← Back to context

Comment by DiabloD3

2 days ago

Bose hardware quality is rather low and, and their sound quality is sub-par, while forcing you to pay the Bose brand tax, riding the corpse of Amar around for profit.

I'd avoid, even if they happened to do this.

My experience is the opposite: Bose hardware and sound quality seems excellent to me.

This may be subjective. Bose might sound good to some people's ears and less good to other people's ears.

  • People keep bringing dead Bose bluetooth speakers to our repair café. These are a lot more expensive than the competitors. Bose has a reputation so people think they’ll last longer, but they don’t, they’ll fail just out of warranty just like cheaper brands. They also don’t sound meaningfully better. And they’re not at all engineered to be repaired. I’d avoid.

    I personally prefer corded headphones and mains powered speakers, but if I were to buy a small wireless speaker I would buy a cheaper brand and ideally second hand, because this category of devices are basically consumables.

  • I don't know about Bose. But sound quality in general is absolutely objectively measurable.

    • > But sound quality in general is absolutely objectively measurable.

      Sound quality is not the same as music quality.

      To be more specific, Sound Reproduction Fidelity is not the same as Pleasant Music

      To be even more specific, Signal Reproduction is not the same as "Pleasant Sounds*

      The goal of music is not always high fidelity of reproduction; if it were, over-driven valve amps would never have been a thing.

      The only thing objective in this context is signal reproduction, which is not the highest concern for music production.

      4 replies →

    • You can certainly measure it, but the catch is that there is not always a single "correct" value. So just because you can measure what the speakers are outputting and then adjust it, it doesn't mean there is one correct output value.

      A good example of this is a target curve, often used in room calibration. Dirac has a good explanation: https://www.dirac.com/resources/target-curve

      (highly recommend Dirac room correction, by the way)

      1 reply →

    • There's arguably a subjective quality to sound enjoyment, though. The fidelity of reproduction can be measured, but I'd argue there's personal preference in the types of artifacts generated by inaccuracies in reproduction.

      1 reply →

    • you can absolutely quantify certain metrics, and you can even generalize what "good" is by surveying listener preference but that isn't the same thing as any one individual's subjective preference.

  • Bose in general (there are many models...) is not what I'd call high-fidelity. It doesn't mean you can't enjoy your music or your movies with it. Just don't buy this if you care about transparency, otherwise it's usually a pleasing hearing experience. Their PA line is IMO overpriced and sacrifices too much to the design and weight.

    • I've been playing with the idea for a bit, can you give me an order of magnitude for "entry-level HiFi"? Even if that's an oxymoron, how many zeroes does it take to get an experience that's noticeably superior to, say, default car speakers or built-in Smart TV speakers?

      3 replies →

  • Similar experience, even after picking up the new airpod pro 3's (the hearing aid stuff i great for my ailing ears) I still prefer, when I'm sitting at my desk working while listening to music, the quietcomfort 2 earbuds. The noise cancellation is hands down better than apple's an it's a more comfortable fit.

Typical so called audiophile stance here. I have numerous headphones (including high ends ones) and always been happy with my Bose. Sound is great and gently enhanced for listening enjoyment, whatever snobs could say about it, and the hardware is really nice. My Bose SoundSport earbuds are the best fit I ever had in 30+ years of wearing earbuds and my QC35 never failed on me. That move from them adds to all the great things I can say about this brand.

If you're talking about their headphones, I agree they _feel_ cheaply-made, but they are by no means low-quality. When you make headphones with premium materials, they get heavy, and that makes them uncomfortable/painful to wear. Speaking from prior experience. It's an incredibly delicate balancing act. Bose optimizes for comfort, which is important for e.g. long plane rides.

I'm an audiophile and very happy with one of their portable speakers. I wouldn't buy Bose monitors, though

Please suggest better alternatives

  • If you were going to consider Bose, you should at least take a look at Sennheiser. They are similar in a “can’t really go too wrong” sense. Nice build quality, generally pretty flat and analytical usually.

    They are such a standard response that presumably a real audiophile will come along to point out that their favorite model is much better, than a particular well known Sennheiser model, but as far as one can say in brand terms they are solid.

    • Sennheiser sold out to a Chinese factory, and recently even stopped producing their flagship stuff in-house. They're even shutting their "cheap" Irish factory down (where modern HD650s and HD660Ss were made).

      All the Chinese-made Sennheiser stuff has awful QA.

    • I loathe analytical sound. It destroys all listening pleasure for me. Give me nice warm coloured midtones and I'm happy!

  • Sure. What exactly are you looking for?

    Also, there are multiple forums and subreddits you can ask this question on. You will get more answers than you would from me and the rest of HN.

  • Beyerdynamic DT1990s run circles around consumer-grade stuff.

    • Beyerdynamic announced earlier last year they're finally exiting pro and flagship tier stuff, and selling out to a Chinese equity firm.

      Their build quality is exceptional, and they're built like tanks. The only problem, imo, is the Beyer house sound is very shouty and fatiguing, especially with the "990" versions of the product line over the years.

      Disclaimer: I owned a Beyer DT880/600ohm (the neutral one of the 770/880/990 siblings), paired with an amp that could properly handle it. Its one of the few headphones I sold and did not retain in my collection, it deserved someone that could love it. The new Tesla-based drivers are better (such as that 1990), but still retain that Beyer sound.

      1 reply →

    • I can't stand Beyerdynamic audio and don't understand why anyone recommends it. It has an awful treble peak you can't stop noticing once you hear it, and you can't drive their headphones without an amp.

      I recommend HiFiMan Sundara/Ananda if they fit your head and there aren't any CPU fans in your room.

      1 reply →

Some of their high priced noise cancelling headphones have excellent quality. I purchased the QC-25 ages ago, and when it stopped working I reached out to support, this was beyond their 3y warranty, provided serial number and they sent me a new QC-35 no questions asked replacement unit.

I am very happy with my QC-35 headphones. They are probably 5y+ now and they go with me everywhere. I think it is unfair to state their hw quality is low. It is much better than low.

  • In current dynamic world product quality of a company 'today' vs '5y+ ago' may drastically change. Sadly, usually to the bad side

    • Bose's QC/QC Ultra lines continue to receive praise for comfort, durability, sound quality, noise cancellation, etc. They make pretty great consumer quality headphones.

      Until quite recently, they were widely one of if not the most recommended wireless headphones. The new Sennheiser's that come with a USB-C dongle might have finally stepped past what Bose has been delivering, but at a higher price.

      4 replies →