BOSE Micro Music Monitor M3 vs M2 Review

【BOSE Computer Micro Music Monitor M3 Review】
M3 vs M2｜vs Wave Music System & 125 Westborough ｜M3 Discontinued｜M3 Limited Return

The BOSE Micro Music Monitor (M3) — an ultra-compact desktop speaker that has been featured in the sidebar of this blog ever since it launched two years ago. As a battery-powered active speaker (powered speaker) with a built-in digital amplifier that fits in the palm of your hand, it was met with a storm of praise everywhere from PC-related websites to pure Hi-Fi magazines, right from the moment of its release. I too was swept along by that enthusiasm, and after actually auditioning it in a shop to confirm the sound quality for myself, I decided to feature it on the blog — though at ¥49,800, sold only through BOSE’s own direct retail channel at full list price, it was quite a steep ask for a desktop speaker intended for PC use, and at the time I never quite got as far as actually buying one myself.

Now, this Micro Music Monitor (M3). As it happens, since around the end of last year a younger sibling model has been added to the range: the M2 Computer MusicMonitor, priced at roughly ¥10,000 less than the M3. (Released November 2007. Discontinued 2018.) The external dimensions of the M2 Computer MusicMonitor are 65.0(W) × 122.0(H) × 123(D) mm — almost identical to the M3. The main difference is that the existing M3 can run on AA batteries, making it easy to take travelling to places where mains power is unavailable, whereas the M2 has no battery option and is designed purely for desktop use such as with a PC. There are a few other minor specification changes, but in terms of functionality that is really the only significant difference.

What’s more, the M2 Computer MusicMonitor is available not only through the BOSE official store but also through computer shops, consumer electronics retailers, and online shopping platforms, meaning anyone can pick one up without any fuss — and at a price more than ¥10,000 cheaper than the direct channel. Which is to say, I honestly found myself thinking: well, there’s really no point in buying the M3 any more, is there… And so, without even doing a proper listening comparison, I went and pulled the M3 link from the blog and replaced it with the M2.

As for this new model, the M2 Computer MusicMonitor — I had assumed it was simply a budget version of the Micro Music Monitor (M3) with essentially the same specifications, released for general retail once demand for the M3 had settled and direct-channel shipment numbers had started to hit their limits. However, according to BOSE, the story goes rather differently: following the strong sales performance of the M3 in Japan, they considered launching it in its home US market as well, but concerns arose that American consumers would not accept a $500 price tag for such a tiny desktop speaker. It was apparently at the direction of Dr Amar G. Bose at the US headquarters that a model was developed with $100 worth of cost reduction — and that model is the M2.

So, the Micro Music Monitor M2 is a US-specification model. The M3, by contrast, was developed and voiced by Japanese BOSE engineers from the outset — a Japan-market-only model sold exclusively in this region. Apparently the sound tuning differs between the M3 and M2 to suit each country’s sensibilities. Of course, this is BOSE we’re talking about, a brand marketing powerhouse, and one can never be entirely sure where the truth ends and the sales pitch begins — but better late than never, I decided to actually sit down and listen for myself to find out whether there is a genuine sonic difference.

Both units use a 5cm full-range driver with a powerful neodymium magnet. Both are magnetically shielded, naturally. In the M3, one enclosure houses the digital amplifier and the other the battery compartment, so the weight of each side is broadly similar at around 600g (without AA batteries). The M2, however, has a noticeable weight imbalance: the right enclosure containing the digital amplifier weighs 600g, while the left — including the speaker cable — weighs 500g.

One of the most distinctive features is the large slits cut into both sides of the enclosures. At a glance they look like a kind of bass reflex port, but given their dimensions, there is clearly no room for a bass-amplifying port along the lines of the company’s Acoustic Wave Guide. Looking inside the slits, one finds a pair of BOSE’s own circular metal passive radiators — called Hyper Resonators — mounted facing each other. It seems this is the decisive element behind the rich sound quality that sets the M3/M2 apart from other small speakers on the market. (To be continued.)

BOSE Micro Music Monitor (M3) — Sound Quality Review

Now, to the all-important question of sound quality. First up: the original model, the Micro Music Monitor M3. The source was the BOSE portable CD player CD-M10, auditioning at the direct retail store with A/B switching. The CD-M10 (its predecessor was the CD-M9) occasionally turns up as a freebie with promotional campaigns, but sadly it is not available for general purchase. It does pop up on Yahoo Auctions! from time to time, and I must confess I do rather want one. The Micro Music Monitor (M3) is extraordinarily clear through the midrange and into the treble — piano in particular sounds strikingly vivid. The tone is lush and beautiful. Rather than a purely neutral monitor sound, the impression is that the metallic freshness of the aluminium enclosure is being actively exploited to add resonance and life. The cramped quality, the dry, murky congestion and vagueness that are so common in PC speakers are essentially nowhere to be found here.

The large slits on the sides house BOSE’s own passive radiators — the Hyper Resonators — mounted facing each other in a distinctive bass reflex arrangement, and thanks to that, the low-frequency reproduction is just as abundant as the reputation suggests. It is certainly not the effortless bass of a large speaker, but there is a curiously rich sense of weight that feels like a naturally amplified fullness. Playing at a somewhat higher volume is where this lush, resonant quality really comes alive and makes its best impression.

And while I say it resonates, the cabinet itself is small and extremely rigid in construction, so this is nothing like the box colouration you might associate with the Acoustic Wave Guide approach. Rather, the impression is that the Hyper Resonators facing each other inside those side slits are generating bass of a quality that utterly defies the enclosure’s size, and conjuring a lively, spacious soundstage that seems to exceed what the physical dimensions could reasonably produce.

Come to think of it, the sound is considerably more lush and open than when I auditioned it shortly after launch. Back then the midrange and treble were more heavily emphasised, giving a stronger metallic impression with not quite enough openness — so whether this is a matter of the shop display unit having had time to run in, or whether there have been minor circuit-level specification changes along the way, I cannot say, but compared with that earlier audition the sound quality is now markedly better. (The M3 was subject to a battery leakage recall in 2006, so it would not be surprising if there are some differences between production batches.) Incidentally, at moderate volume the spacious soundstage described above comes into its own, but turn it down and the presentation becomes leaner and more delicate — pinpoint and miniaturised, with a precise, focused sense of imaging.

BOSE M2 Computer MusicMonitor — Sound Quality Review

Next, the M2 Computer MusicMonitor. Hmm…? For some reason it sounds like the volume has dropped. I adjust the remote control each time to bring the perceived level to roughly the same position, yet the impression does not change. In a word, the frequency response curve simply feels different. The M2 presents its sound with the midrange at the centre, whereas by comparison the M3 digs deeper into the bass and has greater clarity in the upper frequencies — in short, a wider range. Because of this, when the midrange levels are matched, the M3 with its more prominent bass and treble registers as having higher overall sound pressure. Turn the volume up and the gap only widens further.

In terms of soundstage, the M3 has considerable depth, while the M2 spreads things out more laterally, with the vocal range pushing more to the fore. For that reason, with classical recordings that demand wide frequency extension, the M3 is in an almost entirely different league. The difference in sound quality grade is so pronounced it almost makes one wonder whether the digital amplifier components inside are simply of a different class. The M2, on the other hand, is narrower and more midrange-centred compared to the M3, which means that for recordings with some harshness, or for rock and pop where you want the vocals to stand out over the instruments, the M2 can actually be easier on the ear and leave a more favourable impression. The M3, wide-ranging from vocals to instruments and dense with sonic detail; the M2, accompaniment pulled back, vocals and voices brought forward. That is roughly how it feels.

The gap between the M2 and M3 was rather larger than expected…

Hmm. Whether this difference in sound quality is worth ¥10,000 is ultimately a matter of personal judgement, so I can’t say categorically — but my own personal impression of the Micro Music Monitor M2 is something like: “Well, that’s quite a nice sound actually… I might pick one up if I came across a second-hand bargain.” Whereas with the M3, it’s more: I want this badly enough to pay ¥50,000 out of my own pocket. The M3’s clear, wide-ranging sound carries a sense of astonishment — like watching a magic trick — quite beyond what its tiny dimensions would lead you to expect. The M2 comes impressively close, but the sound somehow stays within the range one might reasonably imagine from its appearance.

If the M3 didn’t exist, the M2 would get a very warm reception on its own merits. But given that the M3 does exist, I cannot shake the impression that BOSE has quite deliberately differentiated the two tiers. Whether a ¥10,000 difference in cost actually underlies that sonic gap — well, in all likelihood the bill-of-materials difference is fairly modest, just a touch of different tuning and component choices here and there. But since the results in practice diverge so considerably in sound quality, one finds oneself with little choice but to go along with BOSE’s strategy… If you’ve already bought the M2, I would suggest, for the sake of your peace of mind, that you probably shouldn’t listen to the M3.

【BOSE Computer Micro Music Monitor M3 Review】
M3 vs M2｜vs Wave Music System & 125 Westborough ｜M3 Discontinued｜M3 Limited Return