Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

New Bose Wave Radio Music System vs. Cambridge Soundworks ..

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 6:10:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Any first hand or magazine comparisons yet?
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 7:29:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I've yet to hear any "all-in-one" table radio that sounded any good, including
the CSW models.

You're comparing two gross mediocrities. You'd be better off -- sonically --
with a three-piece "executive" system, especially models with two-way speakers.
These are mediocre, too, but on a higher level.
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 9:23:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <908b8d7f.0410191310.5432882e@posting.google.com>,
James Rosenzweig <jimr18@netzero.net> wrote:
>Any first hand or magazine comparisons yet?

I don't know, but I can't imagine anything could be much worse than the
Bose Wave radio. Very flabby sound that actually impairs voice intelligibility.
Okay RF section but nothing to write home about. The new one seems to have
a poorer RF section.

I haven't tried the Cambridge, but I'll say that any All-American Five set from
the fifties beats the Bose hands down in terms of RF and audio performance,
and that says something very sad.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Related resources
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 10:07:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

But usually this is just for a little background "noise". Which is
exactly what you get.

For serious listening, though, don't be ridiculous.

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> I've yet to hear any "all-in-one" table radio that sounded any good, including
> the CSW models.
>
> You're comparing two gross mediocrities. You'd be better off -- sonically --
> with a three-piece "executive" system, especially models with two-way speakers.
> These are mediocre, too, but on a higher level.
>
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 10:07:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> But usually this is just for a little background "noise".
> Which is exactly what you get.
> For serious listening, though, don't be ridiculous.

The original poster was asking about relativel quality, which implies _some_
degree of intentional listening.

I find the better executive systems "tolerable" for intentional listening.
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 10:37:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <cl40k0$8r0$1@panix2.panix.com>, kludge@panix.com says...
>
>
>In article <908b8d7f.0410191310.5432882e@posting.google.com>,
>James Rosenzweig <jimr18@netzero.net> wrote:
>>Any first hand or magazine comparisons yet?
>
>I don't know, but I can't imagine anything could be much worse than the
>Bose Wave radio. Very flabby sound that actually impairs voice
intelligibility.
>Okay RF section but nothing to write home about. The new one seems to have
>a poorer RF section.
>
>I haven't tried the Cambridge, but I'll say that any All-American Five set
from
>the fifties beats the Bose hands down in terms of RF and audio performance,
>and that says something very sad.

I wake up in the morning to a Bose Wave radio. Although I would certainly not
use it for critical listening, I find it's pleasant enough with our local
classical station. And I have never had the slightest problem understanding
speech through it.

As far as RF goes, Bose front ends have traditionally had RF overload
problems. But I have mine connected to a rooftop antenna (it actually has a 75
ohm external antenna input) and it doesn't do too badly re sensitivity.

I also think its ergonomics are excellent. There is a reason why they managed
to sell 2 million of the things -- Bose knows how to market to an upscale
crowd that is willing to spend $300 for a radio but which does not consist of
hardcore audiophiles.
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 10:51:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

William Sommerwerck wrote:

> I've yet to hear any "all-in-one" table radio that sounded any good, including
> the CSW models.


I have a Sony stereo alarm clock AM / FM / CD player, that sounds
not-too-bad. Of course, I only listen to it for a few seconds a day. And
not every day.
Anonymous
October 20, 2004 2:05:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>I haven't tried the Cambridge, but I'll say that any All-American Five set
>from
>the fifties beats the Bose hands down in terms of RF and audio performance,
>and that says something very sad.
>--scott

I still get arguements from friends over this.."we think it sounds great!!"
Yeah...cheap hamburger is great if your starving but given a choice?


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637
Anonymous
October 20, 2004 2:05:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Blind Joni <blindjoni@aol.com> wrote:
>>I haven't tried the Cambridge, but I'll say that any All-American Five set
>>from
>>the fifties beats the Bose hands down in terms of RF and audio performance,
>>and that says something very sad.
>
>I still get arguements from friends over this.."we think it sounds great!!"
>Yeah...cheap hamburger is great if your starving but given a choice?

Give them this trick. Tune the radio to talk station, and put it in the
kitchen. Have them walk away from it and see how far away in the house they
can get before they can't understand the words any longer. Now try the
same thing with an AA5 or some other decent table radio.

After doing this, my father decided not to give his fifty-year old Zenith
up for the Bose. He also found that he could easily get KDKA on skip with
the Zenith, and the adjacent channel interference was too much to hear
Steelers games on the Bose.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
October 20, 2004 2:05:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> I haven't tried the Cambridge, but I'll say that any All-American Five
> from the fifties beats the Bose hands down in terms of RF and audio
> performance, and that says something very sad.

How can you compare AM reception with FM reception and CD playback? I grew up
listening to AA5s, and I never heard any one that was suitable for any sort of
"serious" listening.

Though hardly of "hi-fi" quality, the drivers in modern radios are of noticeably
higher quality. Try comparing a decent boombox with a portable radio of 40 years
ago.
Anonymous
October 20, 2004 2:41:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Don Cooper" <dcooper28800@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:41759A6A.C0EE0248@comcast.net...
>
> I have a Sony stereo alarm clock AM / FM / CD player, that sounds
> not-too-bad. Of course, I only listen to it for a few seconds a day. And
> not every day.

My wife has discovered that if she sets the clock radio on AM and tunes it
somewhere in between the stations, the static is a much more pleasant and
gentle way to wake up than the morning news. (Only one of her many
wonderful facets. Excessive compression bugs her, too. What a woman!)
Anonymous
October 20, 2004 10:37:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

About 20 years ago, Denon sold the DH-400, a two-piece stereo table radio. It's
not at all tiny; each cabinet has a two-way speaker with a 6" woofer and 2" (?)
tweeter.

It's my bedroom radio, and it sounds awfully good. Voices are natural, without
boom or chestiness. Symphonic music sounds modestly realistic. There's no
boxiness or obvious colorations. I enjoy listening to it, and I consider it
suitable for attentive listening.

Oh, yes... The sound is better than any other table radio I've heard, including
the Bose, CSW, any executive system -- and KLH. It's easy to get good sound --
you need a two-way speakers in reasonably large cabinets. There's no way I know
around it.
Anonymous
October 20, 2004 12:57:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"William Sommerwerck" <williams@nwlink.com> wrote in message
news:10nbdmscs1dir18@corp.supernews.com
>> I haven't tried the Cambridge, but I'll say that any All-American
>> Five from the fifties beats the Bose hands down in terms of RF and
>> audio performance, and that says something very sad.
>
> How can you compare AM reception with FM reception and CD playback? I
> grew up listening to AA5s, and I never heard any one that was
> suitable for any sort of "serious" listening.

Scott also said:

"Give them this trick. Tune the radio to talk station, and put it in the
kitchen. Have them walk away from it and see how far away in the house they
can get before they can't understand the words any longer. Now try the
same thing with an AA5 or some other decent table radio."

Wide bandwidth, flat response system are not ideal for listening to speech
in the low-SNR context Scott described.
Anonymous
October 20, 2004 2:52:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

William Sommerwerck <williams@nwlink.com> wrote:
>> I haven't tried the Cambridge, but I'll say that any All-American Five
>> from the fifties beats the Bose hands down in terms of RF and audio
>> performance, and that says something very sad.
>
>How can you compare AM reception with FM reception and CD playback? I grew up
>listening to AA5s, and I never heard any one that was suitable for any sort of
>"serious" listening.

That's pretty much true, and that just points out how bad the Bose really is.

>Though hardly of "hi-fi" quality, the drivers in modern radios are of noticeably
>higher quality. Try comparing a decent boombox with a portable radio of 40 years
>ago.

Many of the boomboxes today, though, have deliberate smiley filters installed
and that drives me up the wall. I'd rather have restricted bandwidth than
exaggerated extremes, though that's a personal preference.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
October 20, 2004 2:52:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>> Though hardly of "hi-fi" quality, the drivers in modern radios are
>> of noticeably higher quality. Try comparing a decent boombox
>> with a portable radio of 40 years ago.

> Many of the boomboxes today, though, have deliberate smiley
> filters installed and that drives me up the wall. I'd rather have
> restricted bandwidth than exaggerated extremes, though that's
> a personal preference.

The difference I hear is a significant reduction in overall coloration.

My very first portable radio was a Sony EFM-117. The large oval speaker in it
was good for its day, but it's no match for speakers in current radios. (I own
several of these and a TFM-117WB. Nice radios -- the front of the cabinet is a
single, thick, aluminum casting!)
Anonymous
October 20, 2004 5:19:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

My cheap Phillips has a gross smiley curve but it's not bad to listen
to right next to the bed for a few minutes. The great feature it has
is a tapered, slow fade-in that is adjustable for the CD/Radio/Ring
alarm. That is one of this century's great inventions!
Anonymous
October 20, 2004 6:00:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Walter Harley wrote:
> "Don Cooper" <dcooper28800@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:41759A6A.C0EE0248@comcast.net...
>
>>I have a Sony stereo alarm clock AM / FM / CD player, that sounds
>>not-too-bad. Of course, I only listen to it for a few seconds a day. And
>>not every day.
>
>
> My wife has discovered that if she sets the clock radio on AM and tunes it
> somewhere in between the stations, the static is a much more pleasant and
> gentle way to wake up than the morning news. (Only one of her many
> wonderful facets. Excessive compression bugs her, too. What a woman!)
>
>

Women find excessive compression and excessive high
frequency content intrusive. Is it any wonder the record
companies are struggling when they irritate 50% of their
audience.

--
--
John Noll
Retromedia Sound Studios
Red Bank, NJ

jn145_deletethisfirst_@verizon.net

http://www.retromedia.net
Anonymous
October 20, 2004 7:08:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Did anyone notice the word NEW ? I tried the old Bose Wave Radio vs.
the Cambridge 740. The Cambridge was vastly superior. However a new
Bose Wave Music System became available a couple of months ago. They
CLAIM it's vastly superior to the old Wave Radio.
Anonymous
October 21, 2004 8:38:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:37:26 -0800, Robert Orban
<donotreply@spamblock.com> wrote:

>I wake up in the morning to a Bose Wave radio. Although I would certainly not
>use it for critical listening, I find it's pleasant enough with our local
>classical station. And I have never had the slightest problem understanding
>speech through it.
>
>As far as RF goes, Bose front ends have traditionally had RF overload
>problems. But I have mine connected to a rooftop antenna (it actually has a 75
>ohm external antenna input) and it doesn't do too badly re sensitivity.
>
>I also think its ergonomics are excellent. There is a reason why they managed
>to sell 2 million of the things -- Bose knows how to market to an upscale
>crowd that is willing to spend $300 for a radio but which does not consist of
>hardcore audiophiles.

"I would certainly not use it for critical listening"....."Bose front
ends have traditionally had RF overload problems".....

Not a terribly good review for a $300 radio :-)

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
Anonymous
October 21, 2004 8:39:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 20 Oct 2004 15:08:06 -0700, jimr18@netzero.net (James Rosenzweig)
wrote:

>Did anyone notice the word NEW ? I tried the old Bose Wave Radio vs.
>the Cambridge 740. The Cambridge was vastly superior. However a new
>Bose Wave Music System became available a couple of months ago. They
>CLAIM it's vastly superior to the old Wave Radio.


What do they admit was wrong with the old Wave Radio?

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
Anonymous
October 21, 2004 8:39:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Laurence Payne <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>On 20 Oct 2004 15:08:06 -0700, jimr18@netzero.net (James Rosenzweig)
>wrote:
>
>>Did anyone notice the word NEW ? I tried the old Bose Wave Radio vs.
>>the Cambridge 740. The Cambridge was vastly superior. However a new
>>Bose Wave Music System became available a couple of months ago. They
>>CLAIM it's vastly superior to the old Wave Radio.
>
>What do they admit was wrong with the old Wave Radio?

For one thing, the labyrinth in the new one is longer than in the old one,
so it's still got a big bass bump, but at a lower frequency. This is supposed
to make voices sound less woofy, but I don't think it's an improvement. And
the RF section on the new one is even cheaper than before.

You may wish to consider the GE Superradio. It's also nothing to write home
about, but has good RF performance at a sixth the cost.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 8:57:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

This very helpful and interesting 'test' by 15 people should answer the
question definitively for most people:

www.radiowars.homestead.com
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 1:52:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 6 Jan 2005 05:57:44 -0800, jimr18@netzero.net wrote:

>
>This very helpful and interesting 'test' by 15 people should answer the
>question definitively for most people:
>
>www.radiowars.homestead.com <snip>

Suspicions confirmed!

"Got no highs? Got no lows! Sound blows, MUST BE BOSE!"

dB
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 7:22:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

There are two unfortunate things about this test...

1. The Cambridge might have beaten the Bose, but I've heard it, and it is, in an
absolute sense, decidedly mediocre.

2. That the tester says they both sound great suggests that he has never heard
really good playback.
!