Re: Happy Anniversary Bose 901

Re: Happy Anniversary Bose 901

IMHO, much of the disparagement directed at Bose has been due to the
superior marketing of their product line compared to most other
consumer electronics manufacturers.

And I say this from the perspective of having been an incredibly
successful marketer of consumer-packaged goods products in a variety
of product categories and high-tech products that are still being sold
today - The products I developed and innovated have never been
replaced by anything better, so I do have some knowledge of what I
speak about. And FWIW, I retired and I now teach, hoping to pass on
good marketing skills, product development skills, and advertising
development skills to the next generation of business professionals.

Irregardless of what one thinks of their speakers and other products,
Bose has year in and year out been the "Proctor and Gamble" of
marketing programs and tactics that have achieved a level of success
most other companies can only dream of. In other words, Bose
management understands just how important it is to market their
products to the greatest number of people who will buy them and most
of the specialty manufacturers never learned and still have not
learned this lesson, IMHO. And that is why they are still "little
people:" They think little instead of thinking big (and they are
generally woefully under capitalized, so they cannot really grow their
business or their companies, but that's capitalism).

Given the choice between being a poor hair-shirt purist ascetic or a
rich capitalist who makes OK but not maybe "great" equipment, which
personal lifestyle would any of you choose for yourself? If more than
say, 5% to 10% of you say you'd rather be poor hair-shirt purist
ascetics, then you are lying!

Now, as for the Bose "sound," well, IMHO, choosing speakers is like
choosing a spouse, etc. Objective as well as subjective factors play
into the decision. I personally tend to like the "sound" of British
speakers like the Spendor SP100's and Harbeth HL40's - I only add this
comment so those reading this can get a sense of my own personal
listening preferences and biases.

I actually purchased a pair of Bose 901's (not sure which series) back
in 1982 just to see how they sounded in my room. My speakers at the
time were Dahlquist DQ-10a's, the Dahlquist DQ-LP1 electronic
crossover, and a Hartley 18" woofer that had been custom-made for Jon
Dahlquist that I purchased directly from Jon.

The 901's did some interesting things, and they were certainly much
more efficient than the DQ-10a's, but I don't listen at ear-bleeding
levels. And I was ultimately disappointed in the 901's because I did
not think they were particularly accurate or good sounding on acoustic
and vocal music, like Joni Mitchell and Gordon Lightfoot's good
recordings, so I sold them.

However, I only bought them as an "experiment" and I never planned to
get rid of my DQ-10a's.

Listening to the 901's whilst I had them was an interesting
experience, and I could easily see where they could garner a large
number of fans. They WERE particularly impressive on large symphonic
works and opera, and I could as easily listen to this kind of music on
the 901's as I could on the DQ-10a's, but whenever I went back to
Carly Simon, Joni Mitchell, or Carole King, I found myself much
preferring the reproduction of their LP's through my DQ-10a's than
through the 901's.

So what it all boils down to is some people liked 901's and some
people didn't like 901's. And I think Bose became reviled by the
"audiophile" community because of their commercial success.

YMMV, of course.

Re: Happy Anniversary Bose 901

Vinyl Rules! <timbritt@cyber-wizard,com > wrote:
> Given the choice between being a poor hair-shirt purist ascetic or a
> rich capitalist who makes OK but not maybe "great" equipment, which
> personal lifestyle would any of you choose for yourself? If more than
> say, 5% to 10% of you say you'd rather be poor hair-shirt purist
> ascetics, then you are lying!

That's a false dichotomy of course. Those aren't the only two choices.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

Re: Happy Anniversary Bose 901

On Jan 9, 8:26 pm, "Vinyl Rules!" <timbr...@cyber-wizard,com > wrote:
> IMHO, much of the disparagement directed at Bose has been due to the
> superior marketing of their product line compared to most other
> consumer electronics manufacturers.
>
It's more than that. Their product are engineered for the market, not
just good marketing. The idea of a speaker with a built-in EQ to
overcome the speakers frequency response shortcomings is compromise
engineering.

> And I say this from the perspective of having been an incredibly
> successful marketer of consumer-packaged goods products in a variety
> of product categories and high-tech products that are still being sold
> today - The products I developed and innovated have never been
> replaced by anything better, so I do have some knowledge of what I
> speak about. And FWIW, I retired and I now teach, hoping to pass on
> good marketing skills, product development skills, and advertising
> development skills to the next generation of business professionals.
>
> Irregardless of what one thinks of their speakers and other products,
> Bose has year in and year out been the "Proctor and Gamble" of
> marketing programs and tactics that have achieved a level of success
> most other companies can only dream of. In other words, Bose
> management understands just how important it is to market their
> products to the greatest number of people who will buy them and most
> of the specialty manufacturers never learned and still have not
> learned this lesson, IMHO. And that is why they are still "little
> people:" They think little instead of thinking big (and they are
> generally woefully under capitalized, so they cannot really grow their
> business or their companies, but that's capitalism).

Bose's marketing success is due to the fact that they built their
products for the market. They gave the consumer what they wanted, not
what they needed. The perfect speaker will have a flat frequency
response, perfect phase at all fequencies, and a wide dispersion
pattern. It is a significant engineering challenge to achieve that in
a speaker. Instead of that,Bose engineered workarounds with all sorts
of compromises. For example, normally you would use an 8, 10 or 12
inch driver to produce powerfull bass in the 30 Hz to 50 Hz region.
What does Bose do? Use a bunch of tiny (4 inch 5 inch?) drivers EQed
beyond belief to produce the same kind of bass. Results? They do it,
but the Bose setup won't go as loud and will produce significantly
more distortion compared to the other methods. Most consumer don't
know or appreciate that. Ignorance is bliss and Bose makes a killing.

>
> Given the choice between being a poor hair-shirt purist ascetic or a
> rich capitalist who makes OK but not maybe "great" equipment, which
> personal lifestyle would any of you choose for yourself? If more than
> say, 5% to 10% of you say you'd rather be poor hair-shirt purist
> ascetics, then you are lying!

Some people would like to be true to their profession.

>
> Now, as for the Bose "sound," well, IMHO, choosing speakers is like
> choosing a spouse, etc. Objective as well as subjective factors play
> into the decision. I personally tend to like the "sound" of British
> speakers like the Spendor SP100's and Harbeth HL40's - I only add this
> comment so those reading this can get a sense of my own personal
> listening preferences and biases.
>
> I actually purchased a pair of Bose 901's (not sure which series) back
> in 1982 just to see how they sounded in my room. My speakers at the
> time were Dahlquist DQ-10a's, the Dahlquist DQ-LP1 electronic
> crossover, and a Hartley 18" woofer that had been custom-made for Jon
> Dahlquist that I purchased directly from Jon.
>
> The 901's did some interesting things, and they were certainly much
> more efficient than the DQ-10a's, but I don't listen at ear-bleeding
> levels. And I was ultimately disappointed in the 901's because I did
> not think they were particularly accurate or good sounding on acoustic
> and vocal music, like Joni Mitchell and Gordon Lightfoot's good
> recordings, so I sold them.
>
> However, I only bought them as an "experiment" and I never planned to
> get rid of my DQ-10a's.
>
> Listening to the 901's whilst I had them was an interesting
> experience, and I could easily see where they could garner a large
> number of fans. They WERE particularly impressive on large symphonic
> works and opera, and I could as easily listen to this kind of music on
> the 901's as I could on the DQ-10a's, but whenever I went back to
> Carly Simon, Joni Mitchell, or Carole King, I found myself much
> preferring the reproduction of their LP's through my DQ-10a's than
> through the 901's.
>
> So what it all boils down to is some people liked 901's and some
> people didn't like 901's. And I think Bose became reviled by the
> "audiophile" community because of their commercial success.
>
Like I said, Bose compromised their engineering . . .something other
companies would not do but easily could have.
> YMMV, of course.

CD

Re: Happy Anniversary Bose 901

Grasshopper, you do not understand marketing.

Good Marketing IS giving consumers what they WANT, not what they NEED.

You NEED to eat fresh several servings of fruit and fresh vegetables
and drink milk daily for optimal health, but do you really do this,
when what you WANT is fresh hot pizza, Buffalo wings, and a cold beer?

And who are you to say what consumers NEED? In the world of real
marketing, consumers NEED what they WANT, and what they WANT is what
they buy.

Don't construe what I am saying here as a defense of Bose engineering
or admiration of their speakers. But what I do admire is Bose's single-
handed pursuit of "best marketing" practices to the MASS MARKET of
consumers: They do this better than virtually any consumer electronics
manufacturer.

On Jan 10, 6:58 pm, codifus <codi...@optonline,net > wrote:
[snip]
> Bose's marketing success is due to the fact that they built their
> products for the market. They gave the consumer what they wanted, not
> what they needed.