• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Bose buys mcintosh, sonus faber

Interesting.

It’s been my impression that there’s been a real McIntosh Renaissance in the past several years (or decade). I used to rarely see McIntosh gear, but now it’s featured in Av showrooms, audio shows, YouTube reviews, magazine reviews, audiophile system photos, etc.. McIntosh seems everywhere.

I wonder what this will mean for that. Probably see even more of it I guess.
 
Not really. CR published an article with an opinion about the Bose speaker. Bose didn't like it, which is fine. There was nothing to sue over, however, which is why they lost the case.

No, the story is more complex. Why would it go to the Supreme Court?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/1983/82-1246_11-08-1983.pdf

“After careful consideration of Seligson's testimony and of his demeanor at trial, the Court finds that Seligson's testimony on this point is not credible.”

The problem was that Mr. Seligson, the reviewer for Consumer Reports, was also trying to commercialize his own speaker at the time with its own patent so there was conflict of interest. Back then, press did not have disclosures like that. In the modern internet era, the public would have figured this out.

The other problem, which Bose said was reflective of the bias of Seligson was that in the panel listening, the listeners were asked if the Bose 901 sounded close to their reference direct radiating speaker as opposed to asking which speaker they preferred.

Bose was asking Consumer Reports to clarify/retract Selinger’s statements that were objectively false and to disclose the conflict of interest. The magazine didn’t and they went to court.

Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 508 F. Supp. 1249 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 508 F. Supp. 1249, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database
casetext.com

“A portion of the evidence produced at trial concerned the disconnection of one of the drivers in one of CU's Bose 901 loudspeakers. The plaintiff argues that the defendant tampered with the loudspeaker in order to alter subsequent test results. The Court shares the plaintiff's concern that the evidence in this case may have been tampered with at some time. Nevertheless, the Court is satisfied that CU's Bose 901 loudspeakers were in proper working condition at the critical time — when they were tested in 1969 and 1970. The impedance measurements taken in 1969 confirm that all the drivers were functioning at that time. If someone did tamper with the loudspeaker at a subsequent time it would, of course, be reprehensible, but it would not affect the Court's analysis of the evidence.”

Even Selinger when testifying would admit that it didn’t really move around, but in the end, being wrong or mistaken does not necessarily entail actual malice and it was important to protect First Amendment rights.

The problem was that Consumer Reports review said that when playing music, instruments would “move around”. Bose argued that it wouldn’t move around. It would be diffuse and stable, and you would get stable stereo imaging. Again, Seligson admitted in court that he wrote that the sound moved around, but it didn’t actually move around and tried to argue that instruments moving around was subject to interpretation. The court’s didn’t agree.

This was not actually a unanimous Supreme Court decision. Dissenting were those who thought the facts did suggest malice. Sandra Day O’Connor, William Rehnquist, and Byron White.

If this had happened today, you probably would have Bose posting something on their website to counter the claims made in Consumer Reports, Internet sleuths would have discovered that the author at Consumer Reports was also trying to commercialize his own speaker. Back then, we didn’t have this kind of discussion forum or avenues for direct to consumer communication.

So, Bose was fully correct that the Consumer Reports publication was flawed. The courts agreed. However, being dumb and wrong isn’t the same as malice. When Paul McGowan talks about Audioquest power cables making a difference over generic ones, a manufacturer of generic cables cannot sue Paul for malice. He is just wrong. But today, we know he is wrong thanks to the power of the internet. Imagine now, Paul McGowan writing a review about some Revel or Genelec speakers and talking about boring, sterile sound without actually disclosing that he also makes speakers himself? (to be fair, Paul is often very supportive/enthusiastic about competitor products in his videos.)

The Supreme Court had to either protect First Amendment rights or risk unintended future lawsuits for the benefit of a home speaker. By enforcing the malice requirement, it made things a lot more clear.

But in the context beyond “they didn’t like the review” to the point that Bose wanted Consumer Reports to publicly acknowledge that their reviewer had such an obvious conflict of interest was reasonable. Consumer Reports refused to publish that detail, so Bose took them to court, where that information ended up becoming public.

The interweb of today assumes that Bose v. consumer reports like the Tekton or DCS issues, but you have to remember that when Amar Bose released the original 901, Boston Public School systems were still debating if desegregation was appropriate or not.

Think about how many Ivy League presidents had to resign in the last few years? Can you imagine MIT of 2024 wanting to remain as the majority shareholder of Bose if they felt that Bose was engaging in unethical behavior?
 
I wonder if this the end of Sonus Faber speakers and the beginning of the Sonus Faber Acoustimass line. :p
 
Last edited:
Bose R&D is around 100M/year. They sold off the professional line (restaurants and event spaces) and probably used some of the money for McIntosh. They kept the live single speaker reinforcement (the L1 and F1.




The Consumer Reports lawsuit was reasonable. Are there other instances?


Where do you get the figure of $100M/year?
 
Oh, not entirely off-topic...
the funny thing about today's news: the more I think about Mac and Bose products, I kept thinking of one of the latter's most redoubtable efforts, which was practically Mac-esque. :)



An erstwhile Bose employee (engineer) that I know still expressess massive respect and admiration for those amps.

1732069449003.png

(sorry - I thought I posted this last night... apparently, I didn't :facepalm:)

Meanwhile, due to some connections which I cannot discuss :cool:, I have obtained a leaked copy of one of the slides from the deck used to sell Bose on the notion of acquiring Mac (and Sonus Faber). You never heard this from me, got it?

1732111870805.jpeg
 
My 911 has a Bose audio system. Jeeps have McIntosh.
JP021_238GC_600w.webp


Martin
 
Would buy McIntosh for the aesthetics. Drove past their facility in Binghamton once on my way down to Phil. Really wanted to stop in for a tour and coffee.

Amps sure not certain about the pre/pros. I think they rebadged a Marantz receiver that one time. Not sure. Anyone know for sure?

Saw them as product placement in "The Departed". Guess Scorsese is a fan.

Even the T-shirts and hats are expensive!
 
Would buy McIntosh for the aesthetics. Drove past their facility in Binghamton once on my way down to Phil. Really wanted to stop in for a tour and coffee.

Amps sure not certain about the pre/pros. I think they rebadged a Marantz receiver that one time. Not sure. Anyone know for sure?

Saw them as product placement in "The Departed". Guess Scorsese is a fan.

Even the T-shirts and hats are expensive!
They used rebadged Marantz a few times over the years, same with Lyngdorf.
 
Back
Top Bottom