Talk:Bose Corporation/Archive 3

message: 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:  abusepoc@afrinic.net
ASH1977LAW 13:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Edits by by 41.212.135.126 & 202.12.144.21 

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

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  ... 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  High-end: arbitration? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  AviationX/NASA 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Link to Bose spottings at top of talk 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Stereo Speakers 

message: wikification drive
# Check if the article is a copyright violation.  Done.
# Check if another article already exists on this subject. Done.
# Wikify! Make links to other articles, format the lead (first sentence), and arrange section headers as described at Wikipedia:Guide to layout. Done.
#Articles that have the correct formatting, but are messy should NOT be tagged with the wikify tag. Use cleanup or copyedit instead. Done.
# Remove the  tag.  Done.
# 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)
thread_title:  Wikified? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A Core Issue 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Requested move 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sign Comments Please 

message: 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)
thread_title:  My view on the ideals of high-end and upper mid-fi 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Factual Error 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reference Syntax Fix 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Archives 

message: :"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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Unsuccessfully HUH?!?!? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Reply from 71.57.74.109

message: 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)
thread_title:  Etymotic and Ultimate Ears 

message: 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. 
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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Rant from an Anon

message: 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)
thread_title:  Early History 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mmph... 

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Market share and "the lists" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Ad tags 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Specifications ? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Distribution . 

message: ..."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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  unscientific nonsense 

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

message: *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)
replies: text: This source verifies that they are found in the Space Shuttle and olympic stadiums. -- Phoenix (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is unencyclopedic, unenlightening and uninformative. Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: MIT Inventor of the Week

message: *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)
replies: text: This source verifies that they are found in the Space Shuttle. -- Phoenix (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Cisco NASA Publication

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Unofficial Wiki and FAQ

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Exactly! Used in this way it violates WP:SYNTHESIS. Out it goes. Binksternet (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Forbes Magazine

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Your argument misses the point that Clynes has no authority on automotive sound systems. Binksternet (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Popular Science

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Fails WP:V and WP:RS. Used to put together a WP:SYNTHESIS. Out it goes. Binksternet (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Consumer reviews are not WP:RS by definition.Mattnad (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: PCMag.com

message: *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)
replies: text: Agreed, that's why I didnt reinsert it. -- Phoenix (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Mahalo

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: intellexual.net