose by overstating its negative findings, which were, more precisely, that the stereo image merely "moved along the wall" behind the speakers. This was something of a Pyrrhic victory for Bose, who were now widely regarded as bullies by loyal Consumer Reports readership, the very demographic group towards whom Bose products were targeted. Furthermore, the monetary award of $210,000 in libel damages was appealed to the Federal Supreme Court, who overturned it. Nevertheless, the case is believed to have had a chilling effect on publication of subjective preferences in reviews, both specifically by Consumer Reports as well as in the media as a whole.

Here is the link to the source of the original post.
Robert L

Dealers Post
Do I smell Harmony Central? Sounds like some experiences I had there. Mostly they complain about Bose's marketing, saying Bose exaggerates claims and hides specs. I've been thru the arguments there twice and it hurts. I doubt I'll bring it up again. And like Ronjazz said at Big Sur "I like having an edge".

Nothing will change their minds and I think you will be asking for another public beating if you try to sway the writer of that post, or even contact him out of concern.

Best to just do what we do here and help those who really want to do something about live music.
Hi Drumr,
The fellow that wrote that post has been in pro audio for around 30 years and is well respected.
Where as I found some things in his post that I don't agree with, he does make some valid points.
I find it hard to brush off his opinion and experiences.
If you read the entire thread you will find that he recommended the MA12, MB4 to the person who created the post.
Here is a link to his website.
Robert L

EDS WEBSITE
Hi:
quote:
"Their Personal Amplification System marketing scheme is simply a gross overstatement of the performance characteristics of a column ldspkr mixed with a rather cynical attitude towards live sound folks and targeted at gullible musos who would like nothing more than to minimize their equipment costs, equipment packaging size and its operational complexities. We consultants are only really concerned that churches will buy into this, frankly.
"

This is a great post! I don't know where to start...

I have been amazed at the number of times that a salseperson, who is selling against the competition, will try to lecture someone on why the competitive product they're looking to purchase will be a waste of said person's time and money, instead of explaining to a prospective purchaser why their product is better, etc. I will never buy any product from anyone who wastes their time on me using this approach. I don't want to know why the competition is lousy (especially if the competition's product is selling like hot cakes!). I want to know why the alternative product, I'm looking at, is better...and why I should buy it! Many sales people need to go back to Sales School 101, I believe because that negative approach is still pretty commonplace, I've found.

Your post reminds me of this.

Instead of the guy in question knocking Bose (or whomever) perhaps he ought to assess his sales and marketing techniques to see why he appears to be struggling when going up against his competition.

Competition is healthy. Among other things it ensures that people like me end up with decent products that work the way they are supposed to work, etc!

As for the quote I included at the beginning of my post: There are countless numbers of L1 owners (me, being one of them) who would disagree about this individual's opinion of the L1, as he has stated it in said quote. I don't want to get off on a tangent here but if I did not own an L1 I would no longer be participating in the world of live music performance. I had nothing but problems with the traditional approach to live music. And it wasn't because I was afraid to spend money to get the right equipment. And I know I'm not the only one in that boat, etc.

Anytime anyone is succesfull (at anything) the naysayers will emerge in droves.

I'm convinced that while the consumer has a choice in what to buy the problem must lie (mostly) with the approach being taken by the company struggling to sell their products.

I'm from England originally and can well remember the attacks put forth against the up-and-coming Japanese loudspeaker manufacturers, by several elitist British auidophile magazines, because the Japanese were designing their speakers with components that had never before been used, and they were using some approaches/designs, etc., that were (by comparison to everything else out there) quite different to the norm. Those Japanese speakers were trashed continuously. And yet...many of them have become very successful. But to hear those audiophile editors you'd think there were only three brands/models of loudspeaker that were any good! And need I add that they were all British! I recall the same thing happened when Bose announced the speaker system that had most of the individual speakers pointing at the wall (don't know the model). I well remember the elitists whining, claiming that this system could never work because all the speakers were of the same size. I wonder what those people have to say now!

I've yet to believe there is a perfect product out there. As expensive as some of this equipment is, none of it is capable of solving every problem by itself. And sometimes the lesser-known competition does produce a superior product.

Any company with any integrity will strive to improve its products - and take a prositive approach to selling - instead of trashing their competition if they find themselves struggling to sell against said competition.

Of course I could be wrong...

Stu

edit: Grammar/spelling. Offensive comments removed.
quote:
if I did not own an L1 I would no longer be participating in the world of live music performance

Even if the L1/B1/B1 was only "as good" as the competition, it would still be my choice. Even though I am blessed with pretty good health, at my age, pitching the old 15's and monitors was taking the fun out of gigging. I tried a couple systems that were lighter/smaller than my old rig, but they just didn't have the sound. The L1 does! I know that the L1 is used successfully for other applications (DJ's, big bands, churches, etc.), but I see it as the perfect tool for singles. The Bose L1 has brought fun back to my gigs. I use Variax Ac, vocal, and porchboard. Heck, I am wasting an entire input. Smile
Respect
quote:
Originally posted by Steve-at-Bose:

PS This is statement is false and I think it is shameful that someone would be so slanderous:

quote:
Bose also is almost always suing other manufacturers for the faintest hint at patent and/or trademark infringement and even went so far as to sue a reviewer in a HiFi magazine for writing a critical piece.




So...........Are you gonna sue him? ............ Wink

Oldghm
The guy said the L1 is "low tech"~~ what~~ Confused Wassup wit dat?

Like Pete said, people with opposite opinions fight all the time on Harmony Central~~ it gets pretty messed up sometimes~~

I haven't been here on the forum in a while, but I appreciate how people communicate with respect and dignity and honor for human differences~~ in fact, this forum actually taught me better posting manners~~ (thanks Pete~~) Smile
quote:
Originally posted by Oldghm:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve-at-Bose:

PS This is statement is false and I think it is shameful that someone would be so slanderous:

quote:
Bose also is almost always suing other manufacturers for the faintest hint at patent and/or trademark infringement and even went so far as to sue a reviewer in a HiFi magazine for writing a critical piece.




So...........Are you gonna sue him? ............ Wink

Oldghm

Of course. Big Grin Eek Roll Eyes Razz ... NOT.
quote:
Originally posted by Robert L:
Steve wrote:
quote:
PS This is statement is false and I think it is shameful that someone would be so slanderous:
quote:
Bose also is almost always suing other manufacturers for the faintest hint at patent and/or trademark infringement and even went so far as to sue a reviewer in a HiFi magazine for writing a critical piece.


Hi Steve, this thing about Bose having sued a magazine because of an unfavorable review is one of those things that has never died. I've been hearing about it for years.
The following comes from Wikipedia.com:

In 1984, Bose Corporation sued Consumer Reports for publishing a review in which Bose speakers did relatively poorly. The review stated that the stereo image of the Bose speakers was unstable and "tended to wander about the room", undermining the basic Direct/Reflecting concept behind Bose's products. The final verdict ruled that Consumer Reports had in fact libeled Bose by overstating its negative findings, which were, more precisely, that the stereo image merely "moved along the wall" behind the speakers. This was something of a Pyrrhic victory for Bose, who were now widely regarded as bullies by loyal Consumer Reports readership, the very demographic group towards whom Bose products were targeted. Furthermore, the monetary award of $210,000 in libel damages was appealed to the Federal Supreme Court, who overturned it. Nevertheless, the case is believed to have had a chilling effect on publication of subjective preferences in reviews, both specifically by Consumer Reports as well as in the media as a whole.

Here is the link to the source of the original post.
Robert L

Dealers Post


I don't know the details of the case, and I don't dare speculate ... that snippet surely won't tell the whole story ... but the guy you quoted says "almost always" and one case in 1984 seems to me that he's really exaggerating. I wonder why he'd do that? It doesn't make sense to put your reputation on the line like that if you're an expert.

I still think we need to find this guy and see if we can mend any old wounds. If not, I'm not going to worry about it. Name a company ... somebody dislikes them. It's just the way humans are wired.
quote:
Those I run into are the biggest bunch of whining babies I've ever seen.

StuarD,

Please stop. That is very disrepectful. I'm certain that, like all professions, there are "every kind of people" in the consulting world. I'll bet some of the fellow message board watchers are consultants. Generalizations like that are just not helpful.

Let's not go there. Let's keep this forum a great place to share info and to learn from one another.

Steve
Hi Steve,
It's funny how I ran across this thread on the Pro Sound Forum. I do read that forum quite a bit, mostly in the LAB and the LAB Lounge. I never look at the Church Sound section.
I have been considering buying some MA12 speakers to add to my inventory. I was doing some research and typed Bose MA12 into Google. A link to that thread (even though it is from 2004) came up on the first page of results.

I was curious and did another quick Google search in regards to lawsuits.
Bose sued QSC because they used the term POWERWAVE. It seems that Bose doesn't want any musical equipment manufacturer to use the word WAVE. Bose must have lost that one because QSC still uses that term.
Bose sued Harmon because of the design of a bass port.
Bose sued CEDIA for using the term LIFESTYLE. I believe Bose lost that one too.
This reminds me when McDonalds tried to copywrite the term "nothing but net". Ridiculous, that term has been used by kids playing basketball on playgounds for years. The nerve of McDonalds thinking that they had exclusive rights to that phrase.

Robert L
quote:
The guy said the L1 is "low tech"~~ what~~ Wassup wit dat?


Hi lydianmode,
Check out the link to the EAW webpage, go to the bottom of the page and play the video marked "click to play". You will see why he considers the Bose MA12 "low tech". It is amazing what that EAW line array is able to do. This EAW array seems to be close in size and application to the MA12. I'll bet the price is amazing as well. I believe each driver in the array has a dedicated power amp. Don't you wish the L1 could do that!
Robert L

EAW LINE ARRAY
"should not and cannot be used as...." The ultimate logical conclusion from someone who never tried. I've heard more than a few "High tech" high powered , high priced systems that produced anything but natural sound.

Consumer reports has a history of problems with some of their testing procedures for a vast array of products. One that comes to mind was ZTR mowing machines where they specked how high a wheelie they could pop as well as spreading a gallon of paint over 900 sq ft an claiming it had no hiding power. Glad I didn't wait for their review of the L1 to make my purchase.

My L1 CAN and HAS. You can believe me or someone whose's never tried it. I promise I won't sue anyone either way LOL.
quote:
Originally posted by Robert L:
I was curious and did another quick Google search in regards to lawsuits.
Bose sued QSC because they used the term POWERWAVE. It seems that Bose doesn't want any musical equipment manufacturer to use the word WAVE. Bose must have lost that one because QSC still uses that term.
Bose sued Harmon because of the design of a bass port.
Bose sued CEDIA for using the term LIFESTYLE. I believe Bose lost that one too.
This reminds me when McDonalds tried to copywrite the term "nothing but net". Ridiculous, that term has been used by kids playing basketball on playgounds for years. The nerve of McDonalds thinking that they had exclusive rights to that phrase.

Robert L


Well, we do like to protect our investments in research and trademarks ... just like our competitors. That's why they created patents and trademarks afterall. So that other companies don't freeride on your hard work. I'm sure all of our competitors protect their trademarks and patents as energetically as our legal team does. It is important stuff.

You'll notice that we "at-Bose" folks have worked really hard not to infring on the "PAS" trademark of another company. We're campaigning hard now to move the market away from that term because it belongs to another company. Doesn't this seem like a good thing to do. I get the impression you're implying that Bose is being a bully but I don't think that's true at all. We work hard to make trademarks stick and we do our homework before applying for one. FWIW, it's hard stuff.

Trademark infringment is a bad thing. I know that we've had a couple companies try and grab some of the trademarks we've applied for on the Personalized Amplification System family of products. And just look at how many manufacturers are "borrowing" the look Apple has created with their iPods ... have you ever seen so many pure white products on the market as there are lately?

All I can say is this, it is very easy to choose to "not infringe" on someone else's patent or trademark. You have to apply for them, they are all registered and logged. That's why the legal system made them. All patents are filed and trademarks have to exist as "tm" until they are recognized by the government as unique then the are "r" registerd.

I hope that clears things up for you.

Steve
quote:
Originally posted by Robert L:
I believe each driver in the array has a dedicated power amp. Don't you wish the L1 could do that!

No, as a matter of fact I don't. I don't want the weight, cost or complexity.

Robert, we're a forum of musicians and DJs, not sound engineers. Even using the insert jack constitutes an advanced application for most of us.

Are you truly suggesting that a steerable array is an appropriate topic for this audience? That may be an interesting discussion for the pro sound guys, but seems totally irrelevant to this forum.
quote:
Originally posted by Robert L:

Hi lydianmode,
Check out the link to the EAW webpage, go to the bottom of the page and play the video marked "click to play". You will see why he considers the Bose MA12 "low tech". It is amazing what that EAW line array is able to do. This EAW array seems to be close in size and application to the MA12. I'll bet the price is amazing as well. I believe each driver in the array has a dedicated power amp. Don't you wish the L1 could do that!
Robert L

EAW LINE ARRAY


That EAW array is a great product for sure. I live just 2 miles from EAW. They make some cool stuff. I don't think this is really a comparable product to MA12s or the L1 since it serves a unique need and they costs $3,150 each (speaker only price). This is like comparing apples and carrots.

Of course Bose could have dedicated DSP and amps to each speaker but that's not a problem we're trying to solve ... and EAW has already solved it with what seems like a great product. Why would we "go there" if there's already a good solution?

Robert, you're missing the point about Bose Corporation. We want to bring significant advances to sound (and other areas ... check out this). We've been asked a million times to make studio monitors and we say the same thing ... why? There are a lot of really good ones out there. We'd need to come up with some cool advancement in order to go there. We try to build the company's good reputation with each new product not live off the company's good reputation with a new product. Does that make sense?

I've also got to explain why your posts took so long to go live. The other folks on the team feel that your posts are, and I quote here "instigating trouble", like you're trying to pick a fight and I said "no he's not" and I volunteered to try and answer your questions.

I don't think that it is your intention to instigate, but I can see where others may feel that way. When you post a message the message tends to be negative about Bose and/or the L1. Why is your tendency more to the negative, I don't know, but you keep it respectful and that's good enough for me/us. I really wonder what the relevance is of law suits regarding patent & trademark infringements and "Bose haters" is in regards to this forum, but clearly you think that it is relevant so I welcome the questions.

I promise you that I won't have all the answers but I'll give you my honest point-of-view which is not the "official word of Bose Corporation". I'm but one guy in a company of many folks trying to do a good job for customers ... just like you and your business. You're always welcome here but I want you to realize that others have asked me to handle the more "instigative" posts that come through so there may be some delays from time to time as I get caught up with message board stuff. The others are just not comfortable going there and I’m a pretty easy going guy so I get to deal with keeping the peace I guess. Smile

Sorry for the delay in getting the posts through. I've had a crazy week and not a lot of time on the forum. Keep 'em coming.

Respectfully,
Steve
quote:
Robert, we're a forum of musicians and DJs, not sound engineers.


Isn't it funny that all the guys that insist on coming around here to tell us how terribly unhappy we all must be for using equipment that can't possibly work, are all NON musicians. It really frustrates me that they just refuse to understand that WE'VE ALL BEEN THERE and used the EAW's and JBL's and on and on and on for years. We have a VERY SOLID foundation for comparison, and yet we all made a VERY conscious decision to switch to the L1 system because it fits our needs in a superior way. Whatever those needs may be.

As a musician, all the things that the L1 does to improve my live performing experience has NEVER been equaled by ANY other system regardless of cost. But I guess I shouldn't expect a non-musician to understand that.
Steve, You da man for the job! All you Bose guys are doing a great job with this forum which is the result of creating a great product.

Everywhere I've used the L1 system, I've recieved nothing but compliments and exclamations of amazement from clients and audiences.

Keep up the good work as I know the future hold more good stuff from Bose corp.

Just a side note, If the L1 covers 100% of an audience with high definition evenly distributed sound, Where would you steer it, if you could?

All the best,
quote:
Originally posted by J.G.Nelson:
If the L1 covers 100% of an audience with high definition evenly distributed sound, Where would you steer it, if you could?

Ironically, I'm one of the people who could occasionally benefit from the array being steerable (to help get the keyboards up into the balconies of the 3000 seat halls where I frequently perform.)

I spoke with Chris at the Bose Bash about ways to accomplish this, but concluded that the added design complexity wasn't worth it. Better to use the L1 system for what it was designed (venues up to 500, which in my case means flawless coverage onstage), and send a line out to the house.
Alan, I hear you that where needed, steerability would be a fantastic thing to have. I completely understand the value of such engineering and there are surely places where the benefits of such are justified.

I was thinking along the lines of why have it if you didn't need it, Which has been the case for my L1 usage thus far.

I've never even been in a real concert hall, only seen pictures of such.

Been in a few performing art theaters that implemented much acoustical treatment and steeply raked seats. In such the L1 would not work unless it was 4 or 5 sections tall.

I would be willing to bet that steering the array and keeping in on the road, so to speak, would probably be difficult for most portable sound setups.

Maybe I should have capitalized the "IF". LOL.
Given that I’m responsible for our engineering team, I’d like to comment on the “low tech” vs. “high tech” debate.

I don’t think that “high tech” or “low tech” are very important, but it’s all about picking right tool for the job at hand. In fact Bose does actually use steerable arrays with our Articulated Array™ technology in our 3-2-1 systems. It’s not user adjustable but the system actually analyzes the content and steers the array automatically. That's certainly the right tool for this application. So let’s have a look at steerable line arrays for live music:

First of all, I have nothing but the highest respects for Dave Gunness who is the primary architect behind EAW’s DSA technology. I had the pleasure of hanging with Dave a few times. He is a very capable and skillful engineer and DSA is a great achievement.

Back to business: Steerability is achieved by feeding each driver signal through a digital signal processor and an individual amp. Obviously, that adds a lot of cost and complexity. So what do you get? It’s fairly straight forward to steer the main beam up or down using so-called “progressive delays”. However, if only a few degrees are needed, that can also be achieved by simply putting a wedge under the PS1. In fact, that’s the better solution, since the drivers get physically tilted. That provides better steering for very high frequencies where the signal processing tends to be less effective. Larger titling angles are very rare in a portable application.

Of course, steering allows you to widen the beam, create asymmetric coverage, or even design multiple coverage areas. However, that typically reduces the efficiency of the array. It’s also fairly complicated, since it's mathematically difficult, the coverage is frequency dependent and many steering algorithms create unwanted beams (“side lobes”, “aliasing”) that need to be factored in and controlled. Dave’s design document on DSA is 27 pages long and highly recommended reading for anyone using advanced steering techniques. This is best done with computer based design tools, which restrict the use to an installed application, where the geometry is well know and where there is sufficient time for a good computer aided design.

For all the applications I’ve seen, the L1 provides the optimum coverage pattern in over 95% of the cases. In the majority of the rest a small wegde or a few beer coaster (don’t ask !!) provide a quick and effective solution (provided it can be done safely). The remaining cases are exceedingly rare and even if there was steerability, it would be too complicated and time consuming to properly dial it in.

There are certainly applications were the DSA technology is the right tool and a great solution for the customer. However, in my opinion in our applications space (live music for 300-500 people), the L1 provides a much less complicated and expensive solution at equal or better performance. So in this case, I think it’s the right tool for the job.

Hope that helps
Hilmar
Well, I don't see where Bose claims that the L1 is the be-all and end-all, anyway. Whenever one of my listeners opines that the system must be "expensive", I have to let them know that the 4 to 10 hours I save each week in set-up and breakdown time should be factored in to the cost. That being done, I think I got an excellent deal. My 3 systems, by my calculations, have already paid for themselves by allowing me to 1) leave later for the gig; 2) get home earlier (both of which give me more time to compose, arrange, teach and practice); and 3) actually squeeze the occasional extra gig into a busy weekend that would not have been doable heretofore (why do I sound like a lawyer?). I mean, if I can actually be up and running in 15-20 minutes after loading in, without wasting time with a sound check or tracing down a bad patch cable, how much is that worth? On top of all that, the service has been remarkable. Kyle-at-Bose, Chris, Ken and the lovely and talented Cliff have big pieces of their souls invested in this, and they have been paragons of behavior in the retail world. I have my issues, but they have little to do with the actual product or service. The three days in Big Sur with these folks were peaceful, loving, sharing, Woodstockian and positive. I, in my view, was the only fly in the ointment, and not until the very end, with some objections to marketing techniques and ideas. Some people don't like to see others succeed. I'm not one of them.
quote:
Originally posted by Hilmar-at-Bose:
I don’t think that “high tech” or “low tech” are very important, but it’s all about picking right tool for the job at hand.


Right on. I'm all for Appropriate Technology.

When we users offer our endorsement of the L1, it's sometimes interpreted as being ga-ga over the technology itself, and naysayers can come back with "Well, it's not nearly as high-tech as XYZ." Which, of course, is not the point at all. We use it because we like the results.

I've always recognized the Bose brand as being associated with quality and innovation, but the L1 is the only Bose product I've ever owned, so I don't think I can be accused of being a Bose-head. If another product, high-tech or low, would have given the results the L1 provides, I'd have considered it.

To offer an analogy, here in the sunny California summer we cook with solar energy. My microwave oven is considerably more high-tech than my solar oven, which is made of cardboard, aluminum foil, and glass. In this case, the low-tech solution is much more effective than the high-tech solution. Check out www.cookingwithsunshine.com

--Rick
quote:
Originally posted by Steve-at-Bose:
Well, we do like to protect our investments in research and trademarks ... just like our competitors.


Steve is right here, of course. Fact is, if a company doesn't aggressively act to protect its trademarks, it can lose them. When a trademark or copyright infringement case comes to court, the judge looks to see if the company has been asserting its rights historically. If not, the company is likely to lose those rights.

This can result in some seemingly silly letters from legal counsel. For example, local musician Joe Craven fronted a latin-flavored acoustic trio called "Big Frito." A humorous name and quite descriptive of what they played, I thought. Frito-Lay sent them a cease-and-desist letter, and they had to change their name. Seemed like an over-reaction, but I can understand why the Frito-Lay lawyers thought they had to do it.

--Rick
quote:
Originally posted by Steve-at-Bose:
...I've also got to explain why your posts took so long to go live. The other folks on the team feel that your posts are, and I quote here "instigating trouble", like you're trying to pick a fight and I said "no he's not" ... but you keep it respectful and that's good enough ...

I agree with Steve-at-Bose.

I respect Robert L's opinions, views, and occassional "reality checks" that all the acoustic world is not Bose, even if I don't always agree. (Of course, I *do* tend toward questioning the conventional of WHATEVER the approach or technology is -- sound/acoustic or otherwise.)

Respect contributes toward credibility.

We all -- and I -- always have something to learn from anyone ... even those who may be more inexperienced within our particular "specialty".
I'm not sure why some people (on every side) feel the need to tell other people that they should be unhappy with whatever it is they're happy with using. Certainly I have explained to other musicians the benefit of the L1 system, and some have converted. Some have tried it and decided it's not quite for them. Fine. This "desire to convert others" seems appropriate when there's new technology, or even an entire shift in the way one thinks about live sound in small clubs (I know I underwent a huge shift in how I thought about my own desired sound when I switched to the L1 system. Clean and natural replaced loud and reverbed). After all, many of us are so excited about our new system that we wish every musician was as happy as we are, and we're delighted to share our results/feelings with our friends and colleagues. But I have NEVER told anyone that what they're using now is "bad" or "low-tech". I usually just tell people about the L1 because not too many people have really seen/used one live (althought that's changing - 18 months ago, NO ONE had seen one where I work).

To the naysayers, I would only ask one question: Many of us love our Bose L1 system, and feel that some of the joy of playing has returned. We now think of music and not equipment - the equipment has become transparent. Why does that bother you? If it's not for you, fine. Why do you use up so much time and energy trying to convince us we're "wrong"?

Personally, I have never had a single customer or club owner mention that they liked my sound less with the L1. Many have raved aout how much better the sound is. Maybe some of it is the visual factor, and the new "wow" factor of the L1 tower. Who cares? I'm happy - leave me alone!
Hi Jazzman,

I relate a lot to some of your remarks.

As a matter of policy and philosophy we do not disparage others' equipment. Instead we try to focus on what we have and why it might be of interest to others. From time to time, we explain problems with conventional approaches, but in a generic way. For example, to see the value in a Direct/Reflecting(r) speaker like the Bose 901 system, it can be important to understand the limitations of direct radiating speakers. Similarly, we talk about "triple systems" and their problems as expressed by musicians and uncovered in our research as a way of explaining our motivation for developing the Personalized Amplification System(tm) approach.

I also have to say that by focusing on the positive and ignoring the negative, more net postitive results, other things being equal.

With best regards,

Ken Jacob

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Having trouble signing in?

We recently updated our sign-in procedure and if you have old sign-in data cached, this can create a problem. Please:

  1. Clear your browser cache and cookies
  2. Then close the browser (not just the window)
  3. Open the browser and try again
Thank you

Please make sure that your profile is up to date
×
×
×
×