My equipment review of the Bose 901
Peter Sammon
In 1968, I took an old Philco record player and turned it into my first
hifi record player by installing a Shure M3D stereo magnetic phono
cartridge and then adding a preamp and low powered amp and sealing the
entire deal by building these gigantic enclosures for a pair of Jensen duo
cone 8" speakers that cost a grand total of $20/Pr. This was my
introduction to stereo hifi and a new audionut had been born!
This was also the year that the now famous Bose 901 DIRECT/REFLECTING
speaker system graced the audio world with a courageous unorthodox design!
Had it not been for Dr. Amar Bose and this speaker, who would have caused
so many speaker designers to even give stereo imaging the slightest
consideration!????
Believe it or not, I wasn't even aware of the design at that time. In fact
it wasn't until 1972 when I was stationed in Alaska for the USAF that I
took to picking up a few stereo magazines including CONSUMER GUIDE and
STEREO REVIEW and then ventured into the local hifi shop in Fairbanks that
my first encounter with the 901 took place.
When the salesman put on an album by a band called Chase, The 901's that
were suspended from the ceiling immediately shook the room and the clarity
was awesome! Stereo everywhere yet I could distinctly identify each
trumpet, guitar, percussion and voices with better separation than I had
ever experienced! The amplifier driving the speakers at the time was none
other than Bob Carver's creation...the Phase Linear 700. The love affair
had begun and I purchased my first set of Bose 901's.
In 1983 I upgraded to SERIES V and just recently to SERIES VI...the subject
of this review. It is a solidly well built speaker system throughout!
The Bose 901 SERIES VI features a 21" x 12" x 13" cabinet with curved
fronts and two angled panels in the rear. The two angled panels each
contain four 4 1/2" drivers while one single driver is placed toward the
center of the front panel.
Thus the reason for the model #...9 drivers total with 1 in front. The
design is appropriately designated as direct/reflecting with 89% of the
sound projected from the rear and the remaining 11% coming out of the
front. This proportion was the finding of Dr. Bose's MIT team when studying
various halls where LIVE PERFORMANCES were featured.
The impedence is a solid 8 ohms across the musical spectrum and should
prove to be a most stable load for whatever amplifier one chooses but
choose wisely as this speaker is extremely picky about what drives it and
I'm not referring to just power alone! It is quite conceivable that a given
50 watt amp could sound better with the 901's than a competitive 200 watt
amp!
The small drivers themselves boast heavy magnets and high quality voice
coils as they must move an enormous amount of air. The multi chambered
ACOUSTIC MATRIX enclosure vents the speaker in a most unusual way with air
speeds exceeding 60 mph! Three ports or jets protrude through the rear of
the 901 enclosure.
Because of the use of small full range drivers, an active equalizer which
is absolutely essential to the system is used in place of the normal
CROSSOVERS that introduce distortion no matter how well engineered. The 901
EQ simply smooths out any bumps or irregularities in the system's power
response.
FREQUENCY RESPONSE specs are not ever offered by Bose because one of the
founding principles was that they offer little or no value to the
audiophile! Bose simply observed that great specs certainly did not always
coincide with equally great performance.
The OWNER'S MANUAL is quite extensive and written in several languages. It
also gives special instructions for mounting the 901's on pedestals or
hanging them from ceilings.
The speakers are rated to handle amplifiers of 10 to 450 watts of clean
power but do not induce amplifier clipping as this will kill any speaker
regardless of the rating or how well it is made! DYNAMIC RANGE is rated at
106db...well above the 90db capability of the best digital sources!
The two finishes that are available are black ash and light walnut. I chose
the light walnut for mine with dark brown indestructible grills that are
absolutely seductive looking!
Optional PS6 pedestals are available. Pedestals are also offered by others
and you could save some money but make sure they support your 901's
properly. Two foot high end tables offer a sturdy and childproof support of
the speakers also.
The bottom of each 901 speaker reveals a circular cutaway that surrounds
the two heavy duty knurled nut speaker terminals that hold speaker wire
like no other arrangement I know of. It is very secure and should make for
a lifetime of good connection to quality OFC speaker wire. This wire is
available from Kimber Kable and AR but for my money MIRASONIC.COM has the
best stuff at super low prices that can truly make an audible difference.
There is no substitute for controlled well defined bass and clear mids and
highs. Good wire can accomplish that! It's been proven.
After patching the 901 EQ into my TAPE MONITOR circuit on my humble
Parasound integrated amplifier with the supplied patch chords and then
carefully setting up the speakers in my living room I was able to listen to
my vast collection of CD's into the wee hours of the morning night after
night as I simply could not get enough of the beautiful sound the speakers
project! A new TAPE MONITOR is provided on the EQ to replace your old one.
Adjust the MID BASS and MID TREBLE slider controls moderately for room and
source compensation.
DO NOT MIX AND MATCH WRONG EQ's FROM VARIOUS SERIES MODELS AS THE SOUND
WILL BE INCORRECT AND DO NOT USE WITH OTHER CONVENTIONAL UNEQUALIZED
SPEAKERS FOR HOME THEATER!!!!
901 EQ AND SPEAKER SERIES COMPATABILITY:
SERIES I and II...ACOUSTIC SUSPENSION design from 1968-1976
SERIES III and IV...ACOUSTIC MATRIX design from 1976-1983
SERIES V and VI...ACOUSTIC MATRIX design from 1983-Present day
Do not deviate from these guidelines as 901's are available in used
condition over the internet. Undoubtedly as you read this review, someone
is selling a SERIES IV 901 with a SERIES VI EQ or a SERIES II EQ with a
SERIES III speaker and will result in total dissatisfaction with the
product on the buyer's end.
Also beware of the phony 901 look alike LDL 749 speakers that were
manufactured from 1970 to 1974 without EQ's but did not equal the 901
quality sound. I almost purchased one of these systems back then but
thankfully did not but beware as they can easily be peddled as 901's. They
do resemble the Bose to a great degree. I think someone from the original
Bose/MIT group jumped ship to make these imposters.
As for the subject of speaker placement I can only suggest that you
experiment a bit and rid yourself of any normal distance you would keep
between conventional LEFT and RIGHT STEREO speakers as the 901 is anything
but conventional itself! I really do believe that the LOVE and HATE stems
from the fact that the 901 sound can change drastically in the lower
frequencies when not setup properly! Alas, I have found the 901's to sound
best on 18" high pedestals and out 18" from the REAR wall along the SHORT
wall of my listening room as compared to the LONGER wall. I think this is
better than hanging the speakers from the ceiling where the bass tends to
get lost. Experiment...experiment...this is the key!
Because of the angled rear panels, the "middle sound" will be quite strong
and stable eliminating the typical "sweet spot" rules. You can separate
these speakers miles apart from each other and in fact should do so within
reason to get great stereo separation!
By doing so, you'll not only widen the fantastic soundstage but also
eliminate any possibility of losing left and right channel detail. Don't
worry, you will not have a "hole in the middle" effect. This way also gets
you to move the 901's closer to the adjacent walls. Just keep the wall
behind the speakers relatively free of drapes and teddy bears.
Hanging the 901's from ceilings more than ten feet from the ground is not
recommended as the sound may get obscured a bit and imaging along with deep
bass lost. In other words, if you have a ceiling like the Sistine Chapel,
forget it!
The sound of the 901 SERIES VI is really special and downright seductive!
Regardless of the many genres of music that have been played thru my 901's,
the SOUNDSTAGING is such that never have I experienced a wider higher
portrayal of various performances with equally impressive depth! You can
literally point to every instrument in the orchestra or follow a soloist as
he or she moves about the stage in front of you [e.g. Tony Clarke-"The
Entertainer" as he as he moves to and fro banging his tambourine...it's
really something to behold!]
The break-in period for the 901-VI went very nicely with the drivers fully
seated after six months. Be careful not to push them too hard at first and
do not introduce amplifier clipping. By the way, this break-in period
applies to owners of older 901 models that have had their foam surrounds
replaced [Simply Speakers on EBAY has a wondertful kit for under $50].
I love it when people say that the 901's can't go deep. Just checkout the
opening low pedal note in the movie "2001-A Space Oddysey" and see if it
doesn't rattle every window and loose floor board in the house! Or checkout
Mike Oldfield's "Tubular Bells" at the four minute mark. Just MIDRANGE
speakers, huh? No, what's happening is that the ACOUSTIC MATRIX enclosure
is moving huge amounts of air! That's what gives you bass...not just the
physical size of the driver. Why do you think many top notch speaker
systems like Win Burhoe's SILENT SPEAKERS or the Spendors use such small
drivers and are still able to produce such deep notes? It's because the
cabinets have special sophisticated chambers that create significant air
speeds. Also the drivers have powerful motors in their voice coil and
magnet assemblies.
All other systems seem to be fat sounding in the bass...even the biggest
most expensive ones! Forget about subwoofering the 901 as it is not
necessary in the right room! Put your wallet away and be happy with the
fact that you own a fantastic 40Hz gut puncher!
Telarc's CD of "Carmina Burana" is so dynamic with the voices and orchestra
bringing forth massive but clear emotional sound thru the 901's. Midrange
and high notes are crystal clear thru the speakers when they are truly
present. That brings me to another point...that the 901's only reproduce
what's in the recording itself and very little of anything else! BUT YOU
GOTTA LISTEN TO THEM FOR YOURSELF. YOU MAY NOT AGREE WITH MY FINDINGS AS
THE 901 IS NOT FOR EVERYONE.
The EQ is silent with no perceived extraneous noise. The only noise that
will be revealed is amplifier hiss or such sound in an analog mastered
recording. Some digital recordings even have modulation noise and you will
recognize such flawed CD's immediately!
The speaker has an uncanny ability to reveal eveything! Beware as this is
certainly a double edged sword for the Bose. I have one CD of Barry White's
Greatest Hits that on the song..."You're The First, The Last, My
Everything" where this older recording used a poor microphone for Barry's
voice that can sound downright harsh! Yet the orchestra behind him is very
nicely portrayed. You will certainly stay up late the first night checking
out all of your library to see what's good and what isn't.
I'm not kidding when I tell you that the 901 can distinguish between a good
MIC or a bad one. You can even hear "poof!" sounds from microphones that
were not properly screened and windproofed! Just listen to a variety of
radio broadcasts or checkout the "Buddy Holly Collection" CD of remastered
recordings and listen for yourself.
That is how revealing the 901 is. I dare say that many of you will not like
the speaker because of this very fact. The quality of your amplifier and CD
player will also be unveiled for whatever it is. Use good quality power as
the 901 likes heaps of it! Yes, it can play quite loudly but sounds
wonderful at a whisper.
That high current Onkyo/Integra stereo only receiver should be wonderful
with the 901's! I'm not so sure about some other massed produced brands.
Certainly super audiophile expensive MONO BLOCKS will be at their best
also.
If you listen to JAZZ 88 in the Newark, NJ area you will hear non smeared
percussion and wonderful vocalists with plenty of plucked basses and super
sweet highs all naturally portrayed thru the 901's. The cymbals are so darn
natural! TRANSIENT RESPONSE is exemplary! I love the fact that I can hear a
kickdrum change tone or every subtlety and overtone on various recorded
music. The simple striking of a trianglular bell can raise the hairs on my
back!
Accuracy of musical timbre is important and with the Bose you get plenty of
it. You haven't heard the Beatles until you've heard "Sgt Peppers" played
thru the Bose 901! There is a rather nice CD entitled "Atmospheres-Celtic
Voices" featuring ambient waterfall sounds along with various seductive
strings, tom toms, woodwinds and basses. This Irish music CD is worth
seeking out as it reveals changes in the stringed bass's tones and
subtleties that can be a very useful tool for speaker evaluation! You can
probably pick it up for around $8 or less! The 901 sounds wonderful with
this recording!
But don't just take my word for it...listen for yourself! You may or may
not agree. That is how controversial this speaker is! Speaker auditioning
should be fun and pleasant so don't let snotty proprietors and extremely
opinionated sales people stand in your way. Some of the hatred stems from
the fact that Bose seems to pursuit competitors in court quite often and
also even went after a negative reviewer...and that's not right. We are
free to print how we feel about a product and should have no fear of
repercussion!
But as a maker of great speakers I think Bose does very well indeed and
their customer support is unbelievable! I have had some nice chats with
both Bose field and customer service reps.
Look, my feeling is that a truly great speaker can involve you in the
performance so well as to summon all your emotions as I have felt many
tears in my eyes when listening to beautiful music thru the speakers.
Telarc's "Rite Of Spring" has a tympani gut puncher at around the ten
minute mark that can make your heart jump out and if you hold a tissue over
one of the 901's ports it will fly out of your hand! Yet the orchestra
sounds so sweet as to make you cry or stand up and exclaim...BRAVO!...as it
does on CBS MASTERWORKS' "Nutcracker" w/Michael Tilson Thomas conducting
the New Phiharmonia Orch.
There are many bigger more expensive models costing well over $5000 a pair
but I don't really consider some of these Gigantors to be appropriate for
the average listening room. We don't have auditoriums for listening areas
do we?
Well the 901's have served me well in some of my rooms over the past thirty
years and can sound great in rooms big or small if the acoustics are
correct for them. If your listening room is smaller than average and full
of curtains then look elsewhere for your special transducer. In larger
rooms with solid walls or undraped windows the Bose 901 SERIES VI will be
at its best! The fact that their current price is still within reason for
such great performance at $1500 is a credit to Bose. The USA engineered
speaker is now being crafted in Canada which lays claim to such fine
outfits like Mirage, PSB and Paradigm.
Although the system is not always setup properly in malls and generally not
available through high end dealers, don't let that fact stop you from
seeking the speaker out. My advice is to find someone locally who owns a
SERIES III thru VI system and ask for an audition in the home where they
reside. There is simply no substitute for auditioning the 901's in an
actual home! You can also go online at BOSE.COM to place an order and use a
12 month payment plan that makes it so much easier on your pocketbook.
A Special Note To 901 Owners And Perspective Buyers:
Do not be discouraged or put off by those who feel this speaker system is
overrated or hyped up. Trust your own ears! No amount of poetic flowery
descriptive double talk can truly make a given speaker system sound great.
Neither can impressive manufacturer's specifications! Listen for yourself.
Compare the speakers to the best of the best like the B&W NAUTILUS 801's
and 802's but also the biggest most expensive Tannoys, Martin Logans,
Definitives, JBL's, Allisons, Bostons, Polks, Legacy's or any other brand
you can think of as I have and see if you agree with my findings. Isn't it
most interesting that some of these lovely sounding models cost up to ten
times the price of the 901 or more! I did compare my Bose to these
speakers! While I did so, the high end salesman tried to tell me what was
wrong with them [like most of us audiophiles he was very opinionated]! I
simply smiled as my 901's outperformed these great speakers on every single
CD used for this audition!
What a great audition but the salesman knew he had lost his battle! Who
needs someone telling us what we should be hearing while auditioning
speakers or any piece of audio gear? It is our decision. We know what to
listen for! Just beware of this little trick when you decide to bring a 901
system into a high end store. They don't like Bose!
This silliness began in 1971 when J Gordon Holt gave the original Bose 901
a somewhat negative review. He did however bring up some good points but
was off the mark on the 901's sounding "fat" in the bass as they are
anything but that! However, the battle lines were drawn. This review
sparked the "Love/Hate" of the Bose 901 speaker system and you can link to
the entire review from my profile page. Just so you have an idea of where
Mr. Holt is at...he loves the sound of the B&W 801. I thought that this was
rather ironic as this model [although great] has been tagged by myself and
others as a bit overwhelming and "fat sounding" in the bass
frequencies...again...room acoustics like it or not will affect various
speaker models more than we sometimes are willing to admit!
With the proper amplifier and room your reaction may very well be like
this..."I may be living in a different world from everyone else but if
so...DO NOT wake me up! I'm having too much fun listening to music the way
it was meant to be heard with this heavenly speaker!" With the wrong amp
and improper room you will probably feel that you've been ripped off and
Bose is full of nothing but hype.
I recommend the speakers highly with the condition that you fully audition
them in the right situation but be aware of the fact that many of you will
find yourselves wondering why you even bothered to give the beasts a
listen! For those of you in this situation I highly recommend the
Vandersteen 1C speakers at a slightly lower price. The Vandersteens are
wonderful sounding in just about any room you can think of and are
available at fine high end stores like John Rutan's Audio Connection of
Verona, NJ [see the link on my profile page].
Bose states that the 901-VI was engineered by passionate music lovers. This
fact is so highly obvious once you give the speaker a listen in an
appropriate setup [and the Bose Store may very well not be the best!]. It
seems like no other speaker system delivers powerful accuracy quite like
this one!
TonyP
>>huge snip<<
I really don't know where to begin, so I'll basically end. I have heard
901's of various models with various amps and pre amps. I don't know
where you would hear Legacy and bose at the time. Same with B&W's or any
other "hi end" speaker. I would be interested in this place where I can
compare the 901's to something like my Von Schweikert VR4's (which most
certainly go deeper and sound better than the 901's). If you like them,
fine. That is your choice. They were "different" when first introduced.
Great marketing certainly sold a lot of them. But to say that their
"equalizer" introduces less distortion than a crossover network, well,
where are the facts (read: numbers) to back this up?
You like them. I don't care for them.
But, it is a matter of choice. You made yours, I made mine, and others
will make theirs.
Listen first. Listen long. Then decide. It's like all those people that
love those little bose acoustamates (?). They are terrible sounding and
way overpriced. But, they offer what those that don't know how music
sounds, the wiz-bang effect. Tizzy highs, screatching mids, and of
course, bloated muddy mid bass passed off as bass.
Hey sorta reminds me of 901's!
Geoff Wood
> http://www.epinions.com/content_105506836100
>
> In 1968, I took an old Philco record player and turned it into my
> first hifi record player by installing a Shure M3D stereo magnetic
> phono cartridge and then adding a preamp and low powered amp and
Are you really an enthusiastic (but-misguided) Bose-user, or a part of the
Bose Inc marketing department. It never looked objective, but now this
tripe is popping up several times with changed subjects, across a bunch of
newgroups, it is starting to look like SPAM.
Or is it all really a tongue-in-cheek joke ?
geoff
Joseph Oberlander
God, what a lot of blather. Are you sure you aren't an employee?
You sure sound like one.
> FREQUENCY RESPONSE specs are not ever offered by Bose because one of the
> founding principles was that they offer little or no value to the
> audiophile! Bose simply observed that great specs certainly did not always
> coincide with equally great performance.
Like their Acoustimass system which has a +/- 12 db efficienty and a complete
hole from around 180-200hz? Or their noise cancelling headphones that work
about as well as a simple pair of earplugs(and mangle the sound just as much)
> The EQ is silent with no perceived extraneous noise. The only noise that
> will be revealed is amplifier hiss or such sound in an analog mastered
> recording. Some digital recordings even have modulation noise and you will
> recognize such flawed CD's immediately!
Q: why do studio monitors, elctrostatics, and even movie theatres all not
use any EQ? Perhaps because the speaker is accurate enough to not need
artificial mangling of the sound to be listenable?
(snip 3 pages of shill blather)
> I did compare my Bose to these
> speakers! While I did so, the high end salesman tried to tell me what was
> wrong with them [like most of us audiophiles he was very opinionated]! I
> simply smiled as my 901's outperformed these great speakers on every single
> CD used for this audition!
I know people who think that their squidded-out Civic street racer is
better than a Porsche 911. Lol.
(snip more blather)
I can't believe someone actually spent two hours typing that crud in
to post it.
New Account
since 1968. No imaging either. Great to demonstrate
doppler effect though.
Bose did keep after Consumer Reports in the courts all
the way to the Supreme Court for 14 years a bad review.
For some reason they did not go after J. Gordon Holt for
his not so flattering review in Stereophile.
http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/425/
"Peter Sammon" <camm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1025iij...@news.supernews.com...
New Account
since 1968. No imaging either. Great to demonstrate
doppler effect though.
Bose did keep after Consumer Reports in the courts all
the way to the Supreme Court for 14 years a bad review.
For some reason they did not go after J. Gordon Holt for
his not so flattering review in Stereophile.
http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/425/
"Peter Sammon" <camm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1025iij...@news.supernews.com...
Arny Krueger
> The small drivers themselves boast heavy magnets and high quality
> voice coils as they must move an enormous amount of air.
Myth number one: A reasonable number of small drivers can move as much air
as a single large one, all other things being equal.
The hidden agenda is linear stroke.
Let's compare a 4" driver and an 8" driver. How many 4" drivers does it take
to move as much air as an 8" driver?
The naive answer is 4, presuming that cone area is proportional to diameter,
squared. True for theoretical geometry, not true for speakers.
Speakers have flexible surrounds and a fraction of the area of the surround
must be deducted from the area of the cone. However, the width of the
surround is not proportional to the diameter of the speaker, but rather is
dependent on the designer's goals for maximum linear stroke. IOW an 8"
speaker with a certain linear stroke will have a surround that is a certain
width. If the 4" speaker has the same linear stroke, then its surround will
have to be the same width. However, since the diameter of the smaller
speaker is quite a bit smaller, the surround takes up a greater proportion
of the diameter of the speaker. IOW, the area of the actual moving part of
the smaller cone is even less than proportionately smaller.
For small speakers, it may take 5 4" speakers to have the same moving cone
area as an 8" speaker due to the loss of effective moving diaphragm area
because of the width of the surround.
Secondly, smaller speakers, all other things being equal, don't have the
same linear stroke as larger speakers. Speakers tend to scale in all
dimensions. Not only is a 4" speaker half the diameter of an 8" speaker, but
it will have half the linear stroke, all other things being equal.
In short, it might take as many as 10 4" speakers to have the air-moving
capacity of a single 8" speaker, all other things being equal.
>The multi
> chambered ACOUSTIC MATRIX enclosure vents the speaker in a most
> unusual way with air
> speeds exceeding 60 mph! Three ports or jets protrude through the
> rear of the 901 enclosure.
Knowledgeable speaker designers know that high air velocity in ports is
anathema. High air velocities lead to higher turbulence, and turbulent flow
tends to be noisy flow. One sign of a quality ported speaker is a large,
low-velocity port.
> Because of the use of small full range drivers, an active equalizer
> which is absolutely essential to the system is used in place of the
> normal CROSSOVERS that introduce distortion no matter how well
> engineered. The 901 EQ simply smooths out any bumps or irregularities in
the system's
> power response.
Plan B: build a system that is essentially acoustically flat. Not mission
impossible in this day and age.
Now for the seriously damning facts about the Bose 901. When the 901 was
built, not that much was generally known about optimizing the performance of
arrays of small drivers. It turns out that arrays of small drivers can be a
real can of worms, if smooth, well-balanced frequency response is desired.
I'm quite sure that if Bose were to design the 901 today with a clean piece
of paper, they'd do it quite a bit differently.
Probably the most serious problem with designs based on ad-hoc collections
of identical small drivers is that they can have very rough frequency
response (lobing and comb-filter effects) when you move slightly off-axis,
and they can also have frequency response that is a strong function of
distance from the speaker to the listener. There are ways to manage these
problems with generally involve putting the drivers on curved baffles,
and/or adjusting the level and/or frequency response of the drive to the
various drivers. However, the classic Bose 901 design really does neither of
these things well.
Here's an AES paper that points out these problems and potential solutions
in some detail:
Author(s): Keele, Jr., D. B.
Publication: JAES Volume 38 Number 10 pp. 723ยท748; October 1990
Abstract: The Bessel array is a configuration of five, seven, or nine
identical loudspeakers in an equal-spaced line array that provides the same
overall polar pattern as a single loudspeaker of the array
One important point is that the no way is the Bose 901 a Bessel array.
A second important point is that of all the Bessel arrays analyzed, 5
drivers in a row was found to be the only one that was recommended.
Tim S Kemp
underperforming speakers.
If I wanted overpriced speakers that sound "nice" but don't reproduce music
how the sound engineer intended it to be reproduced I think the B&O beolab 5
would be my choice, they sound good. The 901 Bose does not give the crisp
response across the frequency range that's required or the power and
transient response that you get with real loudspeakers. They still sound
"good" but then so do many 150quid radio / CD players and mini audio
systems.
I dare say that if music was recorded with the intention of playback on
limited bandwidth reflected audio systems then they'd be a good idea - they
also work well for background music but then there's cheaper options there
too.
I hear no highs, I feel no lows, it sounds like crap, it must be Bose....
Dave Plowman
Peter Sammon <camm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This was also the year that the now famous Bose 901 DIRECT/REFLECTING
> speaker system graced the audio world with a courageous unorthodox
> design! Had it not been for Dr. Amar Bose and this speaker, who would
> have caused so many speaker designers to even give stereo imaging the
> slightest consideration!????
Strange. You've obviously never heard decent stereo imaging, as the 901 is
*utterly* incapable of producing it.
--
*Pride is what we have. Vanity is what others have.
Dave Plowman dave....@argonet.co.uk London SW 12
RIP Acorn
Mark D. Zacharias
flameout. I don't suppose the guys here will ignore him, but he's obviously
a troll or maybe even sells Bose. Why else would he come onto groups of
technically competent people who he obviously knows will disagree and
deliberately dispense this bullshit?
Bose speakers are designed so that unknowledgeable people can spend lots of
money to impress their unknowledgeable friends.
Mark Z.
--
Please reply only to Group. I regret this is necessary. Viruses and spam
have rendered my regular e-mail address useless.
"Peter Sammon" <camm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1025iij...@news.supernews.com...
George M. Middius
Dave Plowman said:
> Strange. You've obviously never heard decent stereo imaging, as the 901 is
> *utterly* incapable of producing it.
If the worst you can say about 901s is they don't image well, you
haven't got a lot to say.
Nutter
wrote:
<snip>
It was such drool and bullshit that I've decided to <snip> the whole
post. I am no expert on sepaker design, accoustics or physics, I trust
my ears and common sense.
Common sense tells me that most audio engineers use direct radiating
speakers for 'monitoring' their creations, therefore it makes sense to
me to use the same 'design' of speaker to hear their work.
My ears tell me that Bose (accross the range) sound overly bright,
with little to no definition of mid-range and a total lack of anything
approaching quality bass. If they (901's) were priced at ยฃ100 they may
just be worth it, if only for the 'unique design'. I would guess that
ANY speaker of direct raditaing design, of a similar price would
outperform them.
I'll stick to B&W's thanks very much. At least most of their design
decisions are based on scientificly sound principles of accoustics,
physics and materials.
Ray.
Tim S Kemp
> lots of money to impress their unknowledgeable friends.
Bose and B&O - HiFi for the deaf....
barry
and I spent ages listening to many speakers before I decided to buy
them.They cured me of being a "hi-fi " addict I now just listen to the
music.The only trouble is it takes two people to move just one of 'em.
...but coupled with a REL sub and some other 7 speakers provides good
surround for dvd etc and great stereo by themselves.
I'm a KEF fan but wouldn't write too much more than that.
However I have to say that this thread must be commercially
generated......who else would bother to write such a diatribe??....Bose
whatever it sounds like ( average to me ) also LOOKS so bloody awful.
Have you seen their radio thing you get advertised in the likes of the
telegraph supplement??
Looks like a 1950s breadbasket!
Well it takes all sorts.........
As they say in France one mans fish is another mans poison !
Barry
"Tim S Kemp" <ne...@timkemp.karoo.co.uk> wrote imessage
news:P7WcnbadBfA...@karoo.co.uk...
Ian Bell
I have often seen Bose pseudo science ads and noted that they fail to
mention prices. Presumably they are stupidly expensive? Just how much do
they sting the idiots who buy a pair of 901s??
Ian
Ian Bell
> Now I really like my KEF reference speakers....
> and I spent ages listening to many speakers before I decided to buy
> them.They cured me of being a "hi-fi " addict I now just listen to the
> music.The only trouble is it takes two people to move just one of 'em.
> ...but coupled with a REL sub and some other 7 speakers provides good
> surround for dvd etc and great stereo by themselves.
> I'm a KEF fan but wouldn't write too much more than that.
>
>
>
> However I have to say that this thread must be commercially
> generated......who else would bother to write such a diatribe??....Bose
> whatever it sounds like ( average to me ) also LOOKS so bloody awful.
> Have you seen their radio thing you get advertised in the likes of the
> telegraph supplement??
> Looks like a 1950s breadbasket!
>
I have seen them often enough. They never mantion prices. Just how much do
they ask for one of those plastic radios??
Ian
S888Wheel
>mention prices. Presumably they are stupidly expensive? Just how much do
>they sting the idiots who buy a pair of 901s??
>
>Ian
I believe the suggested retail price is in the neighborhood of 1500 bucks. I
think they are usually discounted. A lot of people have been taken for quite a
ride with this product.
dave weil
wrote:
>Peter Sammon <camm...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:1025iij...@news.supernews.com:
>
>> http://www.epinions.com/content_105506836100
>
>I love it when people say that Bose is not taken seriously by the rest of
>the industry...of course if you are referring to the so called HIGH
>END...there is a great reason why...because the high end hates Bose and the
>901 and generally will go to great lengths to deter people from giving the
>speakers any credibility by using the same stupid excuses like "older
>technology", Direct/Reflecting sound obscures the image rather than
>enhances it, no direct competition in the particular store of purchase etc.
>etc. I, for one DO NOT play politics
You just did.
<THUD>
Dave Plowman
Only wish I could say the same about you.
--
*Time is the best teacher; unfortunately it kills all its students.
Captain Fire Farter, The
I would add that they don't sound well, note.
--
td
Captain Fire Farter, The
wrote:
>I love it when people say that Bose is not taken seriously by the rest of
>the industry...of course if you are referring to the so called HIGH
>END...there is a great reason why...because the high end hates Bose and the
>901 and generally will go to great lengths to deter people from giving the
>speakers any credibility by using the same stupid excuses like "older
>technology", Direct/Reflecting sound obscures the image rather than
>enhances it, no direct competition in the particular store of purchase etc.
>etc. I, for one DO NOT play politics nor will I succumb to these ploys by
>the so called experts who have their noses too high in the air that they
>cannot even smell what life is made of. Thanks anyway for your comments.
No--I would say they're not taken seriously because they sound utterly
shit.
--
td
MINe 109
Gotta love the "older technology" bit! I can think of older designs I
like better.
If one affixed a giant cardboard cone to the front face of an ESL 63
901-like sound might result.
Stephen
Kalman Rubinson
wrote:
>If one affixed a giant cardboard cone to the front face of an ESL 63
>901-like sound might result.
How about a complete cardboard front cover with an asymmetrically
placed 5" hole?
Kal
johneb...@yahoo.com
Ian Bell wrote:
I'm pretty sure it's in the neighborhood of about $400 US
Roy
"Peter Sammon" <camm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1027icu...@news.supernews.com...
> Peter Sammon <camm...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:1025iij...@news.supernews.com:
>
> > http://www.epinions.com/content_105506836100
>
> the industry...of course if you are referring to the so called HIGH
> END...there is a great reason why...because the high end hates Bose and
the
> 901 and generally will go to great lengths to deter people from giving the
> speakers any credibility by using the same stupid excuses like "older
> technology", Direct/Reflecting sound obscures the image rather than
> enhances it, no direct competition in the particular store of purchase
etc.
> etc. I, for one DO NOT play politics nor will I succumb to these ploys by
> the so called experts who have their noses too high in the air that they
> cannot even smell what life is made of. Thanks anyway for your comments.
>
Yes, he IS a troll
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Roy
> http://www.epinions.com/content_105506836100
>
>>
> Bose states that the 901-VI was engineered by passionate music lovers.
This
> fact is so highly obvious once you give the speaker a listen in an
> appropriate setup
Nonsense
[and the Bose Store may very well not be the best!]. It
> seems like no other speaker system delivers powerful accuracy quite like
> this one!
Nonsense
Nick Gorham
> However I have to say that this thread must be commercially
> generated......who else would bother to write such a diatribe??
Not saying this is the reason, but I remember these from years ago.
http://www.mwillett.org/troll.htm
--
Nick
Kalman Rubinson
wrote:
>I recognize these sorts of posts. You've spent thousands of dollars on
>fine expensive speaker wires, esocterically engineered speakers, the
>"right driver", the right "name" on the front of the cabinet etc. You
>have no choice now, either admit to years of being wrong or steadfastly
>standing your ground in the face of the science, popularity and audio
>technology Bose puts before you.
I find it hard to believe that you think you can convince anyone with
your wordy posts when listening is the only criterion. Those who have
listened have made their choices. Mine is not the 901. Yours is.
>As long as you enjoy the music. Cheers!
Is that an end to this?
Kal
Captain Fire Farter, The
wrote:
>> No--I would say they're not taken seriously because they sound utterly
>> shit.
>
>Gotta love the "older technology" bit! I can think of older designs I
>like better.
>
>If one affixed a giant cardboard cone to the front face of an ESL 63
>901-like sound might result.
Imagination has been good to me, but on this occasion I think I prefer
not to imagine.
--
td
Captain Fire Farter, The
>>"Peter Sammon" <camm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>Yes, he IS a troll
Noh!
Hey, I used to be called you.
--
td
fronobulax
<snip>
>>
>> I have seen them often enough. They never mantion prices. Just how
>> much do
>> they ask for one of those plastic radios??
>>
>> Ian
>>
>
> I'm pretty sure it's in the neighborhood of about $400 US
>
It's closer to $1000. They offer financing. For a table radio. And a
lousy one at that.
Peter Hansen
-----------------------------------------
www.geocities.com/bunkie21
-----------------------------------------
Robert Morein
> http://www.epinions.com/content_105506836100
[snip]
> Bose states that the 901-VI was engineered by passionate music lovers.
This
> fact is so highly obvious once you give the speaker a listen in an
> seems like no other speaker system delivers powerful accuracy quite like
> this one!
To avoid being a laughingstock, I suggest you emphasize that the above is
your own opinion.
Virtually no one would agree with you, and the impression you made on the
stereo salesman was completely in your own mind.
When these speakers were originally designed, little was known of modern
acoustic theory, which firmly established that bouncing 89% of the sound off
the room walls may be intended to be a beneficial effect, but is actually a
severe degradation.
The 901's do not conform to modern theory or practice, and are notably
inferior to practically any modern speaker sold at more than a moderate
price point.
TonyP
> I love it when people say that Bose is not taken seriously by the rest of
> the industry...of course if you are referring to the so called HIGH
> END...there is a great reason why...because the high end hates Bose and the
> 901 and generally will go to great lengths to deter people from giving the
> speakers any credibility by using the same stupid excuses like "older
> technology", Direct/Reflecting sound obscures the image rather than
> enhances it, no direct competition in the particular store of purchase etc.
> etc. I, for one DO NOT play politics nor will I succumb to these ploys by
> the so called experts who have their noses too high in the air that they
> cannot even smell what life is made of. Thanks anyway for your comments.
You're welcome. Now, to listen to speakers that put the 901's to same.
My little Advent Marbl's.....
Kalman Rubinson
wrote:
>You're welcome. Now, to listen to speakers that put the 901's to same.
>My little Advent Marbl's.....
Is that a typo or a Freudian slip?
Kal
TonyP
> I recognize these sorts of posts. You've spent thousands of dollars on
> fine expensive speaker wires, esocterically engineered speakers, the
> "right driver", the right "name" on the front of the cabinet etc. You
> have no choice now, either admit to years of being wrong or steadfastly
> standing your ground in the face of the science, popularity and audio
> technology Bose puts before you.
I know that this HAS to be a troll. But anyways, my speakers don't have
anyone's name on them. Von Schweikert VR4's. Wires? Shotgunned
Audioquest Indigo 2's (not much money). And, they sound so much better
than any Bose. Any.
>
> As long as you enjoy the music. Cheers!
You can hear some semblance of music with the Bose. I hear more.
Kalman Rubinson
wrote:
> But anyways, my speakers don't have
>anyone's name on them. Von Schweikert VR4's.
They have Albert's name on them.
Kal
MINe 109
Kalman Rubinson <k...@nyu.edu> wrote:
The cardboard mod has merit, if only because one could remove it and be
left with an ESL 63.
Stephen
Mark
<ge...@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote:
>
>Are you really an enthusiastic (but-misguided) Bose-user, or a part of the
>Bose Inc marketing department. It never looked objective, but now this
>tripe is popping up several times with changed subjects, across a bunch of
>newgroups, it is starting to look like SPAM.
>
>Or is it all really a tongue-in-cheek joke ?
>
>geoff
>
A Bose 'review' is a sure-fire TROLL.
Tim S Kemp
> in fact the US Air Force has depended upon Bose equipment.
>
yeah - for noise cancelling headsets, not for quality audio....
dave weil
wrote:
>dave weil <dwe...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
>news:97j720l5hd4e0einp...@4ax.com:
>I recognize these sorts of posts. You've spent thousands of dollars on
>fine expensive speaker wires, esocterically engineered speakers, the
>"right driver", the right "name" on the front of the cabinet etc. You
>have no choice now, either admit to years of being wrong or steadfastly
>standing your ground in the face of the science, popularity and audio
>technology Bose puts before you.
>
>As long as you enjoy the music. Cheers!
Actually, it soumds more like you've got years of emotional investment
to justify.
Nothing wrong with that, mind you. But trashing others to try to build
up *your* investement is pretty shitty, if you ask me...
Arny Krueger
> "Robert Morein" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in
> news:NYudnfJpUMx...@comcast.com:
>> When these speakers were originally designed, little was known of
>> modern acoustic theory, which firmly established that bouncing 89% of
>> the sound off the room walls may be intended to be a beneficial
>> effect, but is actually a severe degradation.
Agreed.
>> The 901's do not conform to modern theory or practice, and are
>> notably inferior to practically any modern speaker sold at more than
>> a moderate price point.
Agreed.
> Nonesense. They are base upon sound engineering principles, so sound
> in fact the US Air Force has depended upon Bose equipment.
OK, so some USAF marching band has some Bose SR equipment.
> I have been an AUDIO enthusiast for over 34 years and have had a ton
> of fun owning and listening to various well-made systems at all price
> levels. I've owned or had the pleasure of seriously auditioning in my
> home many respectable manufacturers' models including the said 901's
> and Vandersteen's 1C w/the 901 as top reference and 1C as a second!
I can see how someone who favors the bloated imaging of a pair of 901's
could fail to appreciate the tight imaging of Vandersteens.
> Bose is base in cutting edge science. Science, sound engineering and
> physics not magic!
I think you would do well to try to rebut my deconstruction of the 901
technology, as I presented in another post.
Here it is again:
Myth number one: A reasonable number of small drivers can move as much air
as a single large one, all other things being equal.
The hidden agenda is linear stroke.
Let's compare a 4" driver and an 8" driver. How many 4" drivers does it take
to move as much air as an 8" driver?
The naive answer is 4, presuming that cone area is proportional to diameter,
squared. True for theoretical geometry, not true for speakers.
Speakers have flexible surrounds and a fraction of the area of the surround
must be deducted from the area of the cone. However, the width of the
surround is not proportional to the diameter of the speaker, but rather is
dependent on the designer's goals for maximum linear stroke. IOW an 8"
speaker with a certain linear stroke will have a surround that is a certain
width. If the 4" speaker has the same linear stroke, then its surround will
have to be the same width. However, since the diameter of the smaller
speaker is quite a bit smaller, the surround takes up a greater proportion
of the diameter of the speaker. IOW, the area of the actual moving part of
the smaller cone is even less than proportionately smaller.
For small speakers, it may take 5 4" speakers to have the same moving cone
area as an 8" speaker due to the loss of effective moving diaphragm area
because of the width of the surround.
Secondly, smaller speakers, all other things being equal, don't have the
same linear stroke as larger speakers. Speakers tend to scale in all
dimensions. Not only is a 4" speaker half the diameter of an 8" speaker, but
it will have half the linear stroke, all other things being equal.
In short, it might take as many as 10 4" speakers to have the air-moving
capacity of a single 8" speaker, all other things being equal.
>The multi
> chambered ACOUSTIC MATRIX enclosure vents the speaker in a most
> unusual way with air
> speeds exceeding 60 mph! Three ports or jets protrude through the
> rear of the 901 enclosure.
Knowledgeable speaker designers know that high air velocity in ports is
anathema. High air velocities lead to higher turbulence, and turbulent flow
tends to be noisy flow. One sign of a quality ported speaker is a large,
low-velocity port.
> Because of the use of small full range drivers, an active equalizer
> which is absolutely essential to the system is used in place of the
> normal CROSSOVERS that introduce distortion no matter how well
> engineered. The 901 EQ simply smooths out any bumps or irregularities in
he system's
> power response.
Plan B: build a system that is essentially acoustically flat. Not mission
impossible in this day and age.
Now for the seriously damning facts about the Bose 901. When the 901 was
built, not that much was generally known about optimizing the performance of
arrays of small drivers. It turns out that arrays of small drivers can be a
real can of worms, if smooth, well-balanced frequency response is desired.
I'm quite sure that if Bose were to design the 901 today with a clean piece
of paper, they'd do it quite a bit differently.
Probably the most serious problem with designs based on ad-hoc collections
of identical small drivers is that they can have very rough frequency
response (lobing and comb-filter effects) when you move slightly off-axis,
and they can also have frequency response that is a strong function of
distance from the speaker to the listener. There are ways to manage these
problems with generally involve putting the drivers on curved baffles,
and/or adjusting the level and/or frequency response of the drive to the
various drivers. However, the classic Bose 901 design really does neither of
these things well.
Here's an AES paper that points out these problems and potential solutions
in some detail:
Author(s): Keele, Jr., D. B.
Publication: JAES Volume 38 Number 10 pp. 723ยท748; October 1990
Abstract: The Bessel array is a configuration of five, seven, or nine
identical loudspeakers in an equal-spaced line array that provides the same
overall polar pattern as a single loudspeaker of the array
One important point is that the no way is the Bose 901 a Bessel array.
A second important point is that of all the Bessel arrays analyzed, 5
drivers in a row was found to be the only one that was recommend
William Sommerwerck
> and engineering concepts!
To paraphrase Robin Williams -- "Concepts! What a concept!"
Nutter
wrote:
>Peter Sammon <camm...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:1025iij...@news.supernews.com:
>
>> http://www.epinions.com/content_105506836100
>
>I love it when people say that Bose is not taken seriously by the rest of
>the industry...of course if you are referring to the so called HIGH
>END...there is a great reason why...because the high end hates Bose and the
>901 and generally will go to great lengths to deter people from giving the
>speakers any credibility by using the same stupid excuses like "older
>technology", Direct/Reflecting sound obscures the image rather than
>enhances it, no direct competition in the particular store of purchase etc.
>etc. I, for one DO NOT play politics nor will I succumb to these ploys by
>the so called experts who have their noses too high in the air that they
>cannot even smell what life is made of. Thanks anyway for your comments.
>
>Peter
BOSE are the worst speaker company of all at doing exactly what you
have just stated. Overpricing their underperforming speakers to appeal
to exactly that sort of buyer. The sort where image and price are more
important than performance and listening pleasure.
Next you'll be telling us that B&O are reasonably priced with 'high
end' (whatever that is) sound.
If the BOSE technology were so great, why then are they the only (?)
people creating reflex speakers for the home market?
Ray.
Ian Bell
>
> Science and technology are difficult concepts to grasp at times. Bose
> 901s aren't perfect, but they have tackled the difficult engineering
> challenges other less technologically developed speaker companies can't
> even grasp!
>
> For God's sakes, we're talking real science, research and engineering
> concepts!
OK, so which particular engineering challenges have they tackled? Let's
talk real engineering.
Ian
George M. Middius
Peter Sammon said:
> For God's sakes, we're talking real science, research and engineering
> concepts!
Then why do those birdhouses sound so bad when they're asked to play
music?
George M. Middius
Peter Sammon said:
> > The 901's do not conform to modern theory or practice, and are notably
> > inferior to practically any modern speaker sold at more than a
> > moderate price point.
>
> Nonesense. They are base upon sound engineering principles, so sound in
> fact the US Air Force has depended upon Bose equipment.
But they sound like crap.
Sander deWaal
>Next you'll be telling us that B&O are reasonably priced with 'high
>end' (whatever that is) sound.
B&O made some good sounding speakers in the past, Bose never did.
Besides, B&O offers at least an appealing design, Bose does not.
>If the BOSE technology were so great, why then are they the only (?)
>people creating reflex speakers for the home market?
There are/were others, Sonab comes to mind.
--
<Mr Klipsch and Dr Bose are walking down opposite sides of the street,
approaching each other.
Klipsch cups his hands around his mouth, faces Bose and calls out :
"Hey, Bose, you still making those speakers"
Bose turns his head away, stuffs his scarf in his mouth and mutters :
"Yep" > - Unknown poster in rec.audio.tubes
Stimpy
>
> I love it when people say that Bose is not taken seriously by the
> rest of the industry...of course if you are referring to the so
> called HIGH END...there is a great reason why...because the high end
> hates Bose and the 901
...because they sound crap
Scott Dorsey
>
>Applied to Bose "hi fii" products? APPLIED TO BOSE "HI FI"
>PRODUCTS???
>
>RAOTFL ... unless, of course, the result of "real science, research
>and engineering concepts" is *supposed* to be crap sound ...
In actuality, Bose does an awful lot of very careful engineering and
research. But their products sound crappy because they are deliberately
designed to sound crappy.
They aren't designed to sound good because that's not the design goal
they have set. They are designed to sound different, to really stand
out from other speakers when you listen to them. They are designed to
sound exciting, to have a lot of boom and a lot of screech, so that
they really appeal to the inexperienced listener for a short listen in
the store.
Bose has done very careful research into how typical buyers listen to
stereo gear, and they have designed gear to get those buyers' attention.
A huge amount of very careful engineering goes into their products to
make them as cheap as possible and get the best possible margins.
It's worth it to take apart one of their Acoustmass enclosures. It really
is a brilliant piece of engineering... I swear it can't cost more than ten
bucks total to make one of those things. The amount of manufacturing
engineering that has gone into bringing the manufacting price down is
amazing.
I have to have a lot of respect for Bose, even if I can't stand listening
to any of their products. They know their market and they know how to
build products for that market to maximize profit. I'd certainly consider
Bose stock a good investment even if I'd consider buying their speakers
to be flushing money down the toilet.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Rob Adelman
Peter Sammon wrote:
> I truly believe that technology such as that encorporated within Bose
> 901s should be shared with everyone, Germany, France or even less
> technologically advanced countries such as the UK.
So you finally admit you are a troll.
> That is why I posted
> here.
I suggest you get a life.
barry
"Peter Sammon" <camm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:102ae6f...@news.supernews.com...
> "Geoff Wood" <ge...@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote in
> news:0yBUb.21088$ws.27...@news02.tsnz.net:
>
> I truly believe that technology such as that encorporated within Bose
> 901s should be shared with everyone, Germany, France or even less
> here.
>
Peter.......you are trying to wind us all up :) and you are doing well
but its a lost cause mate....... as my old grandma used to say "you cant
polish a turd!"
Barry
Nousaine
Agreed on all counts except as far as I know the only way to buy Bose "stock"
would be from one fo the persons who own the privately held company.
Joseph Oberlander
> Julian Fowler <jul...@bellevue-barn.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>Applied to Bose "hi fii" products? APPLIED TO BOSE "HI FI"
>>PRODUCTS???
>>
>>RAOTFL ... unless, of course, the result of "real science, research
>>and engineering concepts" is *supposed* to be crap sound ...
>
>
> In actuality, Bose does an awful lot of very careful engineering and
> research. But their products sound crappy because they are deliberately
> designed to sound crappy.
>
> They aren't designed to sound good because that's not the design goal
> they have set. They are designed to sound different, to really stand
> out from other speakers when you listen to them. They are designed to
> sound exciting, to have a lot of boom and a lot of screech, so that
> they really appeal to the inexperienced listener for a short listen in
> the store.
It's trickier than that. Ever wonder why there is a huge midrange
hump? Simple - where they are selling them is often a mall or
large store. TONS of background noise. They are specifically made
to sound good in such an environment. In other words, they adjust
the sound to play somewhat flat in a typical store full of shoppers.
Now, since we don't live in a store, you unfortunately are stuck with
this "effect" when you are at home and don't need it. But it DOES sell
a lot of speakers. The people don't return them because they still
have the idea of the acceptable sound in the store when they first
listened to them in their minds.
Marketing genius. Poor sound quality, though.
P.S. They use the same "trick" with car speakers. Here, it works,
because of the constant wind and engine and tire drone at about
60-80db.
Geoff Wood
> Peter.......you are trying to wind us all up :) and you are doing well
> but its a lost cause mate....... as my old grandma used to say
> "you cant polish a turd!"
Look, Barry. Before you post your erroneous generalisations here I suggest
you research your summary dismissal of the concept in question .
GoogleGroups will show you copious threads in many newsgroups where it has
been firmly establish that you indeed CAN polish a turd. The trick is that
you have to freeze it first.
geoff
Robert Morein
>
> I have been an AUDIO enthusiast for over 34 years and have had a ton of
> fun owning
and listening to various well-made systems at all price
> levels. I've owned or had the pleasure of seriously auditioning in my
> home many respectable manufacturers' models including the said 901's and
> Vandersteen's 1C w/the 901 as top reference and 1C as a second!
You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. However, you have highly
idiosyncratic tastes. Audiophiles today do not hold Bose in good esteem, and
for good reason. Their engineering is inferior, their marketing
exploitative, and their representations dishonest.
The
> Allisons would be a close third reference with Boston, PSB and AR not too
> far behind. Now, that gives you an idea of what I am about.
I'm sorry, but name dropping does not impress here.
>
> Bose is base
as in "evil motive."
> in cutting edge science.
Cutting one's fingers on the cheap cabinetry.
>Science, sound engineering and
> physics not magic!
The "science" of which you speak is not relevant in the modern world.
The idea of deliberately bouncing sound off the was popular for a very brief
time, until the obvious and gross distortion made Bose speakers an
unattractive choice compared with other makes that reflect true technology.
Robert Morein
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:zNCdnVIe0b_...@comcast.com...
> "Peter Sammon" <camm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:10292gn...@news.supernews.com
>
> > "Robert Morein" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in
> > news:NYudnfJpUMx...@comcast.com:
>
>
> > chambered ACOUSTIC MATRIX enclosure vents the speaker in a most
> > unusual way with air
> > speeds exceeding 60 mph! Three ports or jets protrude through the
> > rear of the 901 enclosure.
>
> Knowledgeable speaker designers know that high air velocity in ports is
> anathema. High air velocities lead to higher turbulence, and turbulent
flow
> tends to be noisy flow. One sign of a quality ported speaker is a large,
> low-velocity port.
>
minimized by choice of the largest possible port diameter.
Sockpuppet Yustabe
"barry" <acti...@beeteeinternet.com> wrote in message
news:c03j29$lh3$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
>
>
> Peter.......you are trying to wind us all up :) and you are doing well
> but its a lost cause mate....... as my old grandma used to say "you
cant
> polish a turd!"
>
That's why Krueger is rather dull.
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
barry
"Geoff Wood" <ge...@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote in message
news:UudVb.21569$ws.28...@news02.tsnz.net...
geoff
You have half a point perhaps ....certainly the group is being wound up by a
troll.
Anyone who really felt that BOSE products represented high fidelity would
have to have the aural sensitivity of a rocking horse.
Therefore to continue the argument IS a lost cause...........and I suspect
Peter is just a troll.
As for polishing a turd ...I think that your response is unfair.......in my
grandmothers day ( god rest her soul )
the technology for freezing a turd was not commonplace and even packing a
specimen with ice for some time would not work. Whilst I admit that today
with the development of fast freezing and advanced polishes "french
polished" presentation turds are quite common .Having said that my
grandmothers words taken in the correct historic context were totally
correct !
And talking of finely polished presentation turds.....perhaps we ( non Bose
owners ) should club together and send one to our mate Paul ?
Just a thought
Barry
>
>
Geoff Wood
!
>
> And talking of finely polished presentation turds.....perhaps we (
> non Bose owners ) should club together and send one to our mate Paul ?
Not one , but nine. One facing forward, and the other 8 shooting out
backwards before hitting the wall(s) and spraying (sorry, shattering) off in
all directions to provide an unrealsistic if not spectacular 'soundstage'.
geofff
Les Cargill
>
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> > Julian Fowler <jul...@bellevue-barn.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>Applied to Bose "hi fii" products? APPLIED TO BOSE "HI FI"
> >>PRODUCTS???
> >>
> >>RAOTFL ... unless, of course, the result of "real science, research
> >>and engineering concepts" is *supposed* to be crap sound ...
> >
> >
> > In actuality, Bose does an awful lot of very careful engineering and
> > research. But their products sound crappy because they are deliberately
> > designed to sound crappy.
> >
> > They aren't designed to sound good because that's not the design goal
> > they have set. They are designed to sound different, to really stand
> > out from other speakers when you listen to them. They are designed to
> > sound exciting, to have a lot of boom and a lot of screech, so that
> > they really appeal to the inexperienced listener for a short listen in
> > the store.
>
> It's trickier than that. Ever wonder why there is a huge midrange
> hump? Simple - where they are selling them is often a mall or
> large store. TONS of background noise. They are specifically made
> to sound good in such an environment. In other words, they adjust
> the sound to play somewhat flat in a typical store full of shoppers.
>
I did not understand the little "cube" satellite systems they sold in the
early '90s until I heard a football game through 'em, in glorious surround.
For *that* sort of program material, there was actually
pretty good localization and image.
Actually sounded pretty good, with all the upper mid presence peak. Just
don't try music through those things.
Given use patterns of cable TV, designing a speaker system to make
crowd noise from football games sound good isn't that bizarre a concept.
> Now, since we don't live in a store, you unfortunately are stuck with
> this "effect" when you are at home and don't need it. But it DOES sell
> a lot of speakers. The people don't return them because they still
> have the idea of the acceptable sound in the store when they first
> listened to them in their minds.
>
> Marketing genius. Poor sound quality, though.
>
> P.S. They use the same "trick" with car speakers. Here, it works,
> because of the constant wind and engine and tire drone at about
> 60-80db.
Dunno - the Bose car systems I remember with early '90s Nissan
Maximas was a stone cold great sounding car system - or so I
thought at the time. Had very accurate subs. Love to revisit
one of those, these days - see if it still seems as appealing
as it did.
Car systems are weird, anyway. My daughter listens to techno, and the
stuff sounds okay on a rather generic car system, but put it on a
set of dome tweeter monitors and all the nonlinear stuff shows
up big time. I note that she generally only buys head units with a BBE
button. And she only listens to music in the car - it's all DVD at home.
--
Les Cargill
Carey Carlan
news:40262E2A...@worldnet.att.net:
> Dunno - the Bose car systems I remember with early '90s Nissan
> Maximas was a stone cold great sounding car system - or so I
> thought at the time. Had very accurate subs. Love to revisit
> one of those, these days - see if it still seems as appealing
> as it did.
I have a Bose system in my car with a big scoop right in the 2K-4K range.
Crappy sound considering the potential.
Mark
range drivers, plastic enclosures & low-fi 'compensater'. I'm
probably being too generous.
$500 for their Wave plastic table radio? Jeez, I bought a boom box
that sounds better to my ears for $79.00 and it even has a handle :-)
Pretty steep prices from a "not-for-profit corporation" (according to
the salesman, anyway--I'm doubtful about that)
William Sommerwerck
> I'm probably being too generous.
The series 1 cost $476/pair, including the equalizer. (Note the clever choice of
a price ending in a non-standard digit.) That was fairly pricey for 1968. The
AR-3a cost $450 a pair. There weren't many more-expensive speakers, the QUAD and
KLH electrostatics, and some Bozak and JBLs (such as the Paragon), among those
few.
The current series 6 is about $1600 a pair. Assuming the drivers were of
extremely high quality (???!!!), that would be a "reasonable" retail price.
I want to say something that might surprise readers, especially as I'm big fan
of planar speakers (other than Magnepans, which aren't really planar). With the
right program material, the 901s _can_ be extremely euphonic. And because people
listen to music for enjoyment... QED.
> $500 for their Wave plastic table radio? Jeez, I bought a boom box
> that sounds better to my ears for $79 and it even has a handle :-)
Ah, but how well does it play Handel? <grin>
Pcaorwb
be carefull about posting stuff about them. They are not highly respected in
most arenas, because they are considered inefficient and over priced. I think
they have a nice sound for certain types of music though. The marketing
strategy is what made them so popular.
I can remember being back in the Disco bars years ago and they used those same
speakers. They really shook the foundations.
I think I bought my first pair back in 1982 (Series 5?). Series 6 were the
same except for that excess padded grilling in the back and used the same
equilizer.
Bose wasn't the first to try to introduce that omnidirectional sound. Remember
the old Magnavox console stereos with the 15" side-firing woofers and the 4x10
midrange /tweeterhorns in the front? I own at least six of them right now and
am still looking for more. It's old technology, but I just love the sound of
those old beasts.
BobbyB
Tucson , Arizona
Joseph Oberlander
> Dunno - the Bose car systems I remember with early '90s Nissan
> Maximas was a stone cold great sounding car system - or so I
> thought at the time. Had very accurate subs. Love to revisit
> one of those, these days - see if it still seems as appealing
> as it did.
Exactly. The drone and background noise while a car is moving
is countered by the frequency boost in the midrange. The 60-100hz
drone from the tires and drivetrain is countered by the exxagerated
mid-bass.
Marc Phillips
>Nonesense. They are base upon sound engineering principles, so sound in
>> fact the US Air Force has depended upon Bose equipment.
The US Air Force? You mean those guys who stand around all day next to roaring
jet engines?
Boon
Jodster
http://www.intellexual.net/bose.html
Peace,
Jodster
"Marc Phillips" <vinyl...@aol.comm> wrote in message
news:20040209184854...@mb-m24.aol.com...