New Bose Wave Radio Music System vs. Cambridge Soundworks 740

[James Rosenzweig]

Any first hand or magazine comparisons yet?

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by James Rosenzweig
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

[Blind Joni]

Post by Scott Dorsey
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

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Blind Joni

Post by Scott Dorsey
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

[William Sommerwerck]

Post by Scott Dorsey
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.

[Arny Krueger]

Post by William Sommerwerck

Post by Scott Dorsey
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.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by William Sommerwerck

Post by Scott Dorsey
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.

Post by William Sommerwerck
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

[William Sommerwerck]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by William Sommerwerck
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!)

[Robert Orban]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by James Rosenzweig
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.

Post by Scott Dorsey
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.

[Laurence Payne]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:37:26 -0800, Robert Orban

Post by Robert Orban
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

[William Sommerwerck]

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.

[Don Cooper]

Post by William Sommerwerck
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.

[Walter Harley]

Post by Don Cooper
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!)

[John Noll]

Post by Walter Harley

Post by Don Cooper
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.

[Pete Dimsman]

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

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

Post by William Sommerwerck
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.

[William Sommerwerck]

Post by Pete Dimsman
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.

[William Sommerwerck]

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.

[Your Add Here!]

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!

[James Rosenzweig]

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.

[Laurence Payne]

Post by James Rosenzweig
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

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Laurence Payne

Post by James Rosenzweig
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

[j***@netzero.net]

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

www.radiowars.homestead.com

[DeserTBoB]

Post by j***@netzero.net
This very helpful and interesting 'test' by 15 people should answer the
www.radiowars.homestead.com <snip>

Suspicions confirmed!

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

dB

[William Sommerwerck]

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.