During discussions about how various speakers sound, we get many different descriptions. Adjectives like forward, lively, bright, warm, etc...
To establish a common point of reference for us laymen, I respectfully request our resident speaker gurus give us their detailed description of the factory Bose system. Seriously! Please no Bose Blose.
All are welcome, but I would particularly like to hear from SpkrBoy, Fej, Scott_fx, Komoman, and Kale. Sorry if I missed anyone, but these are the people from whom I seem to regularly read speaker reviews and who typically answer my, "Which speakers sound the best?" questions.
Ok guys, please fire away!

 

LOL, you asked for it

To me Bose sounds like an EQ that's been set by a 15 year old. Sizzle-Boom. Bright unnatural highs, boomy lows, but no real extension in either direction. Ragged midrange, especially with quality piano and female vocal jazz pieces. Very little dynamic range, harshness when the volume is elevated, little actual detail, but just enough at first blush to make you think it might actually be OK, until you do some serious listening. Virtually no stage presence to speak of.

Those are the highlights, and I was being kind.

 

Haha I expected much worse from you bro

IMO the bose system has a very sporadic frequency response. It attempts to have "bass" that is peaky in the 50-60hz region but never has the power to pull it off and is very muddy and not accurate at all. (don't even ask it to play below that) It then has a very weak lower midrange that is devoid of detail as most of their systems of late have 8" drivers trying to play 40hz AND 800hz accurately and does neither very well. Then we have an over emphasis in the 1khz to 7khz range from their "mid and twiddler" combo that most bose cars have, with little or no top end sparkle or extension. Hence the reason most people crank the treble trying to get some sort of cymbal presence from the factory bose system.

Acceptable for talk radio ... downright poor for any sort of quality audio reproduction. But again this is all relative. Many of the people here have far superior home systems to mine, although I am working on that once I get moved and settled in. My $1,500 truck system to my ear sounds better than the vast majority of the highly processed, very high dollar custom installs I have heard in the past few months. In fact I think my truck is better than my home system now and has motivated me to improve the vette

Fej

 

I am getting what I asked for. I want to know what you mean when you say "_________". We all have different listening experience, but the C5 Bose system is what we (many of us) have in common.
Thank you!

 

My definitions:

Bright: Tweeters seem to be louder than the rest of the system, instruments in this range (especially cymbals) are very loud, and you can 'feel them.'

Harsh: Different than bright. Sort of a 'staticy' sound that is unpleasant, and hurts the ears. This can come from midranges too. Sort of an 'extra something' in the top end of the music.

Warm: Thick lower midrange/upper midbass. Makes male vocals sound more powerful, and can make electric guitars sound a little 'off'

Cold: Lacking in midbass, usually also brighth.

Laid Back: Opposite of bright. Cymbals are heard, but blend into the music, and you don't 'feel them' System sounds quiet, even at high sound levels. Nothing really stands out and 'touches' you.

Lively/forward: Usually bright tweeter and midrange, also a good amount of snappy midbass

Muddy: Bass sounds confused, music all seems to come from an ambiguous source, and blends together. See: CDT

Boomy: Excessive midbass in one particular region, maybe weak in others very bad sounding, very muddy.

******** smashing oontz: Bass so powerful it makes your genitals ache.


Of this, I would call the Bose laid black, muddy, and boomy. Speaking more technical, the top end extension is poor, imaging is terrible, sounds all sort of blur together, rather than spacing out and sounding clear. Midbass is peaky.

 

In all honesty, i'm not sure. The Bose in my 97 (before the system swap) sounded very "dead" the music sounded semi distorted at all frequencies and was just unpleasant to hear.

HOWEVER....

The bose in my mom's 98 vert doesn't sound bad at all. There isn't much in the way of higher frequencies, but most of the music she listens to doesn't really need that. (this includes both the cassette deck and the CD changer in the trunk)

 

I drive a '98 vert and I thought the Bose in it sounded ok. Definitely not bad. It was just not loud enough, especially with the top down and when I would crank it the output became harsh.
Using Kale's definitions I would describe it as: Bright enough for the cymbal to be heard easily, but not bright enough to be felt. Stuck between Warm and Muddy. Boomy, but not full or enveloping which I guess would be called "peaky".
I get what SpkrBoy means when he says, "... harshness when the volume is elevated, little actual detail, but just enough at first blush to make you think it might actually be OK...", and Fej I am a "treble cranker".
I really appreciate your participation in this exercise.

 

I'll chime in and my reference point is entirely C6...

Spkrboy's description of sizzle-boom sums it up well. The system has no real highs because it trys to compensate for the lack of a tweeter with equalization and fails miserably. Couple that with the fact that you essentially are crossing over a 3.5" midrange to a 10" (or 8" in the case of non-Bose) subwoofer so you have an enormous frequency gap. And no, the 5.25" in the rear doesn't count - they do very little, even with the "improved" version in '07 on. They are not part of the front soundstage. So that 3.5" midrange is the sizzle while the sub goes thumpity-boom-boom-blah. Muddled, hissy... it's like listening to poorly ripped MP3.

 

I will give a different take on the Bose system, again, mine is from the C6 standpoint, my C5 had a custom system almost from day one, the C6 had the Bose (HU, Subs, Amps) but I had replaced the 3.5 and 5.25 with aftermarket speakers when I got it almost 3 years ago...

While OK, it never had any dynamic range or real presence, also the fact the Bose engineers decided to go with both a center channel (useless) and mono in the rear added to it. I did not even bother to listen to the system with the top off because, well, you couldn't... I switched the HU to a Kenwood DNX7100, rewired the speakers with the HU's power and replaced the front speakers with a component set. For the first time ever I experienced openness, and even with just a measly 22 watts per channel I could listen and enjoy the system with the top off.

Granted, my impressions are more subjective, it is factual that just removing the Bose amps made a world of difference...

 

The Bose amp and speakers are a combo. Because of the speaker choices the amp has built-in equalization to compensate for those choices. That's why just doing a speaker swap has such poor/limited results. You're sending equalization intended for the stock speakers to aftermarket speakers that aren't designed for it.

 

I've been thinking about this since you posted but for the life of me i can't really remember what the stock system sounded like. So i'm going to hold off on commenting and it looks like you've already gotten a few very good replies.

 

I agree in theory with some of your statements, however going from a papercone to a coaxial will improve frequency response / sound quality (and it has for several members including myself, it's even in the FAQ), however staging and presence has less to do with the speakers and more with the audio section. That is where I saw the biggest difference between the Bose vs. aftermarket.

Again, opinions vary and it's relativity subjective... In all my years in the audio business, the one question I would never answer is "which speaker sounds better"! The only answer is "which one sounds better to you"???

 

In subjective terms alone. Actual FR will be just as bad or worse, only the problem areas change.

Well, no. Speaker positioning and attention to phase is 95% of the staging/imaging battle.

 

lets keep on the original topic

 

Awwwww.... man!

And to think that I was about to reference a set of tin cans and a string for the tonal quality of my old Bose system.



I like the idea of defining the various 'sounds' that we hear in these systems. I love music, but I couldn't give an accurate description of the difference between bright/airy or soundstage/presence or muddy/flat.

******** smashing oontz is pretty clear, however.

Mark

 

Thank you!
Absolutely no ambiguity there!

Thanks again guys. For the most part, this is going exactly as I'd hoped.