Monsoon -vs- Bose
05-27-2005, 06:59 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Livonia, MI
Posts: 42
Monsoon -vs- Bose
Wondering the general opinion on sound quality between these two stock stereos. I listened to the Monsoon system in a 98Z before I tore the car apart. Sounded OK, not great. I have a full Bose system that I've never heard.
Dont need both and the wiring is different for each. Any opinions, which do you prefer?
Dont need both and the wiring is different for each. Any opinions, which do you prefer?
05-27-2005, 08:18 AM
#2
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Milton, FL
Posts: 3,604
Re: Monsoon -vs- Bose
monsoon:
good highs
decent mids
crap lows
bose:
semi-crap highs
decent mids
good (for stock) lows
the monsoon speakers blow out incredibly easilly at just above normal volume. i'd rather have the stock BOSE than the stock monsoon.
good highs
decent mids
crap lows
bose:
semi-crap highs
decent mids
good (for stock) lows
the monsoon speakers blow out incredibly easilly at just above normal volume. i'd rather have the stock BOSE than the stock monsoon.
05-27-2005, 08:49 AM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 1,327
Re: Monsoon -vs- Bose
I think most people perfer the Bose system... I know the Bose that was in my car definately sounded better to me than the Monsoon in a friend's Trans Am...
Honestly though, you could sell both systems you have and come out with enough to buy a decent, better sounding aftermarket system. People in the classifieds are always looking for stock system parts.
Honestly though, you could sell both systems you have and come out with enough to buy a decent, better sounding aftermarket system. People in the classifieds are always looking for stock system parts.
05-27-2005, 08:58 AM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Memphis
Posts: 4,338
Re: Monsoon -vs- Bose
Back in the earlier LT1 years IIRC there were only 3 speakers in the Bose system.
For the 96 model year (or maybe before... never checked out the Bose system in a 95 or 95.5) they apparently went to 5-speakers. The 5-speaker Bose system definitely sounded better than the Monsoon in either the Camaro or Firebird. Unless of course you like ear-piercing metallic highs with flat mids and sloppy bass. Then I guess the Monsoon is great.
I preferred the 5-speaker Bose setup over even the Mach 460 from what I recall. It just had a real clean 'punch' to the mid-bass that sounded good with a lot of music. Of course now, today, that I know more about audiophile type stuff, I realize that Bose was compensating for a lack of sub-bass by cutting out that frequency and overamplifying the punchier higher frequencies that required less power and were more noticable to the average driver.
Not that there's anything wrong with that from a budget standpoint... it works. Certainly better than the Monsoon did. I'm just saying now I realize it was far from an audiophile system. That didn't keep it from being good, though.
PS- If you go aftermarket keep in mind that unless you accidently match the prefered volumetric range of the your new speakers, you will need a sub to get close to even the stock bass levels.
For the 96 model year (or maybe before... never checked out the Bose system in a 95 or 95.5) they apparently went to 5-speakers. The 5-speaker Bose system definitely sounded better than the Monsoon in either the Camaro or Firebird. Unless of course you like ear-piercing metallic highs with flat mids and sloppy bass. Then I guess the Monsoon is great.
I preferred the 5-speaker Bose setup over even the Mach 460 from what I recall. It just had a real clean 'punch' to the mid-bass that sounded good with a lot of music. Of course now, today, that I know more about audiophile type stuff, I realize that Bose was compensating for a lack of sub-bass by cutting out that frequency and overamplifying the punchier higher frequencies that required less power and were more noticable to the average driver.
Not that there's anything wrong with that from a budget standpoint... it works. Certainly better than the Monsoon did. I'm just saying now I realize it was far from an audiophile system. That didn't keep it from being good, though.
PS- If you go aftermarket keep in mind that unless you accidently match the prefered volumetric range of the your new speakers, you will need a sub to get close to even the stock bass levels.
Last edited by Threxx; 05-27-2005 at 09:00 AM.
05-27-2005, 09:10 AM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fairfax Station, VA. Formally Long Island :(
Posts: 1,398
Re: Monsoon -vs- Bose
I have the Monsoon system in my Firehawk. It is ok, nothing special really. It is better then a lot of other cars I have been in that still have the stock system but that really isn't saying much. A lot of car manufacturers are now offering premium sound systems in their cars that actually sound good and are not gimmicks. The Bose system in my mother's CTS sounds pretty damn good though.
05-27-2005, 10:07 AM
#10
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Milton, FL
Posts: 3,604
Re: Monsoon -vs- Bose
1993 and 1994 had a 3 speaker setup (2 doors and the bass in the back)
1995 - 1996 had a 5 speaker setup (2 in doors, 2 in sail panels, bass in back)
it is also worth mentioning that the bose had its speaker in an actual box, hit real hard for "stock"
i miss my old bose. monsoon sucks ***, especially when you keep blowing speakers out. i've since replaced both of my door speakers with some alpine 4-ohm speakers which ironically are so much more efficient than the monsoon 2-ohm speakers that there isn't much difference in sound quality that most people can tell and they still hit hard.
1995 - 1996 had a 5 speaker setup (2 in doors, 2 in sail panels, bass in back)
it is also worth mentioning that the bose had its speaker in an actual box, hit real hard for "stock"
i miss my old bose. monsoon sucks ***, especially when you keep blowing speakers out. i've since replaced both of my door speakers with some alpine 4-ohm speakers which ironically are so much more efficient than the monsoon 2-ohm speakers that there isn't much difference in sound quality that most people can tell and they still hit hard.
05-27-2005, 10:15 AM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bay Area, Ca
Posts: 81
Re: Monsoon -vs- Bose
Originally Posted by anasazi
i miss my old bose. monsoon sucks ***, especially when you keep blowing speakers out. i've since replaced both of my door speakers with some alpine 4-ohm speakers which ironically are so much more efficient than the monsoon 2-ohm speakers that there isn't much difference in sound quality that most people can tell and they still hit hard.
05-27-2005, 11:50 AM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: South Bend, Indiana
Posts: 2,473
Re: Monsoon -vs- Bose
Isn't the Bose a 200 watt and the Monsoon a 500 watt? I always liked the Monsoon because I could listen to music pretty loud and still be clear...my stock system is louder than most of my friends with after market systems. 
05-27-2005, 12:56 PM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Memphis
Posts: 4,338
Re: Monsoon -vs- Bose
Originally Posted by Meccadeth
Isn't the Bose a 200 watt and the Monsoon a 500 watt? I always liked the Monsoon because I could listen to music pretty loud and still be clear...my stock system is louder than most of my friends with after market systems.
You might have an amp that by an audiophile's standards is rated at 10 watts. A manufacturer will go in there and bump the voltage, say that a THD of 0.5% is no big deal, and that they should rate their wattage in peak watts for .25 seconds sustained. Then suddenly that SAME amp becomes 100 watts.
The monsoon system is only rated at 500 watts and I think 10 drivers in the T/A, but it is nowhere near 500 watts. And the Mach 1000 in the Mustang is nowhere near 1000 watts, either. By any reasonable measure, anyhow.