Another reason to avoid Bose

[spyboy]

Good audio quality is in the ears of the beholders. I'll say it again, Bose is not for hobbiests. But please take a look at that link in post #57. Bose is so far above every other tech company. They make Apple look like pikers.

[Sim reality]

Did you read the entire article from forrester (where the chart was taken from)?

http://www.forrester.com/FirstLook/Vertical/Issue/0,6454,608,00.html

The analysis seems to indecate that the brand loyalty has to do with "low level of at-risk users"....

[Alaric]

Good audio quality is in the ears of the beholders. I'll say it again, Bose is not for hobbiests. But please take a look at that link in post #57. Bose is so far above every other tech company. They make Apple look like pikers.

Over-processed ,piercing highs,muddy "bass". Manufacturers can claim anything they want and point to "technology" as proof.I'm not buying it.
For example: I can patiently explain to a customer why a Harley engine is better than a Honda-and back it up with all kinds of pinpoint engineering references.Truth is it's all bullflop. It all comes down to personal preference.If you like the stuff that comes out of Bose speakers/processors/etc. then buy it. I refuse to accept the word of some self-interested yo-yo with an oscilliscope when my ears tell me different. The cost:enjoyment ratio of Bose is off the scale on my crapometer. Again , noise-cancellation technology doesn't convince me of expertise in accurate audio reproduction.
I spent a whole $512 (at cost) on a weak/cheap Onkyo home theatre that positively stomps the $3800 Bose "Lifestyle" system. A 10" , 230 watt Onkyo sub makes the "Acoustimess" module sound like the $10 clock radio it is.
Okay , I probably went off the deep end , but it drives me nuts when people point to a piece of paper and tell me to look at how good something sounds . :M