Talk:List of Bose computer speakers

Retail price incorrect on MediaMate section
I'm pretty sure they didn't initially retail (in 1994) for just $99. I believe they were $299. I was going to change just that price but it would have messed up the whole sentence. I believe they spend a lot of time at something like $189 on their way down the charts, too.

You are right, their retail price wasn't always $99, but we aren't sure how much it was originally. I guess it was $300, I remember reading a review somewhere that stated "I bought them since they were released for three times the price, they are still worth it." 206.248.68.82 (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

New Page Needs some TLC
Well I have quickly put up some information on the Bose Computer speakers and there is a lot left out. You may notice that the Companion 3's are before the Companion 2's. No this is not an error. the Companion 3's came out before the 2's. The 3's were sold along side the MediaMates for some time before the 2's arrived. Since eveything here probably should be put in chronological order this would be correct. Hope that this page becomes as informative as the Bose Headphone Family has become (c:= UKPhoenix79 08:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Companion 3 specs
I did not want to post these on the specs area incase they are inaccurate.

RMS IEC Rating fro power handling is 18watts for the twiddlers and 60watts for the RichBass woofer in the acoustimass.

I have sources which tell me the frequency response is roughly: 40hz - 18khz - flat. The system however does deliver deeper bass notes, due to the lack of X-over. It starts rolling off at 45-50Hz, but will manage to keep going till about 35Hz but with slight less power than 40Hz, probably -6db.

The companion 2s reach about 60Hz then start to roll off (lack of x-over means the drivers tend to crackle on low bass), the lows are heavily optimised in the 60-80 range and can sound boomy.


 * Where did you get that information? Bose doesn't publish that. I guess we shouldn't post unofficial info, or anything that Bose does not want to post.

Blow the warranty information
There's no need to display the Warranty information for NPOV purposes. Nuff said. &mdash; Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 03:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Edited it a bit, but still looks too awkward. &mdash; Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 03:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It is included as information and it is a fact. There is no problem with that.

Repolished, but still looks like an advert plus too many bugs
I repolished the article so that it would look like an advert, but I have insufficient information to make it the way Wiki wants it, so I'm going to have to leave the Advert concern in the article for now, but also there are bugs that need to be addressed as well. Until the article is polished to the way Wiki wants it, I'm going to have to say that this is still a heavily bug-infested article. &mdash; Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 19:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Revert of 09:27, 1 February 2012 edit
The deleted text was an attempt to 1) improve NPOV, 2) focus on notable features (it is not notable for computer speakers to be shielded, for example) and 3) clearly explain any technical jargon. Please discuss any problems you have with this text, so we can improve the article! 1292simon (talk) 08:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see your talk page. -- Phoenix (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Article structure
Companion 2, 3, 5 and 20 are separate model lines, therefore they should be level 2 headings. Awards and criticisms info is more useful if it is located in the section for the relevant product. 1292simon (talk) 06:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

MediaMate
Previous text contained vague marketing statements ("affordable enhancement for streaming audio") and verbosely explained features which are not notable because they are standard for products of this type (eg magnetic shielding for PC speakers). Rewritten for neutral tone and to focus on unique aspects of product.1292simon (talk) 06:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

MM2
Previous text relied on Bose jargon and the cabling arrangement is not notable enough for inclusion 1292simon (talk) 06:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Companion 2
Rewritten to add references and focus on unique aspects and differences between models. 1292simon (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Companion 3
Previous text relied heavily on Bose jargon and lacked references. Rewritten to address this. 1292simon (talk) 07:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Companion 5
Previous text relies heavily on Bose jargon and includes unsupported marketing claims. Minimum PC specs are not notable 1292simon (talk) 07:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Companion 20
This stub could use some more info and independent references. 1292simon (talk) 07:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

MicroMusic Monitor
Japan-only release is very important, so it has been moved to the heading. 1292simon (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Computer MusicMonitor
Previous text relied heavily on Bose jargon. Rewritten also to remove features which are not notable because they are standard for computer speakers (eg air duct and EM shielding). 1292simon (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

July 2012 edit
Hi, my edit has too many changes to be accurately described in an edit summary, so I am justifying it here instead: I encourage people to read Wikipedia's policy on "no original research", the recent edits have contained significant unreferenced original research. Israeljamebond, thanks for the images and cleanups! 1292simon (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Companion 2: Restored previous text containing referenced comparison to competitors, removed unreferenced claims (higher amount of treble, bass reflex location, etc)
 * Companion 3: Restored referenced text
 * Companion 5: Restored referenced text. It is necessary to spell out that the Red Dot awards are not based on sound quality, otherwise people would naturally assume that an award for loudspeakers included audio quality testing.
 * Companion 20: Removed unsourced claim.
 * Computer Music Montior: Restored referenced text
 * Wave/PC: linked to main article

My edits
Hi there, thanks for starting a talk on the article and my edits, however I believe that before reverting everything I added, just for doing it, the talk should have been started. No one had touched the article in months, so I didn't really have to say anything in a discussion before making my edits, but it's not nice when you just undo what someone just edited without discussing it, and that's why I am writing here instead of just undoing everything back to the way I had it. I'll go from the general stuff on the article to the specific stuff in the sections.

General Edits

 * The first thing I have to note is that Wikipedia is not a review website where people come to find comparisons of one speaker system to another, a gaming console to another and one film to another, this is an encyclopedia, and they are here to offer information about the history and features of these speakers, not to offer a particular review or comparison to affect someone’s views about the system positively or negatively. Do you go to any film's Wikipedia article and see a movie judged against another similar movie? No, you just see information about the film itself, so any reference claiming that a certain Bose speaker system has subpar or substandard audio compared to a certain speaker model, or to a certain price range, isn't just unfair to the system (this is the opinion of one particular reviewer or website) it also affects the neutrality of the article (Are there any references to show the other side of the coin? Any positive review is shown to make the article neutral?) Movie articles show the reception section of the movies, where they go to a review aggregator website and take the rating right out of there, and depending on whether the reviews were mostly good, or mostly bad, then they show you highlights about 4-5 positive reviews with just one negative, or vice-versa if the movie had negative ratings and reviews. Following that guideline, our review aggregator website would be Amazon.com and if you research all of the systems listed in this page, you will come across aggregated ratings from 4 to 5 stars, no less. How does a particular website or particular’s reviewer opinion have a bigger weight to be referenced, than hundreds of reviews of each speaker system on Amazon.com? I am sorry if I am being a little rough, but whoever added that information to the article clearly has an anti-Bose agenda. Surely I might be pro-Bose and it angers me to see those references, but if you notice my edits were mostly about making the article neutral, and not in favor of Bose. Therefore, I believe the references to substandard, subpar or comparisons to other speakers, in the Companion 2 section, the Companion 3 Series I, the Companion 5 and the Computer MusicMonitor, should be scraped from the Article, unless you are going to say something like “however, among consumers, the speakers are highly rated and praised with aggregated ratings ranging from 4 to 5 stars”. I believe we don’t want to have a sentence like that, so let’s just remove the references that don’t really add anything to the information or the features of the speakers in the article.
 * Second general complaint around the entire article: Every time you establish that there is no way to mix and match the volume of sources connected to the different Bose speaker systems, it is like you are saying to anyone who comes and reads the article and has no technical knowledge, that there is no way in the world to adjust each source’s volume when having two sources connected to the Bose speakers playing audio. I believe we should keep every instance where I added “other than each source’s independent volume” to avoid this confusion. We are here to inform people as much as possible.
 * Third general issue, when referencing Red Dot awards, my change to “based on their appearance and design” is enough. Adding “audio is not among the criteria” is wasting text in a way, especially when you can just tap on the Red Dot Award link and see the entire article detailing the awards, and once again I believe it was probably added by the same anti-Bose person who added the substandard and subpar jargon.
 * Fourth general issue: Why does the article need to say “the ONLY tone control”. We can just say the tone control available on each speaker, and the way I wrote it was more detailed than what it was reverted to.

Specific Edits

 * Why are we going to require a quote for the Bose MM-1 features and description? It hasn’t been in production for a long time, there are no online manuals, but if you could find photos of the system on every angle, you would be able to see the dual source inputs and the enhance button. The picture clearly shows the system is black and has two speakers, and if you type Bose MM-1 into Bing or Google, you will notice most of the websites that come up are written in Japanese.
 * I believe what I wrote on the Bose Wave/PC should be reinstated. Surely it is based on the Bose Wave Technology, which has a main article, but it was designed for computers, which makes it a Bose Computer Speaker system, so people should be able to read the information right on the article. It should be noted that what I wrote on the article about the Wave/PC had more information than the main Wave Article, because I didn’t realize it was already referenced somewhere else in Wikipedia, until after I finished writing the section, and I combined what the main Wave article said, with the new section I wrote, so the main wave article should receive the extra information as well.
 * About the Companion 2 and its sound and design improvement, it is a fact among audio experts that having bass ports aimed towards a wall or corner improves bass, and there are reviews on Amazon.com where it is mentioned, from people who used to own the MediaMates. I believe the additional information doesn’t hurt anyone. Next: I believe saying “unlike its predecessor, the Mediamate” is more correct than saying “unlike its MediaMate predecessor”. The TrueSpace Stereo Everywhere technology, indeed replaces the spaciousness enhancing technology on the MediaMate, and it should be stated. When it comes to saying it had no tone controls, this is not a feature commonly found on new high end 2.0 speakers and it wasn’t available previously on the MediaMate, so there is no need to reference an absence of something that never was available in the past, unlike the volume control of source mixing. When it comes to the series II section, the redesign of the Companion II was to match the looks of the Companion 5, and it even happened simultaneously with the release of the Companion 5, so the extra information should remain there. I should also note that I own both series of the system, and anyone would easily notice the increase in treble between both systems, and that can also be verified with Amazon.com reviews. The bass is a little more defined, but that one is harder for people to notice. Once again, having more details on the changes between each series doesn’t hurt anyone, and offers more information to the world. Finally, axe the comparison to other speakers. This isn’t a review website.
 * On to the Companion 3, when you say the volume was adjusted using a remote, people will automatically think of a square or rectangular box, with batteries and buttons that has to be aimed at an IR sensor. The volume adjustment of the companion resembles a round wheel or circle, which allows taping to mute, connecting headphones and an auxiliary 3.5mm source and is wired to the back of the subwoofer. It would be even better to offer all the details I just wrote. The tone control again: Once again why is there a reference to ONLY tone control? Most high end 2.1 speakers have just one tone control, and it is for the bass level like the Companion 3’s bass compensation. Speakers with treble controls usually are low end speakers, so adding the word only isn’t necessary. People who buy pricey speakers don’t expect a treble control. Then comes again the reference to not being able to adjust each source’s independent volume… As for the issues with the speakers, I was the one who wrote the criticism section years ago, and I was the one to add all the issues listed if I am not mistaken. The cracking issue was only experienced at EXTREME loud volumes, so my reference should remain. You actually have to plug the speakers onto a powerful receiver’s headphone output, or to a volume booster, to be able to reproduce the problem. It was impossible when using a regular computer’s sound card. I owned one of these “faulty” models and I got it exchanged when the revised edition was released (exactly 6 months after the initial release) and I can no longer reproduce the problem again. A friend of mine had the same experience. The reference to the first 6 months of production should remain, and then when it is established that the issues weren’t carried over on to the Series II and the Companion 5, should also be included, because they are nonexistent, and both systems are successors to the Companion 3 Series 1. Finally, the reference to style over substance has to go out. You can’t impose a particular person’s point of view/opinion and post it as a fact on an encyclopedia article.
 * Now the Companion 5. Why remove the reference to needing a powerful CPU? If your PC has no sound card, when the Companion 5 installs drivers to create a virtual sound card, it taxes your CPU in order to process the sound. If your computer is slow and underpowered, you would start to hear popping and cracking noises when the CPU was reaching its limit playing music or audio from games or movies, so the Companion 5 requires a powerful CPU if you are using the USB Virtual Sound Card 5.1 mode. On to the next issue, what is so special about Linux (barely anyone uses it in the world) that it gets mentioned alone in the section? If you are going to mention compatible OSes with the Companion 5, you should mention the ones it was designed for: Windows and Mac OS X. Saying it “also” works with Linux is not grammatically correct when you didn’t previously established what it works with. The Companion 5 has dual source like the other Bose products, and you can adjust the volume on the computer via USB, while having something else connected like a microphone to the AUX-in 3.5mm and adjusting the volume on the other source itself. It also has bass compensation tone control on the back of the subwoofer, so why was it wrong to include it for the Companion 5 but not for the other Bose systems? Finally, scrape once again the link to a review that tries to say it has substandard audio for the price, which is an opinion.
 * The Companion 20… I will add more to the system’s information, even though I fear someone will just come and delete what I type for no reason, but just go to Bose.com and you will read their claim that a subwoofer isn’t needed for full range sound, according to their marketing. Then go to Amazon.com and see the reviews of people agreeing with that statement.
 * MicroMusic Monitor… I bought these speakers when they were released, and the first batch of them, like the Bose Wave Music System (which is the redesigned original Wave Radio, and was originally labeled Bose Wave Radio/CD Series II) were labeled Bose Desktop Speakers both in the box and manuals. Deleting what I wrote, erases this fact from history forever. Also, the speakers either feature or include, but not featureinclude. The function of the dual passive radiators should remain there, which has a purpose of increasing bass response while eliminating vibrations. Finally, the reference to substandard audio for the price has to be taken out. Who in the world establishes what standard audio per price is, for the 7 billion individuals with different tastes living on this planet?

Closing Statement
I want to say that I own or have owned most of the speakers in this page (except for the Japanese models, apart from the MM-1 which I recently sold) and some of the speaker systems are quite old, meaning you will not find any reference to back up what was written, but I came here with honest information as an owner and expert among the features of many of the speakers, to add that information which probably can’t be found anywhere else on the internet other than maybe among the hundreds of Amazon.com reviews. Requiring sources which will hardly be found online, because I am the source, or removing the extra details I provide, just feels like you are against providing as much information and details as possible about the speakers. Is it okay for me to start a website, review every Bose speaker in this page, and then use that website as the source to back up these references? That wouldn’t be so nice in terms of article quality and encyclopedic purposes. You would be taking whatever opinions I have on these systems, and citing and quoting me as a fact, and maybe that’s the same that happens with the references used right now. Customer feedback has much more importance than a particular’s reviewer or website’s opinion, so those negative sources should be removed, especially if you go and take a look at the hundreds of reviews on Amazon.com and the aggregated ratings. I feel reverting my edits was mostly about making the article less detailed, and less informative, as well as more negative towards Bose. I think most, if not all my edits should be reinstated for all the reasons I mentioned. Israeljamesbond (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Israeljamesbond, thanks for sharing your thoughts on the talk page. While there were a few reasons for the edits (see above), in general it often related to unreferenced claims. Even though you may have very useful knowledge to share (as a Bose owner), for better or worse, Wikipedia has a no original research policy.
 * If the Bose Wave/PC is primarily a computer speaker system, I agree it should be moved here. (In my opinion, duplicating content across articles often leads to contradictions and reduces the quality of articles, so I like to see the content consolidated to the most relevant article, then provide "See Also" or "Main" links in the other articles) Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)