Talk:List of Bose headphones/Archive 1

Archive 1

Impartial

The previous article contained many good points, but I restructured it to sound less like an advertisement for the product and tried to make it more impartial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.198.170 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Condensed it even more

I try to keep up with Wikipedia's NPOV Policies while making the article reflect on all of Bose's Headphone offerings instead of one. This article looks like it's incomplete, as I might have some pictures about the QuietComfort 2 Headphones from my own disk drive, but please feel free to adjust the neutrality of the article to whatever means possible. Thanks. — Vesther 23:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

New Challenge

If you guys can get the Impedance, Sensitivity, Frequency Range, etc. out of these overpriced headphone family (I already got the Tri-Port Headphones settled), then I would highly appreciate it. Be sure to cite your sources. Thanks. — Vesther 02:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Bass Problem Clarification

I talked to someone at a Tweeter Audio/Video store and I asked him how he felt about the Bose Tri-Port Headphones. He told me that he didn't like them because the mid and low bass levels tend to overlap the Treble levels, and that he can't hear the highs whatsoever. He was pretty much an audiophile and he recommended the Shure Earbuds over the Bose Tri-Port Headphones for reasons unknown.

Just wanted to clarify the Audiophiles' criticism about the Bass problem. — Vesther 20:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

No trolling in Talk Pages

I've seen two instances of trolling in this talk page, so please really watch out what you are saying on these talk pages, since I really "bite" messages that are deemed to be trolls. Trolling (messages that encourages flaming on a page) won't be tolerated, so please watch what you are saying. — Vesther 03:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Clean up

I cleaned up the product descriptions. I also took this criticism out:

• Material Usage. Many headphone aficionados wished Bose to use more reliable materials so that the headphones itself would feel more like a "true high-end pair of headphones."

It is lacking in specifics. What does "more reliable materials" mean? What does a "true high-end pair of headphones" mean?

I also took out references to having no criticisms. The section is supposed to describe criticisms. If there aren't any, then there is no reason for the section to be there.

I also took this out:

Addressing treble concerns also had Bose wondering about the retainment of the headphones' Bass performance, which has been a condition of releasing a product with the Bose name for many years.

Because it doesn't make sense. Does it mean that they were worried about improving the treble performance at the expense of the bass performance? If so, what did they do about it?

Jm307 04:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Unbalanced Article

I really don’t want to ruffle anyone’s feathers here but I want to point out that I do find this article completely unbalanced. This article is currently a history about the line, certain specs and any negative review found on the net. If the Negatives are going to be shown the Positives must be listed also.

As an owner of the QC2 v2 I must say they are really amazing. I might not have even bothered to listen to them thinking that they were just hyped up if I would have read this article. I also have the benefit of listing to many competitors noise reducing headphones before my purchase. Not only is the noise reduction on the QC2's the best... the speakers are just amazing, not to mention the Bass!!! These Headphones have something that none of the others had a deep bass, and I guess they fixed the treble problems mentioned on the earlier ones since the Highs are just like they should be! I hope that we can even out this article. Thanks (UKPhoenix79 07:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC))

I reorganized the page a bit to try to keep it more balanced. I simply found some facts about the products and put some images up. I didn't research for any awards that weren’t blatantly put in front of me. So if I missed anything please update the page accordingly. Just remember this is an encyclopedia and we have to keep it somewhat neutral. Thanks (UKPhoenix79 11:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC))

I understand that I cast a negative opinion of Bose headphones here, but I believe your "balancing out" of this article is subjectivist. You really like the QuietComfort 2 headphones...more power to you, but if you look at Headroom (www.headphone.com), there are many headphones that will offer at least similar sound quality, if not comparable noise isolation. There are also canalphones that compete with the Bose family in the headphone regards of both SQ and noise isolation--if you look in a Best Buy nowadays, Triports are sold next to Shure's E2C and E3C. I won't point out negatives here again--I'm sure there are enough audiophiles with a vendetta for Bose for that, and I'm sure they'd love to do worse things to this page--but I really thought that I was the one making a balance.68.109.96.120 04:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yea I've had this conversation before... here is the link to it. I think this will explain any questions that you have.

I have done a lot to keep the facts about the headphones and the criticisms separate. The criticisms part can be hard to keep entirely neutral but like the article says "opinions are extremely subjective," but I’ve been dong my best.

Don't forget that you are comparing two different types of headphones. For outer-ear noise canceling headphones, all the reviews say that the QC2's are the best in its category. Inner-ear headphones have a greater chance of improving its noise reduction. Since they go in ones ear it naturally gives them a very effective passive noise reduction so they only need a little bit of active noise reduction. Hope that you understand why I’ve been trying to keep this article neutral. (: UKPhoenix79 06:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Product advertisement, not encyclopedic!

Bose is a highly controversial name in audio equipment for legitimate reasons, and yet the entirety of the wiki page associated with the Bose headphone line seems to speak in blatant affirmation and praise of the lineup. Referring to the Triport drivers as below

"Beginning in 1998, with the launch of the Bose Aviation X headsets, bose introduced the company's proprietary TriPort drivers. TriPort Drivers deploy three small ports in the earcups to produce loudspeaker-quality sound in a headphone package. Each earcup starts out with small ports and an earcup design that was designed to cover the ear entirely. The Triport system generates a unique airflow in the cup producing deep lows and clear highs. The 3 ports are strategically placed on the earcup: 2 tiny and one large. All headphones released by Bose since 1998 utilize the TriPort Drivers."

displays a marketer's sincerity in singing the glory of the product, while criticisms are quickly edited away as "subjective?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.39.151.239 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 25 March 2006 (UPC)

Good catch on the Triport info. I have tried to edit it to make it more NPOV. Thanks for pointing out the POV, but please I doubt that anyone here is trying to market the headphones! A few of us have been doing our best to keep this page as NPOV as possable by listing the facts about the headphones and then listing the controvercies about them. By simply listing the facts and not listing opinions about such a subjective thing as sound hopefully it will better inform people and create a better encyclopedia. Thanks for pointing out the error UKPhoenix79 20:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

To be entirely honest, I wouldn't put it past the company to employ marketing tactics in such a way - although that's possibly assuming malice where consumer support may be to blame; many experience Bose as their only "high end" headphone and assume it's the best there is, and become knight templars of the cause without comparing the products to other brands' offerings. I'm still a little bit wary of this just because Bose's specialization in the industry has been marketing over sound quality, and this particular resource is rather susceptible to that sort of insidious advertising by its open nature. I didn't intend to offend with the comment, but rather to point out what I see as a weakness in the article. My methods might have been a little harsh, and for that I apologize.

Here's another instance that reeks of marketing, though:

QuietComfort 2 "Second Edition"

Among the Bose-branded headphones available to the consumer market, apparently the QuietComfort 2 Headphones receive the least criticism. The only criticisms are as follows:

• At its MSRP, the Bose QC2 SE is considered to be amongst the more expensive pair of headphones available to the consumer market, even though there are noise-cancellation headphones more expensive than the current QC offering. Although this may be the case, it may be possible that additional improvements may enable Bose to bring the QC family of headphones up to par (and thus increase the price-to-value ratio) in the near future.
• The QuietComfort 2 Second Edition, like the original QC2, cannot function without the noise-cancelling ability. This is most likely due to the fact that the QC2's have Active Equalization which require power to improve the sound quality. The QC family is amongst the noise-cancelling products with this issue. It may be possible for Bose to work on this issue in the future so that the headphones would provide sound output even with the noise cancelling feature off.

As Bose has addressed consumer concerns in the past, it is reasonable to expect that they are currently working to address most, if not all remaining problems, as Bose has always been committed to innovation and improvement year after year. It may be possible that the next generation of Bose Headphones are likely to be brought up to par, if not then almost, when it is released."

found under the "Criticisms" section, of all places! It's neither neutral nor appropriate to the contextual information.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.39.148.149 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that Bose is as insidious as you believe. For some reason that I think that Bose has become an easy target without any real tangible reason. Myself I am a computer programmer and I get people dissing Microsoft (aka M$) endlessly. I personally would prefer not to use Win XP and instead use Linux. Yet all my software is for Windows so I personally use it even though I find it unstable, a bit bloated & slow. Most of the times the people who diss M$ are people who can’t even give a good reason why they don’t like it. And I don’t really like it when people diss things just because it’s what everyone else says... For some people Win XP is exactly what they need (Like my parents) and Linux would be overkill. This is the same with Bose...Some people what to sped $5,000 on an entertainment rack and $3,000 on each speaker... Yet others would rather spend $4,000 on a home entertainment system from Bose that does have very good sound at a cheaper price. And don’t try to attack me for saying that since if you did hear it you’d agree that it sounded good, but probably not as good as the $20,000 system, and frankly it shouldn’t sound better... I mean you’re spending 4 times the price I would hope it would sound 4 times better.

The "QuietComfort 2 Second Edition" part is not marketing but is trying to put any criticisms they have in a NPOV way.... An encyclopedia is about FACTS and the facts about each headphone are clearly listed and we all try to remove the marketing info that EVERY company includes with the info on their products. Opinions are not facts... yet it is a fact that Bose has been criticized about their products, but the criticisms aren't always consistent and many are contradictory. So we try to list the ones that don’t contradict each other in as NPOV as possible. After all everyone's hearing is subjective and the two people can hear the same thing and one person will say it has too much bass and the other will say it doesn't have enough

As for what you said about the headphones I do believe that you’re comparing apples to oranges. Bose does go with the general public when they create anything and do tend to avoid the limited market (money wise) in hi-end audiophile systems. The headphones are designed for travelers and regular home users... after all that’s the majority of the people/market out there so you cant try to compare the $299 outer-ear QC2’s to the $900 in-ear Ultimate Ears. It’s a completely different market and end user. I have had this convo before here is the link to it. Please remember that you are talking to a person that has compared other company’s products and for what my needs were I found what I was looking for... From what you say I doubt that you have heard anything from Bose and are just following the crowd. That is not meant as a diss in any way, but as an advice to listen and for yourself. Go to your local Bose store, bring your own stuff to listen to and be willing to hear what they have.

From what I have experienced Bose has always gone out of their way to help customers with any problems that they have and are always helpful in answering any questions... How do you think I managed to find so much info about the original Aviation Headsets? They were on the phone with me for about an hour answering questions about something they haven’t even made in over 8 years. Heck I even had one person transfer me to the head of their department since he was the only one that knew about the system since he was there when they originally sold them... I must say that that is commitment to the customer and I really respect that. --UKPhoenix79 06:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel that I need to reiterate that the statement "Bose has been committed to innovation year after year" is rather contested, and that "it is reasonable to assume that they will be brought up to par" is conjecture. Neither of these statements, unqualified, have a place in the article. Can you think of a better way to say that you (and other Bose customers) feel that the company will address concerns, while still maintaining a NPOV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.71.52 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Good catch on the subjective comments. Didnt even notice them, but the very first statement that "As Bose has addressed consumer concerns in the past" is fact. Just read the article talking about the problems with the QCI and the fixes that occoured to those problems with the release of the QCII. Thanks for the help and please remember to sign your comments. --UKPhoenix79 17:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The Intellexual.NET Link

((Link removed at the request of Vesther))

This link only talks about the Bose Acoustimass article and likely this link belongs ONLY on the Bose Corporation article IMO. It has NOTHING to do with Headphones, besides any works cited SHOULD try to talk only about Bose's Headphones, the Intellexual.NET link does NOT talk about headphones. People should read the external link VERY CAREFULLY before even putting a citation in the article. Off-Topic citations are somewhat dangerous grounds. I won't be too harsh on external links that criticises and/or favors Bose, but I just want to make sure that all external citations are uniform to the Bose Headphone Family. Thanks. — Mark Kim 00:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

QC2's

I really don't understand this comment "The primary criticism is the perception that the QC2 SE fail to compete adequately in terms of sound quality in the pricerange." Out on the market today no other outer ear headphones have the same sound quality & noise cancellation... You can get better sounding outer-ear headphones but with either no noise cancellation or noise cancellation that doesn’t compare to the QC2's. Also don't forget that the QC2 SE came out improving the sound (treble & bass) and I have yet to find any reviews on the new QC2's.

I Just tried on the Sony MDR-NC50 a few weeks ago with a few friends and did an A/B demo againts my QC2 SE. Now I will say that the $199 price the NC50 wasn't that bad. The sound was pretty good, better than I expected. Yet they were rather uncomfortable to ware and the noise cancellation created a constant low frequency buzz/hum that drives you nuts over a period of time. After comparing both of them everyone including the sales person agreed that the QC2 SE were better for sound, comfort & noise cancellation... And the best thing is that I have worn the QC2's for HOURS and just forgot that I had them on!!!

If you’re going PURELY for sound quality then the QC2's aren’t bad in the least.... But they aren't purely for sound quality and there not even marketed that way. They mix in what is considered the best noise cancellation tech out there... you could only do better if you had in-ear headphones that naturally block the ear canal. -- UKPhoenix79 06:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Your lack of understanding of the criticism (and even disagreement with it) doesn't make it incorrect, and it -certainly- doesn't warrant reverting the edit to the baseless, subjective conjecture of the "current" version. The criticism is that you're spending over $240 on headphones which objectively can't perform as well as others in the price catagory in terms of sound quality. You say that they're not marketed for sound quality, and yet you edit any criticisms of their sound quality. Despite marketer's intentions, consumers have sonic expectations that may not be capably met by comparison to the competition, an area in which Bose has received quite a lot of criticism from audio press and professional reviewers. This is the -criticism- section, remember, not the "Product Affirmation" section. Further, it is not considered the best noise cancellation tech out there by anyone but Bose loyalists, with Sennheiser's higher end noise cancelling portables scoring high marks as well. That particular throne is contested, and presenting it as absolute or won is not very neutral. If your goal is to present this article from a Bose loyalist and supporter's perspective, be my guest to leave phrases such as "it is reasonable to expect they will be brought up to par (and thus increase the price-to-value ratio) in the future" and other unnecessary, nonencyclopedic, un-neutral commentary in the article. If you're seeking to facilitate a NPOV and you want to have a legitimate section entitled "Criticisms," stop editing in apologetics and hopeful conjecture. You believe they compete well with everything in the price range, apparently, and that's just fine - we are all entitled to our private opinions, and if they're your favorite headphone then I'm glad you've found them. Critics of them, however, are the people represented in this section, and they do not share that belief.

Active noise cancellation degrades the signal by its very nature, introducing a significantly higher noise floor and causing sound artifacts from signal processing and mixing. It is a legitimate criticism that the lack of passive operation results in a permanent decrease in sound quality when listening in quiet environments. It appears that you're betraying your pro-Bose bias with these constant reverts, and degrading the quality of the entry by preventing it from achieving a NPOV.150.208.202.115 08:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

My reverts are from people trolling and frankly it’s been picking up ALOT recently. The criticisms have been overly biased and frankly anytime someone goes over the top, there is little that can be salvaged and it’s just reverted. Frankly I agree with you about that line but I haven't seen a good replacement to that so it’s pretty much stayed as it has. My sole goal for this article is to become NPOV and I have been playing devils advocate for a long time... but too many IP accounts have been trolling so it’s not easy to work at it with people to improve the article. Yes active noise cancellation does degrade the sound and that is (from what I have found out) why Bose doesn’t allow you to use the headphones with out power since the headphones loose sound quality without power. They use something they call "Active Equalization" to try to correct for this. The improved active equalization on the QC2’s is also one of the reasons that there aren’t as many artifacts that the QC1’s had. Why not include the info that ALL noise cancellation headphones do this? Why make it seam that it is only Bose? Why don’t other noise canceling headphone companies have criticisms listed? Is it only because this is made by Bose?

Why are people even trying to compare the QC2's to other non-noise canceling headphones? If you want to compare them to anything compare them to the TriPorts not the QC2 SE!! It’s just the same as comparing apple and oranges... You have to compare Both the Noise cancellation & sound not nitpicking the one and ignoring the other. Noise reduction after all is what the headphones are designed primarily to do! And the Sennheiser noise reducing headphones I tried them before the QC2's and so have many others and frankly they lay on your ears and don’t cover your ears so if you do go a plane... as many of us do you can still hear the engine pretty well. Yet the QC2's go around your ear and remove a lot more of the engine by a noticeable amount actually. And they do have better sound then the lower end Sennheiser headphones. You see the noise reducing Sennheiser headphones don’t have the same sound quality as the non-noise reducing Sennheiser headphones... do the comparison for yourself. -- UKPhoenix79 10:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

UKPhoenix's QC2SE reverts

I'm not attempting to flame or troll here, but you're actively stifling criticism and reverting every attempt at establishing a NPOV and more importantly at qualifying and explaining criticism back to the same meaningless thing. Please stop. I've re-edited to remove the references to other headphones, but I feel it is very important to reflect the reasoning behind the criticism, especially in light of potential confusion over why it's there in the first place. JBkar 09:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Please check your talk page. You are putting up false info and I don't believe it is intentional but it still dosen't belong and has to be removed. disagreaments on the main page can escallate out of control and I doubt that either of us want that. So please lets use the talk page like it should be used and come up with a good solution. I have said only one thing ever about this article. I believe that this should be as NPOV as possable and I agree that there is still some work to be done. So use the talk page and lets get others involved here before we improve the article. Sound like a deal? -- UKPhoenix79 10:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I can link you to a frequency response graph of the headphone, if you'd like, so that you may see for yourself how it compares to others? Bose QC2 isn't trying to be a sonically balanced headphone, instead aiming at popular euphony (big bass midbass and rolled off treble). You said yourself that they're not aimed at pure sound quality. May I ask what exception you took to the section regarding active noise cancelling? Signal degradation as a result of active noise cancelling is a widely acknowledged and fully understood fact. Why do you insist on reverting to contested information instead of editing that which is there to remove your specific criticsms and discussing the changes you'd like to make on the talk page, as I do and have done on the article? I hope you don't take offense to the following statement, but this is a section designed to speak about criticisms, and so far there are none. It's just a feel-good, hopeful reaffirmation of the product rather than an honest illumination of what critics say about it and what problems people perceive. Further, please remember to assume good faith - I am not editing to troll, I am editing to try to improve the encyclopedia, and frankly I'd like to ask exactly what in the article looked like trolling to your eyes.JBkar 14:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I would like to sincerely apologize if I was mistaken about your editing, especially if you are a new user to Wikipedia. I defiantly don't want to give new users a bad impression of others here. We all take pride in our collective work and the collaborative manner in which it's all put together and that's why we can take offense at people trying to damage that effort. It looked like you might be a sock puppet created to harass and troll the page. This was due to your non-existent edit history and the fact that you ignored all the messages I left. The reason I didn't edit what you said was because I perceived you as another person putting up false information and not taking the article seriously. Even if you didn't intend to, it looked to me like you were, so I didn't really take the edits seriously either. This page has been getting a lot of trolls recently. So I assumed a malicious intent against this article. But I'm happy to be wrong in your case and would love to work with you to help improve this page (c:=

I would love to see the graph. Who was it done by? Remember it should be compared to other noise canceling headphones since that is the product category that the QC2's are in. If as you say all noise canceling headphones have overwhelming bass and diminished treble (Please cite someplace in addition to headphone.com) I would love to see how the different version of noise canceling headphones compare to each other... Any chance that the graph comparisons will be against the New QC2 SE? Any comparison against non-noise canceling headphones should be done against the TriPorts since they would be in the same category... If it is possible I would love to see frequency response graph's of all the different Bose headphones... that would be a great way to see the frequency improvements over each model. Don't forget that noise canceling headphones have to be judged by three criteria form factor, sound quality and noise cancellation. Having one that has great sound but creates a buzzing or is really lousy at reducing outside noise would be a big negative in this category. Only the TriPorts should be compared to non-noise canceling headphones for sound quality/frequency response. I have said this before and most likely will say 100 more times to other people.

Don't forget that there are 3 consumer Bose headphones out now the TriPorts, Quiet Comfort 2 SE, and Aviation Headset X. Two of these, the QC2 SE & AHX, are noise canceling with the AHX designed specifically for pilots. The TriPorts are the only non-noise canceling headphones Bose has ever made. Many people don't compare different headphones in the same product category and that shouldn't be included since they are not comparing the different products correctly.

When people compare headphones they should be the same type. Therefore the

• TriPorts should be compared against headphones by the SAME two criteria:
  • Outer-ear headphones
  • Sound Quality
• QC2 SE should be compared against headphones that have the SAME three criteria:
  • Outer-ear headphones
  • Sound Quality
  • Noise canceling technology

You said that ALL noise reduction tech naturally do EXACTLY what critics complain about with the QC2's therefore the only way to truly compare them is to compare other companies doing the same and see who's is better with this handicap. Just curious are you 162.39.148.149? Talk to you later :) -- UKPhoenix79 09:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

QC2 Criticisms clarified and a new section created

I've created a new section after the criticisms to act as an amalgamated rejoinder. This has a few benefits, the most important of which being that the section entitled "Criticisms" now contains solely criticms and that the rejoinder in the previous edit of QC2 needs to talk about all of their headphones, as they're not just working on improving the QC2. I also clarified criticisms without adding any contested or extraneous information, and removed extraneous information that lacked citation or qualification. Tell me what you think. JBkar 13:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Good edit clearly states the issues... Well done. Even got rid of the POV... Nice.

I am trying to see where I can include this statement since I believe it answers some questions. The QC2's "cannot function without the noise-canceling ability. This is most likely due to the fact that the QC2's have Active Equalization which require power to improve the sound quality" Would it belong in the QC2 section? BTW please remember to sign your comments! -- UKPhoenix79 09:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it would fit there, yes. It is an important piece of information, and integral to the functioning of the unit. A criticism might match it to say that the active equalization exists to try to counteract the effects of active noise cancelling, and that it wouldn't be necessary if they functioned passively as well. Also, yes, I was that user. I took your advice and made an account. Sorry if I'm making any newbie errors, but I'm trying. By the way, here's the graph of the Bose compared to Sennheiser's much less expensive option. Notice how much bass emphasis and treble minimalization you see on the Bose compared to the Sennheiser's relative neutrality. Guess which is desirable in audio? :) http://img468.imageshack.us/img468/828/frequencyresponse2rl.jpg Sorry for the small image. Bose is red, Sennheiser PX250 is blue. The PX250 costs a lot less, too - $109 at Amazon. Important to notice: the Bose headphone does go lower, reproducing down to 20Hz. However, its sound above 20Hz is significantly unbalanced, as you can see.JBkar 14:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well this is almost certainly the QC2 v1 and I am familiar with the PXC250 (they have the MSRP of $150). I looked at the frequency graph and yes it is very small. But it looked like the QC2 v1 on average were closer to neutrality than the PXC250 were and if you look at the lows and highs the PXC250 were more unbalanced than the QC2 v1 even were. Yet PXC250 dose fail in one major area for noise canceling headphones. They lay on top of your ears not cupping around them. So you can easily hear the rest of the world even with the noise reduction tech active and they do produce a hissing sound! Check out the CNET reviews on noise reducing headphones.

You’re the 1st person here who has actually tried to compare the QC2's to another noise reduction headphone. Thanks! I would really love to see a professional comparison against the QC2 SE... But personally I did the next best step to that. I actually listened to them and compared them for my self, and I can say that the QC2 SE have the best of both worlds. If you're like me and travel you could have great sounding headphones but they’re useless if you can't hear them while traveling. The QC2 SE do both, and in my unscientific research of comparison shopping and testing with my own ears, they have the best mix of great sound and excellent noise reduction. Just compare them for yourself. People must remember that they are not marketed as audiophile headphones but noise reduction headphones. Heck even the TriPorts aren't marketed as audiophile headphones, not like they could be any way.

But I do have a question if ALL noise reducing headphones, due to their inherent technology, naturally have unbalanced highs and lows, why is it that only the QC2 has a criticisms section on its sound quality? Other noise canceling headphones are all smiles and joy? Is it only because the QC2's are made by Bose? Now that a double standard wouldn't you say? There are two things that bug me, stating a POV as a fact and keeping a double standard. And here I am constantly defending this article against people that think that is just fine! And don't worry I’m not referring to you since you seam to be one of the few that's keenly interested in helping. Oh well... I will try and include the active equalization and see how it turns out. Talk to you later -- UKPhoenix79 22:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The QC2 falls within +/-11dB of neutral from 30Hz to 3000Hz, where all fundamentals lie. The PXC250 falls within +/-6dB of the same. There's no contest as to which of the two is more neutral. Remember that the graph is -logarithmic-, not linear, and that the giant slope from the Bose's 20Hz +11 to the -5dB at roughly 600 means that you're hearing the bass emphasized by over 15dB compared to the upper midrange! The treble wonkiness is common to all headphones, and has to do with ensuring a good q value and correcting for acoustic absorbtion that would occur if you were listening to speakers. Pay the most attention, therefore, to the 20Hz-5000Hz region to get an accurate comparison of overall sound (this is not to imply that the other regions are not important, but simply to tell you that all headphones exhibit a degree of peaking and dipping in the upper treble and to explain why; better headphones are more controlled. Check out the graph of the Sennheiser HD650 or Beyer Dynamic DT880 for examples of controlled peaking and dipping). The PXC may have an MSRP higher than retail, but it sells for roughly two fifths the cost of the Bose and has objectively more neutral sound. I find neutrality to be both pleasing and desirable, but there are some who prefer huge, overemphasized, boomy bass, and the Bose definitely delivers that. The difference of circumaural vs. supraaural does have a place, of course, but they are both noise cancelling headphones.

Oh, and the reason the QC2 have a criticism there is becuase at $250+ retail they're competing sonically with some of the best dynamic headphones on the market, and completely fail to do so. They've got measurably slower group delay and are way, way, -way- off of neutral by comparison even to closed headphones in the pricerange. They don't really compete that well, sound qualitywise, with headphones much less expensive than themselves. It's a valid criticism because Bose advertises them as having great sound quality and employing active equalization to improve sound quality. I disagree with you in your thought that they only bear comparison to other noise cancelling headphones, precisely because Bose isn't marketing them as such. I wouldn't compare the aviation headsets to audiophile cans, but the Bose are marketed as audiophile headphones and they frankly don't live up to that promise in the sound quality department. I'm not putting any of that in the article, of course, because it's obviously not from a neutral POV, but it's essentially the consensus thought regarding them among audio critics and on sites such as www.head-fi.org and www.headwize.com where they are regularly featured at headphone group meetings for comparison purposes. JBkar 23:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Again I think your missing my point... but that's ok. What is the use of noise canceling headphones when the noise canceling isn't up to par? I wanted noise cancellation headphones with great sound. You see were arguing over what is more important for noise canceling headphones. I can personally attest to the sound quality and noise reduction but you seam to want to ignore the noise canellation all together. All were doing is arguing facts from both sides of the same end but that seams to be a common thing with this article.

Just remember the graph is of the Original QC2's and not the New one. I would like to see a professional graph with the new ones since they have done much to bring the bass closer to neutrality. The graph you found with the original QC2's looks like they fall around ±8dB and the PXC 250 about ±4/5. So the QC2 SE should be closer to neutral then they were previously. The differences between circumaural and supraaural (around the ear and on-top of the ear) are really important when it comes to noise cancellation. You can have great sounding headphones but there not going to have the same presence if you can't hear them in a loud environment. And can I tell you that the buzzing/humming that some noise cancellation headphones produce can simply drive you nuts and the QC2's unlike others don't produce any. I haven't heard a huge booming bass but I was pleased by the bass since now I could hear the whole spectrum... remember these are the NEW QC2 SE!

People always say that the QC2's are competing with other audiophile headphones out there... Bose says that they have the best noise reducing headphones out there. What else do you think there going to say? That they have the best noise reducing headphones out there, but go to so-and-so's company to get better sound quality? Now that's unrealistic. Do you think that Lexus is going to put out ads saying that they are cheaper versions of a BMW? No they’re going to say that they're the most luxurious cars out on the market and they're "What a Luxury Car Should Be"... and they do its called marketing! Heck BMW's tagline is "The ultimate driving machine" how arrogant of them to advertise themselves as having the best product when Acura is already "The True Definition of Luxury"? Because CNN claims to be "The most trusted name in news" should I now think that the BBC isn't as good? Advertisements are designed to promote themselves as the best in their categories? Heck I don't ever recall them being advertised as audiophile headphones. They are advertised for the general market and as you noted specifically for travelers.

You don't like the price for the sound & noise cancellation? Well what can I say I tried them I compared others out there I used them and I am talking from experience. So do it yourself! Go to your local Bose store, this way you wont have to buy them to try them out. Just bring your own stuff to listen to and be willing to hear what they have. -- UKPhoenix79 08:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I have tried them, and I found their sound to be characteristically boomy and bass-emphasized, though not particularly offensive - I'd say they sound good for $100 headphones if you're after bass, but the additional price rather defies that comparison as there are much better options available at the pricepoint. The noise cancellation was quite effective, though offering more powered-off attenuation than the PCX250, but the sound quality was considerably lower in my opinion and the PCX250's active cancellation was on-par with low frequency noises, while still offering enough passive attenuation to deaden conversation. Also, regarding the marketing - it's fine that they can claim whatever in their product pamphlets, but this is an encyclopedia, right? We're trying to present an accurate picture from a neutral point of view. NPOV of Richard Nixon would still show that he's a liar, eh? :) Not saying that Bose are malicious like that, just that they've very capably exploited a particular niche of the market and that their literature doesn't necessarily match their end product in the case of the headphones in the article. That's why it's important that a fully-featured criticism section be maintained. Agreed? Regardless, I do agree that if your requirements list includes "Around the ear (circumaural), Comfortable, Closed, Noise Cancelling, Heavy Bass" they're probably the best on the market. I'm not in the business of assuming people are stupid or prone to exploitation, so I choose to believe that most Bose headphone customers really like the bass and value comfort above all else. They are incredibly comfortable, after all, and that's extremely important for long-term travel usage.JBkar 08:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I still would like to know if you have tried on the NEW QC2 SE or did you try out the original QC2? Remember they did change them. You can tell the difference between the two because the QC2 SE came out just before Christmas 2005 and they are now silver headphones. Frankly the fact they don't run w/o batteries doesn't bug me in the least. So many things now require power in the modern day you're used to it. When one travels you always carry spare batteries and the carry case has a pouch that can carry a few in. If the batteries only lasted for several hours now that would be a problem, but the fact that the QC2 SE could run for nearly 2 days straight before running out isn't anything to scoff at.

I would have to say that the Richard Nixon article would say that he lied and wouldn't call him a liar directly... If you did that it gives the impression that he lied about everything and thusly you should never trust anything he said... This would be counter to the NPOV since it would infer an opinion about everything that he ever said or did not only as a president but as a man. And as you pointed out Bose isn't even close to Nixon and marketing is marketing. I already gave you examples or contradictory corporate slogans all touting that they are the best in their industry and I highly doubt that there is a section in each of those Wiki pages countering all their claims.... Yet here we are again why dose Bose have them??? Why aren't Sennheiser's noise reducing headphones lambasted? It's only because the QC2's are created by Bose and Bose has a rep that I think is unwarranted in the audiophile community and audiophiles are always eager to attack anything that Bose does. And I would have to say that they are the best "Around the ear (circumaural), Comfortable, Closed, Noise canceling" headphones made. And I must say that they are very comfortable and since these are headphones designed primarily for people that do a lot of traveling, that is very important!

And the way you're talking, it would never lead me to believe that you thought QC2 users were stupid since you do seam to respect my opinions like I respect yours even though we do disagree about them. But who says that you have to always agree to respect a person's opinion? -- UKPhoenix79 23:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Active Equalization addition?

I've been trying to figure out how to add the Active Equalization part to the criticism section. Heres what I have come up with. What do you think?

"The QuietComfort 2 Second Edition, like both the QC1 and the original QC2, cannot function without the noise-cancelling ability. This is most likely due to the fact that the QC2's have Active Equalization which require power to improve the sound quality and to counteract the effects of active noise cancelling. Yet, it wouldn't be necessary to counteract the noise cancellation if they functioned passively as well. The QC family is amongst other noise-cancelling products with this issue." -- UKPhoenix79 01:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

How about "The QuietComfort 2 Second Edition cannot function without the noise-cancelling ability, a complaint customers had about the original QC as well as the QC2 First Edition. While Bose designed them to utilize active equalization in an effort to counteract sound degradation, that limited countermeasure wouldn't be necessary if they were capable of operating passively." Limited isn't POV here because I'm pretty sure anyone would acknowledge that active equalization to try to counter signal degradation from active noise cancellation -is- limited compared to passive operation when circumstances allow. Also, I'm not entirely convinced of the mechanism by which the "active equalization" operates, and I'd like to see a technical publication of its capabilities, something Bose is unfortunately notoriously unwilling to provide for anything they make.

All noise cancelling headphones don't require the noise cancelling function to operate; see the Sennheiser PXC lineup for comparison. Additionally, I checked a PXC250 out myself - it doesn't go around the ear, but it -is- a closed supra-aural headphone, offering both passive and active noise cancellation as a result. Further, that graph was terribly outdated - here's a much more recent one done in much more ideal testing circumstances and with a more expensive measurement device. http://graphs.headphone.com/iconGraph.php?graphID=393 JBkar 03:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yea I think we all would like to see specs put out there for their products... but I’m sure that most of Bose’s competitors would like to do the same. So I can’t completely fault them for not doing it. I don’t really know about the quote... it doesn't sound right and I don’t really know why. If you try out the PXC250 on an airplane you’d quickly realize that it really very necessary for noise canceling headphones to go around your ears to get rid of most of the background noise... and on the ear headphones really push hard against your ears fatiguing them. They just get so uncomfortable that you have to take them off after a couple of hours... and forget about sleeping with them on! BTW what graph is that? Is it comparing the PXC250 & the QC2 v1? -- UKPhoenix79 10:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

All of Bose's competitors publish the specifications. Every professional measurement done on the Bose loudspeakers show that they have rather terrible acoustic reproduction, often leaving entire areas of frequency out entirely (for example, the acoustimass have a bass unit which reproduces frequencies from 42 to 220, and satelites that reproduce 280 up. That leaves out 221 to 279, a significant portion of the midbass where many fundamental notes are held). Their headphones obviously aren't quite that detrimental to the sound, but their reproduction is, at best, not for everyone, if you understand what I mean. And that graph is the left and right earspeaker of the PXC250. The Bose graph superimposed on the old one is current, but the PXC250 was rather out of date. Also, while I do agree that supraaural headphones have the capability to be very uncomfortable, the PXC250 definitely aren't, as they have just enough contact pressure to get a respectable seal and stay put, but are very adequately padded. You want uncomfortable supra-aural closed cans, check out the Sennheiser HD-25! Pain city. Grado headphones, properly adjusted (including bending the headband to the right shape for your head, as it's made of stainless steel and is intended to be bent in such a way), are among the most comfortable around - that fact often goes unknown because out of the box they generally are too thin and press too hard against the ears! The gist of what I'm saying is just that the comfort issue is very personal, and some find Supra to be even more comfortable than Circum. However, as I said earlier, the QC2 are incredibly comfortable headphones, like wearing two light, sound-blocking pillows on your head. For travel, I can see that being a huge benefit... but the value question remains.JBkar 17:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, unless you've got a reason behind not liking it, I suppose I'll go ahead and edit in the change. It states the complaint clearly and as neutrally as possible, and uses no ambiguous language. If you can tell me what about it you don't like, please do.JBkar 00:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh boy not that intellexual.net article again.... groan.... that this is so full of errors it's really not funny. That article is so POV it's amazing that it hasn't been sued! But even if you believe everything that it says it is so outdated and talking about products that Bose hasn't made in the last 7 years... for god's sakes it was talking about a system that had a passive bass not even an active bass.... That's why the bass sucked and the mids yea the article is very, very biased and I don’t know enough about that old system to talk about the mids. But at least the new systems do have mids even using a dual crossover to blend the bass and cubes since their frequencies overlap. But that has absolutely nothing to do with headphones and frankly should be discussed in the Bose stereo speaker article. But most likely will still be talked about here... sigh...

Yea they do get very uncomfortable and I will stand steady saying that any noise canceling headphones worth their salt also use simple passive noise reduction tech to remove sound even before active noise technology is added. And the best tenique is circumaural. I must say that I haven't heard about the Sennheiser HD-25. I don't understand how they could be so far off the mark with those headphones! And the Grado headphones don't sound too good either because pressure against the ears are a big no-no when using them for long periods of time. I must say that I like what you said "the QC2 are incredibly comfortable headphones, like wearing two light, sound-blocking pillows on your head" I don't think I have heard anyone say something that sounded so poetic and nice about them.

I removed the word "limited" from the active equalization section. But if you thought that it needed something like that maybe using limiting or something else might work... I just couldn't think of anything without having to re-word everything. Talk to you later. -- UKPhoenix79 23:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

New Headphone Organization

Trying something new... I don't know if it will work or not but I have been thinking of this for a while now. I have reorganized the headphones, they were listed chronologically but now the headphones are organized into sub categories to help people search for what they are looking for. They were organized by "Current Bose Headphones", "Previous Nose Reducing Headphones" and "Previous Aviation Headsets."

This does create some issues since now the Current headphones need to have more info inserted in them. Previously it was assumed that you'd see the improvements that were included with the original version so it wasn't restated in the new ones. So this article needs some more TLC to aid the readers. But that's assuming you like the change... If it doesn't work we may just have to revert it back to its original form. -- UKPhoenix79 10:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

My consensus

I feel that there has been too much harsh criticism on not only these headphones, but other "things" as well whether or not it's Bose. I think the real reason why audiophiles "slam" certain products and create pages to troll products is mainly because of their disregard of two things: proper audiology and psychoacoustics. Bose is known for their taut understanding of psychoacoustics, something that they've been trying to perfect for many years. Those who think that Bose attracts people just because of their marketing has excessive disregard of how much Bose understand psychoacoustics. In fact, Bose has been working very closely with psychoacoustics since their company was founded 4 decades ago. Just my 2 cents. — Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 23:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly Biased

This whole article seems all too clearly written by an affiliate of Bose Corporation. I dispute the neutrality of this Article. 87.194.58.94 22:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)The Mutant sausage

I would like to know some points where you are spotting "fatal flaws" (Remember not to do any "radical edits" unless you discuss them here) because it's really important that you are stating some fatal flaws in the article before you even make any radical edits. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 05:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not gonna revert any edits as of this time, but I would like to hear a discussion about this to better serve Wikipedia and to avoid possible edit wars. Thanks.

Where is this article not neutral? Many users have spent a lot of time with this article (including myself) and we have done a lot to make this as NPOV as possable. I know that I have not been paid by Bose to do this page and I doubt that Vester is either. Please let us know where the problem is and I'm sure that we can work together to fix it :) talk to ya later -- UKPhoenix79 10:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Shocked!

I am a regular wikipedia user and despite having an EB account find myself using wikipedia increasingly as a source of generally impartial factual information. That opinion took a nosedive today when I came across this 'article' in Wikipedia while looking for information on ear protection.

If I want to find out about Bose headphones (or any other product) I will go to their web site - I don't expect to find a companies product range specification in an encyclopedia. One can easily imagine the impact if every company starts using wikipedia as a site to promote their products under the guise of giving facts to the reader.

The FACT is I don't care whether this so called article is written from a NPOV or not, whether it's balanced or nor or even whether it is factually correct or not - I DO care that my favourite encyclopedia is being abused under the specious argument that if it's a fact it somehow deserves a place here. I can think of a hundreds of types of completely factual information that I don't want to see cluttering up wikipedia and marketing information is pretty close to the top of the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.35.209 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 12:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way since a few of us have spent a lot of time trying to improve this article and make it the best article it can possably be. It is not uncommon for products to be listed inside of wikipedia. Stuff like the iPod shuffle or HP Printers get entire pages dedicated to them. This is Wikipedia so I would say that any relevent fact about what is discussed should be listed but the article should be as NPOV as possible so please let us know how we can improve this article and make it the best it can be :) -- UKPhoenix79 10:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

What I'd like to see in this article

You asked, in the AfD discussion, so here's my answer, essentially as taken from there. But I think we're too far apart. Anyone who could think it was appropriate to use a photograph like Bose_QC2_person.jpg‎ rather than a picture just showing the headphones has a wildly different concept of what's encyclopedic than I do.

The things I think should be in the article would be hard to research and would involve quite a lot of hard work, and it's not my field of interest.

A good article would answer questions like this: When did Bose first introduced noise-cancelling aviation headphones? Noise-cancelling consumer headphones? Were either of these the first on the market? If not, whose were and what factors account for Bose's success in outstripping them? The basic idea of active noise cancellation dates back to the 1930s, so why is it difficult to do? Obviously there much more to it than "send[ing] out the noise it receives phase-shifted 180 degrees." What were Bose's key technical innovations, as documented in patents and, probably, in the trade press, and, Bose being an academic, quite possibly in scientific journal articles? What's the difference between the technology in the aviation headphones and the consumer version? What can be said about Bose's business and marketing strategies? Does Bose sell exclusively by mail and in its own retail stores? Why? To what people is Bose trying to sell these headphones? How many have been sold? How do sales of Bose noise-cancelling headphones compare with those of other headphones in the same price range?

And, of course, the pictures should be pictures of the headphone (the steak); not the sizzle, i.e. pictures of people registering hair-raising ecstasy or smug satisfaction... people who incidentally happen to have something unidentifiable on their ears. It would be nice to have a picture of one opened up and showing the electronic components inside. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Violation edit headsup

Now that the AfD is over, I'm giving fair warning that if the paragraphs in violation of copyright (meaning they were cut-and-pasted from the Bose website) are not rewritten, I will edit them out. Akradecki 15:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Good idea... and don't neglect Previous Bose Headphones which has had less attention than this article. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Still a lot of bugs

Just now I had to refine one part of the article to make it less advert-esque (The Research Background was plagued), but even though I made it less like an advertisement, there's still bugs, and I do appreciate if any of you have the power to work around the bugs (I had to place a Citation Needed tag on the TriPort section for bug-fixing purposes). Thanks. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 19:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use

Photos of current or recent products are things we can source free images for, and are not suitable candidates for a Fair Use claims. A flickr search for bose would be a good place to start, or if you own a pair, take a photo. ed g2s • talk 09:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I included fair use rationals on the images. Some products arn't easily found or are not avalable to the general public and most were uploaded before 4 May 2006. Compleate removal of images are not necessary since no one will know to upload free images. Fair use rational for press release images is still a valid one to use. Movie posters are the same as these product images. One could take a photo of a movie poster at their home, yet people use image from a press release where the movie studio gives images out to the press to allow them to advertise the movie. This is exactly the same reason that these images are given out to the press. -- UKPhoenix79 11:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"Some products arn't easily found or are not avalable to the general public"

If a it is genuinely unfeasible to acquire a free image then this can be the basis for a fair use claim. This is not the case for the majority of these images.

"Compleate removal of images are not necessary since no one will know to upload free images."

That statement is illogical. The removal of the images is necessary. Whether or not anyone will "know to upload free images" is a completely separate matter, and not one of particular relevance to your fair use claim.

"Movie posters are the same as these product images."

No, they aren't. A photo of a product can be freely licensed as the composition of a 3D photo is usually considered creative work. A reproduction of a poster will almost certainly not have enough creative input to claim copyright.

"This is exactly the same reason that these images are given out to the press."

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but Wikipedia is not "the press". We are a free-content encyclopedia, and we have an entirely different set of goals and principles.

ed g2s • talk 11:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with ed g2s. Also, considering the "no one will know to upload free images" remark, why did you remove the {{fairusereplace}} tags from all those images then, UKPhoenix79? Because that's exactly what they do, they inform people that they should replace them with free ones. --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

remark? like I said that in jest or something :( I wasnt careful with my edits not paying close enough attention to the previous edits. I just cut and paste most of the images giving rational for the images in my comments only to later realize that they should be in the images article itself. I was actually trying to find a template that could be added to the top of the page to notify people that images they own might be a good addition. -- UKPhoenix79 12:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

PD photos of the ones used by the US militry will exist.Geni 13:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Above all of these, the fact remains that illustrating the appearance of a set of headphones does not overcome the basic goal for this to be a free encyclopedia. If a set of headphones is so rare that there's no way to find a set to photograph, why on Earth do we need a prose description of it, let alone a photograph? It had better be a historically important set, and none of these list entries assert that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

For one thing do you think that there are ANY cases where Fair use would be allowed? Like stated multiple times in many places some images are not avalable to the public yet. so much like the Image:Shuffle101.jpg it got tagged with the {{fairusereplace}} until ones become avalable. The combat headsets are allowed because there is "No free equivalent is available or could be created" so please dont do blatent reversing without reading why those images are included.

Fair use images are allowed when absolutely necessary, such as in the case of describing a subject which is itself copyrighted, in the case where the only image of a reclusive person or historic event is copyrighted, or other, similar cases. In the case of the images here, the first point in the fair-use rationale, "Free alternatives cannot be made," is inaccurate. For the unreleased models, they will shortly be released, at which point we can take images. We probably shouldn't use that Shuffle image, for the same reason. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Do not replace "fair use" images while discussion is ongoing. Full stop. Editors who replace fair use images while there is a question as to their status are going to get blocked for copyright violations even if they turn out to be correct. This is unambigious. - brenneman ^{L} 06:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

this page used to look good ukpohienix brought up some good points. if some headphones are not avalable then why cant we use them? where does it say you cant use images while fair use discussion goes on? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.135.139.221 (talk • contribs).

Becuase the pictures are available, it just might take a bit of effort to get them. For example the military headphones will undoubtedly appear in a US Army photo somewhere which will be Public Domain. Also as hundreds, if not thousands of these products were sold each, it shouldn't be too hard to track down an owner willing to photograph one. As I suggested, eBay might be a good place to look. Fair use is for when recreating the image is impossible (e.g. historical event, deceased person) or extremely difficult (e.g. reclusive celebrity). ed g2s • talk 07:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Reinserted images that are not found in public domain or avalable for public use. These images pass fair use according to Wikipedias policies. --64.240.163.221 03:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Those images violate Wikipedia's policies, as they are copyrighted images of things for which free images could be made. Don't reinsert them again. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

there seams to be no debate here about the worth of these images only one user dictating policies can there be an actual conversation on these images? --64.240.163.221 04:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Dont know what to tell you but I've tried! -- UKPhoenix79 05:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a process one can go through to resolve this issue?--64.240.163.221 00:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If by resolve you mean re-insert the fair use images, then no. Give the article some time, free-use alternative pictures will come. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I might have to look into that... but later -- UKPhoenix79 06:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Moving Bose Headphone Family to Bose headphones

"Bose Headphone Family" needs neither capitalization nor "Family", I suggest moving this page to Bose headphones per the WP:MOS. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, done. ed g2s • talk 07:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Also the former sounds like the official marketing name, not the most commonly used name as is required. ed g2s • talk 07:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Disputes

Looking at the history, I have been seeing a reversion of hidden templates, and a removal of hidden templates [1]. I really don't like to see two people fighting around the edits and if the "edit fighting" persists, I might have to be forced to conduct a straw poll here. So please, talk to your fellow editors on how you feel hidden templates before even starting a reversion war. At this point, the last four edits aren't obvious, but the reason why hidden templates are being used is to ensure that navigation is easier to do. I don't know what the point of removing the hiding coding on the navigation, but we need to agree to things so that we all assume good faith on "one plate". Please discuss what your thoughts about hidden templates in this article are. I appreciate if you talk before you edit. Thanks. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 20:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The hidden templates do not improve navigation. They are merely using a nonstandard formatting option, at the cost of making the article more difficult to read. This doesn't really accomplish anything except concealing a part of the article that would cause most people to tag it with {{advert}}. Really, the whole article is pretty much crap. I'm just trying to make the formatting a little more like the rest of the encyclopedia. —ptk✰fgs 21:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If your saying that having the hidden option it makes the article look less like an ad then what is the problem? Do you want it to look like an ad? Since we should not remove this information but it takes up so much room it actually makes the page easier to read. This way if you want to know more all you have to do is select that option. I find this page very informative and helpful though it can be a bit long winded at times. If its all the same I'm going to revert it back to the original version. Tomorrow I will go to the iPod pages and do the same thing since this is a nice feature you guys came up with.--64.240.163.221 03:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Annon I'm glad that you like the page and understand why the hidden template is used. But what part do you think is "long winded" if you let us know we can try to improve it... or if you want you can help by editing the page and work with us to improve the page :)

Vester I agree that the talk page should be used more often. I thought that this one could have been resolved with one edit and an explanation of why they were used (in the edit discription). I guess I was wrong :(

Ptkfgs I'm sorry you think its crap (though it was much better with images) yet I don't understand why you don't like the hidden text? The Annon actually makes good points. If you said that the page looks like an ad without it why remove it? Articles in wikipedia talking about products have spec sheets, that is the norm. But does that mean that we shouldn't use {{hidden}} just because others havent started to do the same? From what I can tell using it dosent take anything away from the article. It just seams to enhance it. -- UKPhoenix79 05:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didnt have much time to edit the iPod page. I only have enough time to log on and reply today. Maybe one of you can do it.--64.240.163.221 01:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I have, finally removed the hidden specifications. This is better done as external links. DGG 01:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Forego the Aviation Headset's upgrade information?

I notice that for some reason, placing upgrade information looks like a bit of an advert and is somewhat not needed for encyclopedic purposes. I'm not going to nuke it, but I need your feedback on this before it can be foregone. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 19:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, except when the information deals with a deficiency previously mentioned. But then perhaps then first mention could be changed, with something like (later upgraded). DGG 19:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)