Talk:Bose Corporation/Archive 2

message: Last archived by — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 22:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 1 

message: Someone decided to create a see also linking to Bosaphilia.  I don't really see that this is useful or appropriate, especially considering that the linked page doesn't exist. Since it was a small edit and could easily be re-done if supported and explained here.  --Matthew K 17:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New link

message: I'm forseeing a heated dispute for some apparent reason and from this point, I'm probably going to be really keeping an eye on this article.  The last few edits might be a sign that there could be disagreements between the editors and based on its edit history, disputes here are no diffrent than what I have seen in the past. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 03:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that such a scenario is brewing yet.  I think that the edit taking out the "Bose asserts" part is actually helping to preserve NPOV.  If you could find a citation, it'd be more valid.  It seems that the article is slightly geared towards Bose-favoring, and I think it's more neutral now. Andrewwski 04:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: "Dr. Bose believes that our imperfect knowledge of psychoacoustics limits our ability to adequately characterize quantitatively any two arbitrary sounds that are perceived differently, and to adequately characterize and quantify all aspects of perceived quality. He believes, for example, that distortion is much over-rated as a factor in perceived quality in the complex sounds that comprise music, noting, for example, that a square wave (a hugely distorted sine wave) and a sine wave are audibly indistinguishable above 7 kHz. Similarly, he does not find measurable relevance to quality in other easily measured parameters of loudspeakers and electronics, and therefore does not publish those specifications for Bose products. The ultimate test, Bose insists, is your perception of audible quality (or lack of it) and your preferences."
129.22.166.188 03:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Most of the above paragaph is rephrased from Amar Bose's 1968 AES paper "On the Design, Measurement, and Evaluation of Loudspeakers" -- reprints of which are avaialable from the AES in NYC for a small fee. See: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=1390. I received permission from the AES to upload a PDF of this paper to the Wikipedia, however Bose Corporation declined my request for permission to do that. Hence I did not upload it.  If you want a copy, email me and I'll send it to you:  fferguson@aol.com  Frankatca 21:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Edits 

message: The sentence, "The Bose corporation does not participate in these arguments, but they have asserted that people interested in quality audio should listen for themselves, as most people can determine for themselves what sounds best to them", is problematic for several reasons. 
First, it cannot be determined definitively whether the corporation participates in these arguments; Internet forums allow nearly total anonymity. 
Second, "they have asserted that . . ." is incredibly vague. When was this assertion made? To whom? In print or on the Web or where? Does it represent an official stance of the company? This needs to be a lot more specific if it is to be taken seriously.
Third, the content of the alleged assertion is hardly unique to Bose. In fact, many audio manufacturers suggest that potential customers listen to their own and competing products. If Bose made a special point of urging people to listen—much more vehemently than their competitors—then maybe it would be worthy of inclusion, but that case hasn't been made. Therefore, including such an assertion, even if it can be verified, seems irrelevant (at best) to an encyclopedia article on Bose.
Fourth, the part about the assertion doesn't logically follow from the undocumentable claim about Bose's non-participation; it is a near-non sequitur. What does Bose's participation or non-participation in online discussions have to do with their alleged assertions about the value of listening? This is poorly written and confusing, and I am reverting the page. 
Given the apparent controversy surrounding the article, I offer a friendly suggestion: that editors (preferably of the registered persuasion) post an explanation here on the Talk page prior to making further substantive changes to the article, especially any that involve resurrecting long-deleted wording. Rivertorch 16:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  9 Dec. 2006 edits and revisions 

message: No doubt considerably more fine tuning is in order, but the article is looking relatively neutral and actually rather encyclopedic nowadays. For the most part, it neither reads like ad copy nor serves as a vehicle for reckless bashing. And yet . . . the three edits made thus far today are needlessly inflammatory and/or lack appropriate citations and/or are written so that the meaning is ambiguous (not necessarily in that order). I'd be happy to help reword it, but the intended meaning honestly isn't clear in some places, and I don't have the stomach for searching out citations right now. It cannot stand as is, however, so with much goodwill and the best of intentions I'm reverting (the page, that is). Rivertorch 06:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I notified Gold Dragon about it.  Hopefully I won't go through such trouble of having to tone down negative rhetoric again. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 13:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[2007-01-19]] edits 

message: Regarding the link added today to the YouTube video (in the Automotive Suspension System section), could someone with a high-speed connection please check it to make sure it's (1) relevant and (2) not advertising/promotional? Thanks. Rivertorch 06:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its actually both relevant and quite fascinating to watch. I think the wording before the last link could have been done better but if you get a chance you should watch it. Oh and it is not spam either, from the little French that I could understand. -- UKPhoenix79 12:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: I.m thinking of cleaning-up and consolidating all the external citations/links into a more formal References section. It looks more formal, and also gives an "at-a-glance" account of who the publisher/author of the source is, without having to GO to that link... Wikipedia suggests to follow the existing majority citation format, so I'm wondering if anyone here has any objections.
Keecheril 01:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "external" citations? And how would you consolidate them? A references section, if added, would normally be used in addition to citations, so I'm curious to hear a little more about what you'd like to do.Waulfgang 04:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree what do you mean? -- UKPhoenix79 07:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  By "external" I simply meant links to pages outside Wikipedia. Maybe I'm not using the word citation correctly? Anyway, an example of what I'm suggesting is, the first citation on "Automotive Suspension System", would be better on a Reference, section, with the Journal name, author name, etc mentioned formally. I did a similar cleanup @ CATIA. Here's the old version, with different numbering for citations and references...Keecheril 17:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks good, Keecheril. Please do continue ASH1977LAW 16:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  OK - I've gone through and cleaned up all the external citations/links into a more formal References sectionASH1977LAW 16:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, ASH1977LAW, you beat me to it. Looks good!. Keecheril 19:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, though I was just following your lead. Thank you for suggesting it. ASH1977LAW 09:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References Cleanup 

message: I'd like to create a section on this under the research heading. Does anyone have any links for citations apart from the interview where Bose mentions the cold fusion research? ASH1977LAW 14:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cold Fusion & other 'blue-sky' research 

message: POV, people! So, if you write anything even potentially critical of Bose, it must be backed by citation, while factually wanting, fawning drivel gets to stand as a given? I don't think so. I don't want to do a wholesale revert, particularly as the one involving the space shuttle may be worthwhile (and may have another side to it). I'm really overloaded with other commitments, so if anyone else would like to have a go at fixing some of this, please do. In the meantime, I will remove one patently false statement (that, funny enough, lacks a citation). Just for starters, I think three citation-neededs in one sentence are a bit much, no? Rivertorch 17:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd try to check out the citations by all means possible because apparently it sounds a bit weasel-ish.  I am not sure if it's POV but if it's at the level of neutrality issues, I'd say go ahead and tune it.  I feel that it's a bit too unneutral but check the links to see if there's anything to do to tone down the weaselness of the anon's edits. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 17:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was quite worried about these edits being weaselish so I check wikipedia policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words) just in case, Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources and as all my edits have at least one citation to each statement I don't think they are at all weaselish (I was worried) ASH1977LAW 16:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Interesting edits, If they are factual I'm sure that some can stay... but we don't want an edit war with pro/anti Bose people so I agree that we should wait and see what it looks like when its finished and then remove the unsourced pov and return it to a neutral state. -- UKPhoenix79 23:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry - that was me, I forgot to log in. I've now provided two citations for the patently false statement , and that is statement is currently under discussion in the High-End, High-Fi, Opinions & Bose section beneath. The factually wanting, fawning drivel now has citations from reliable sources. Sorry about the spelling, no excuse for it really, I'll spell-check when I return on SundayASH1977LAW 11:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - I've removed refutable or meaningless statements and spell checked everything... theatre was spelt incorrectly, but that was the only thing my spell checker picked up as wrong. I've provided a further four citations for the high-end description but as there are two on the page already I've just included them in the talk page - does this really need 6 seperate citations? ASH1977LAW 11:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  March 12 edits by unregistered user 85.90.232.145 

message: Against my better judgement - Stax should be included as competitors because they actually make high-end headphones. If Bose claims to be competing in that market, then Stax are competitors. If Bose is not competing in the market for high-end headphones, fine, Stax are not competitors, and you should remove the claim that Bose are in the market for high-end headphones. It's called logic. Use it. Greglocock 11:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stax do appear to produce high-end headphones (or at least they claim to and are regarded as doing so), however Stax and Bose do not directly compete in the acoustic noise cancelling headphone market. ASH1977LAW 09:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Earspeakers and Headphones operate differently.  Because Stax markets their headsets as being Earspeakers, it should not be competing against Bose because noise cancelling headphones should compete against other noise cancelling headphones, not against an audiophilic pair of headphones.  Therefore, Stax should not be considered as a competitor. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 13:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. RollsRoyce and Ferrari both produce high-end automobiles but this does not make them competitors; similarly whilst both food Reeces Peanutbutter Cups are not competitors with fresh fruit. I have no doubt that Stax earspeakers are excellent audio equipment, but they are not competitors with products in the Bose range. It is not a case that they are not good enough or too good to be considered competitors, it is not a matter of comparative quality - their intended use is different enough for them not to be considered competitors ASH1977LAW 14:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Ouch harsh and a bit off the mark. While I would agree that the Triports are not good headphones and sooooooo need to be redesigned (because they simply suck), the Bose Noise QuietComfort headphones are truly amazing and still the standard for noise canceling headphones in the market. They beat everyone by having the best of 3 things in ONE headset their noise canceling technology, sound quality & comfort. Yes I have tried others out there (check my talk page history) but I am not comparing these to standard audio headphones I am comparing these to other on and around ear noise canceling headphones. They are the best on the market and have been consistently for years now! Hell the QC3's won Sound & Vision Editor's Choice award. Yes I have also checked out the Sennheiser's noise canceling line and I was surprised... they just couldn't compare to the QuietComforts, even though I wanted them too since they are cheaper. Sometimes the best product actually does cost more... Sorry -- UKPhoenix79 07:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Harsh, and quite beside the point. My original point, Unsigned|86.16.106.69, is that while both Stax and Bose do produce headphones they do not compete in the same market just as neither Ferrari or Rolls Royce, while both producing high-end automobiles do not directly compete. Your opinions of Bose, and indeed your opinions of Senheiser are beside the point. I myself have compared Senheiser and Bose headphones and have formed my own opinions on this subject, but those opinions count as original research and are therefore also quite beside the point. ASH1977LAW 10:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stax earspeakers