We've had horrible arguments about this. (Or at least I have, in other
Bose is overpriced and under-performing. Its claims, both technical and
aesthetic, are almost always invalid and sometimes outright lies.
This doesn't mean competing products are necessarily better (though they can
be). It's rather that Bose has earned its market share simply by _claiming_
it's better. The sincere testimonials from real customers come from people
who don't know what live sound sounds like, and have no experience in
judging reproduced sound.
Bose is notorious for insisting that its dealers maintain a separate demo
area. This adds to the products' snob appeal, but it also makes direct
comparison difficult. If Bose products are so much better, the companies
should require demonstrations _next to_ competing products. Right?
If Bose is "the most-trusted name in sound", and Bose reproduction is so
"life-like", why do I own Apogee speakers and John Curl amplification, and
Don't be intimidated. Buy what you like. Don't give into the temptation of
owning something simply because its manufacturer _says_ it's the best. It
I'm an audiophile of 40+ years' standing, have a modest amount of experience
in live recording, and wrote for one of the major publications for more than
a decade. If Bose isn't good enough for me, it isn't good enough for you.