Bose's iPod SoundDock Reviewed

LabRat007 writes "Playlist has a review of the Bose SoundDock, the desktop speaker system for the iPod that Bose has lately been promoting the holy hell out of. The long and the short is that it sounds great--better than any other iPod-specific speaker system--but for $300 is lacking in many features even cheaper setups have, like the ability to actually use the SoundDock as a syncing dock. Oh, and it has no line-in, so you can't use the SoundDock as output for anything else, like a PC or laptop, for instance." It's not quite as cute, but I like my Cambridge Soundworks Model 88 (now superseded by the Model 730) as a laptop loudspeaker system.

Comments

isn't it kind of wasteful?

[jxyama]

iPod, by design, holds a lot of compressed music...

isn't it a bit of a waste to spend to much on a set of speakers almost in vain to reproduced already degraded music...? why not buy a simple stereo and play the original CD on it if you really needed good sound quality?

i guess there's the convenience factor... but for $300, i'd probably just buy a very large HD, rip music in lossless formats and use Airport Express to stream those to an existing nice set of speakers?

Re:In the professional audio world

[UnknownSoldier]

> Bose is an acronym for Buy Other Sound Equipment.
> Most of what you are paying for when buying Bose is the marketing.

Hehe. What's that tagline that us audiophiles use:

"All the highs, none of the lows, must be Bose!"

Gee, I wonder why they NEVER give tech specs on any of their speakers. Not anything fancy like SN ratio, but even the BASIC info such as frequency range! Maybe because they are CRAP and OVER_RATED speakers.
See the speaker forumforum at avsforum if you want MULTIPLE confirmations on how bad they sound.

Monster cable isn't THAT bad.... the rule of thumb is to spend 10% of your Home Theater / Speaker cost on cables... so MC is'n't that over-inflated. It's not great, but it's better that Rat Shack.

BTW, if anyone is serious about GOOD video cable quality, check out the Nordost line.

Peace
--
While killing all the lawyers would make many people EXCEEDINGLY HAPPY (myself included)
it would NOT _SOLVE_ the problem -- because the problem is the face in the mirror.
If you don't like the laws, then DO something about it, or shut up,
because simply bitching accomplishes absolutely nothing.

For $100

[commodoresloat]

Get yourself a set of Roland MA-8 Powered Studio Monitors. They are small and simple, with a big sound for such a small speaker. They're meant to be reference monitors so they have a nice clean sound; I haven't heard the Bose but I can almost guarantee you'll like the Rolands at least as well if not better. Only slightly less portable than the Bose. And you can plug anything into them that has an RCA-style adapter.

In home audio...

[downward dog]

(I'll answer the question for home audio, not pro audio, because Bose makes home audio equipment.) There is no predominate brand, but here are a few that are generally highly-regarded and reasonably priced: Paradigm Magnepan Martan Logan NHT And two brands that audio snobs might look down on, but actually produce a few decent speakers: Polk Infinity In particular, the Polk RTi28/RTi38 is considered one of the best low-priced speaker sets around. I think you can get a pair for $200 or so, and a center channel (for home theater) for $150. Great sound and great construction. I have run the Polk RT series for about 5 years, and I've been happy with them (though I now have the itch for something in the $1000+ range...). Hope this helps.

Re:It's called mid-range...

[dgatwood]

Depends on what came with the speakers. I can trivially put together a system that will show a huge difference in sound between a pair of cables. Take a 10 AWG super-heavy-duty extension cord, cut the ends off and hook it up to one set of speakers. Take a puny piece of 22 AWG speaker cable (typical of some inexpensive home stereo systems with small speakers) and hook it up to an identical pair of speakers. Switch between the two. :-D

As a general rule, for speaker cables, bigger is better. The bigger the cable, the greater the distance at which you can drive a given load without a voltage drop. Because voltage drop causes a disproportionately large drop in the lower frequencies, the smaller the cable, the thinner the sound. The difference between 10-12 AWG and 18-24 AWG is noticeable over a sufficient distance.

Monster cable comes in at 14 AWG, which is heavier than average for a speaker cable, so I'm not surprised if someone can tell a difference between that and a smaller cable. That said, the audible difference is likely the gauge, not the construction.

Some related reading material....

Frankly, if you're measuring the distortion of a speaker cable, you have way too much money and should give me some of it. :-)