Bose 901 Review
William Sommerwerck
> have caused so many speaker designers to even give stereo
> imaging the slightest consideration!????
The one thing the Bose 901s do NOT do is "image" what is on the recording. They
create their own ersatz soundstage.
> 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 fact is that the 901s are distinctly LACKING in detail and clarity.
I bought 901s (and the necessary amp, tuner, 'table, etc.) in 1973. They
replaced a KLH Model 11 FM, which used similar 4" full-range drivers. When I put
on a familiar recording, I was startled to discover that the 901 did not provide
ANY improvement in detail, clarity, etc, over the KLH. And even in 1973, the KLH
Model 11 was NOT considered true "high fidelity."
About a year later, I sold the 901s and replaced them with Dahlquist DQ-10s, a
speaker which sounded far more like "live sound" than the 901s. (My current
speakers are Apogee Divas.)
> 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.
A small recital hall does not have the same ratio of direct-to-reflected sound
as a concert hall, which in turn is different from a cathedral. And the ratio
varies within a particular venue, as well. Even assuming one would want to
superimpose artificial ambience on a recording, there is no single "correct"
ratio.
The reason the 901s sound so spacious is that they generate comb-filter effects,
of the same sort that once were used to convert mono recordings into fake
stereo.
> 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.
What sort of distortion? Even picky audiophiles do not feel that a properly
engineered crossover significantly degrades the sound.
In fact, one of the arguments against the use of full-range dynamic drivers is
that you get far more IM distortion than when using drivers specifically
designed for a specific part of the sound spectrum. Using separte woofers,
midranges, tweeters, etc, REDUCES system distortion.
> THE 901 IS NOT FOR EVERYONE.
Correct. It's only for people who don't know what live sound sounds like.
> The speaker has an uncanny ability to reveal eveything!
You've obviously never heard electrostatic or ribbon/orthodynamic speakers.
> 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!
There is nothing controversial about the 901. Everything about its design is
both theoretically and practically incorrect.
> 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!
JGH has been a friend for over 25 years. His review was the only one in the
audio magazines that showed any sense in analyzing the design and sound of the
901s. 30 years later, it remains a fundamentally correct analysis.
The Bose 901s were designed by an ignorant, deluded, incompetent engineer. His
company has done absolutely nothing to advance the art of sound reproduction.
(In fairness, the same could be said about most other audio companies.) It's a
shame you've aligned yourself with them for so many years, because, never having
heard A REALLY GOOD SPEAKER, you simply don't know what you're missing.
I'm a degreed EE and have made many live recordings of full orchestra, chamber
music, etc. If the Bose 901s accurately reproduced what was on the recording
better than any other speaker, I would own them. They don't, and I don't.
Phil Allison
"William Sommerwerck" <will...@nwlink.com
(snip lots of good stuff)
> The Bose 901s were designed by an ignorant, deluded, incompetent engineer.
His
> company has done absolutely nothing to advance the art of sound
reproduction.
** Well said Bill.
Bose is not a brand of speaker - it is a religious cult.
.......... Phil
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
Which planet are you from. Or which universe more like it.
Nice try, Amar, but we still don't belive that the 901 is anything but a
gimmick, and a crappy-ounding one at that. ....
geoff
Rob Adelman
William Sommerwerck wrote:
> The one thing the Bose 901s do NOT do is "image" what is on the recording. They
> create their own ersatz soundstage.
There was once a really great club in Mpls called Boyds On The River. At
the time it was my favorite hangout. They had 901's all over the place.
Usually playing the live band so you could hear them clearly anywhere in
the club.
I always thought they sounded pretty good. Oh, wait a minute, I was
really drunk at the time... <g>
Mark
Chicago CES roaming the halls of the Congress listening to demos of
the best that high end had to offer. One year Bose dared to exhibit
there rather than the usual lo & mid-fi exhibit areas. Honestly the
worse sounding demo I ever experienced. The sales staff stood there
just beaming at what they apparently perceived as a convincing demo.
The audiophiles just looked at each other in mock horror. The
laughter & snickering continued all up & down the exhibit floor.
I retreated to a demo of some Beveridge electrostatics to get my ears
"straight" so I could continue the show.
Just sign me--
An objective audiophile who owns nothing of any worth
and therefore doesn't need to justify my purchase
of 2 plastic boxes full of car audio-grade door speakers.
Bose? Stereo imaging? Get real!
On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:23:29 -0000, Peter Sammon <camm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>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 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!
Eric K. Weber
used
cheap drivers.... claimed that their defects averaged out.
When asked about phase cancellation (comb filtering) he changed the subject.
You have to give Bose credit his marketing skills are excellent...
Phil... if it is a religious cult, it would be a Hindu cult....
Rgds:
Eric
"Mark" <nob...@home.now> wrote in message
news:kjo520h16hrm374sc...@4ax.com...
Phil Allison
"Eric K. Weber" <eric-...@webermusic.com>
> I attended lecture by Mr. Bose in 1975, he was proud of the fact that he
> used cheap drivers.... claimed that their defects averaged out.
** Nah - they sum to make bigger defects.
>
> When asked about phase cancellation (comb filtering) he changed the
subject.
** That's because it is the secret of the Bose 901's "sound".
>
> You have to give Bose credit his marketing skills are excellent...
** Bose's marketing is only one tiny step removed from fraud.
>
> Phil... if it is a religious cult, it would be a Hindu cult....
** More like Scientology - ie find gullible fools, suck their brains
out then make them your slaves forever.
............ Phil
Stephen Sank
prosecution for patent infringement by the guy he stole the reflecting sound idea from, Dan
Greenfield of Danby Radio in Philadelphia. As Dan would recite at the slightest hint of the
subject of Bose by a customer in his store, Amar walked in one day in the mid '60's to peddle
his quarter-sphere multidriver corner-box speaker, finding only Dan's wife in the store at the
time. Mrs. Greenfield, after hearing Bose's junk, said "I don't think your speakers sound
nearly as good as my husband's." She then played a set of Dan's reflecting speakers. Bose
immediately dropped his sales pitch & listened for a while, reputedly taking some notes.
Within a few months, he started marketing the 901. Shortly thereafter, Dan received a letter
from Amar's lawyer, stating that it was felt that the added front driver made the design
different enough to "escape Mr. Greenfield's patent umbrella". So, besides making some of the
worst speakers in history, Amar Bose is also a complete slimeball.
--
Stephen Sank, Owner & Ribbon Mic Restorer
Talking Dog Transducer Company
http://stephensank.com
5517 Carmelita Drive N.E.
Albuquerque, New Mexico [87111]
505-332-0336
Auth. Nakamichi & McIntosh servicer
Payments preferred through Paypal.com
"Eric K. Weber" <eric-...@webermusic.com> wrote in message
news:YSBUb.683$Dg2....@news.uswest.net...
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:1025k3h...@news.supernews.com...
Ted Spencer
actually the same as the drivers in Bose 901s. Does anyone know if this is true
or not?
Ted Spencer, NYC
"No amount of classical training will ever teach you what's so cool about
"Tighten Up" by Archie Bell And The Drells" -author unknown
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. 723·748; 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.
Phil Allison
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
> 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.
** What - you mean there is an even " cheaper " way than the one used
now ;-)
>
> 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. 723·748; 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.
** Hang on Arny, what multi driver array has the 901 really got ?????
The answer is none. There is only ONE driver facing the listener.
You are mixing the 901 up with the 802 PA speaker.
......... Phil
Monte P McGuire
Ted Spencer <pres...@aol.com> wrote:
>A reliable source told me many years ago that the speaker in an Auratone is
>actually the same as the drivers in Bose 901s. Does anyone know if this is true
>or not?
No, the 901 drivers have a really low Z voice coil - they run all 9
speakers in series to get 8 ohms. They do look pretty similar though...
Monte McGuire
mcg...@TheWorld.com
david
<mcg...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
Another reason, Auratone used more than one driver in their cubes. I've
personally owned 3 different ones and I'd bet there were more. First
time I sent a pair in for repair -back in the day o'course - I was
shocked at what I got back. Sounded very different. Someone later told
me that when it came to their drivers they bought whatever was around
and was cheap.
David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island
Arny Krueger
news:40231e84$0$4249$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au
Phil, what are those two arrays of 4 speakers on the back of the 901? Or, am
I imagining that I saw them there?
Arny Krueger
news:060220040224025025%ih...@spamo.com
> In article <bvv95n$el8$1...@pcls4.std.com>, Monte P McGuire
> <mcg...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>> In article <20040205220253...@mb-m26.aol.com>,
>> Ted Spencer <pres...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> A reliable source told me many years ago that the speaker in an
>>> Auratone is actually the same as the drivers in Bose 901s. Does
>>> anyone know if this is true
>>> or not?
>> No, the 901 drivers have a really low Z voice coil - they run all 9
>> speakers in series to get 8 ohms. They do look pretty similar
>> though...
> Another reason, Auratone used more than one driver in their cubes.
> I've personally owned 3 different ones and I'd bet there were more.
> First time I sent a pair in for repair -back in the day o'course - I
> was shocked at what I got back. Sounded very different. Someone later
> told me that when it came to their drivers they bought whatever was
> around and was cheap.
The same applies to the Bose 901. There are a number of different Bose 901
drivers - probably at the very least a different driver design for every
"series" (currently series 6). The original Bose 901 driver was AFAIK OEM'd
by CTS, but it is my understanding that the driver building was eventually
brought "in house".
Phil Allison
"Arny Krueger"
> "Phil Allison"
> >
> > ** Hang on Arny, what multi driver array has the 901 really got
> > ?????
> >
> > The answer is none. There is only ONE driver facing the listener.
> >
> > You are mixing the 901 up with the 802 PA speaker.
>
> Phil, what are those two arrays of 4 speakers on the back of the 901? Or,
am
> I imagining that I saw them there?
** Oh come on Arny !!!!!
There is no significant "lobing and comb-filter effects" with a driver
array that is **NOT** facing the listener - compared with one that is.
........... Phil
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger"
>> "Phil Allison"
>
>>>
>>> ** Hang on Arny, what multi driver array has the 901 really got
>>> ?????
>>>
>>> The answer is none. There is only ONE driver facing the
>>> listener.
>>>
>>> You are mixing the 901 up with the 802 PA speaker.
>>
>> Phil, what are those two arrays of 4 speakers on the back of the
>> 901? Or, am I imagining that I saw them there?
> ** Oh come on Arny !!!!!
OK, so we agree that there are in fact two arrays of 4 drivers each back
there, right?
> There is no significant "lobing and comb-filter effects" with a
> driver array that is **NOT** facing the listener - compared with
> one that is.
In most cases the back drivers on a 901 are facing a smooth wall. Lobes
bounced off a wall are still lobes. Furthermore, there are those oddities
where the array has a critical distance, and significantly different
frequency response when the listener is closer or further than the critical
distance. This affects 89% of the sound coming out of a 901, if Bose is to
be believed.
Phil Allison
"Arny Krueger" ..
> "Phil Allison"
> >>> ** Hang on Arny, what multi driver array has the 901 really got
> >>> ?????
> >>>
> >>> The answer is none. There is only ONE driver facing the
> >>> listener.
> >>>
> >>> You are mixing the 901 up with the 802 PA speaker.
> >>
> >> Phil, what are those two arrays of 4 speakers on the back of the
> >> 901? Or, am I imagining that I saw them there?
>
> > ** Oh come on Arny !!!!!
>
> OK, so we agree that there are in fact two arrays of 4 drivers each back
> there, right?
** That is a red herring - Arny.
> > There is no significant "lobing and comb-filter effects" with a
> > driver array that is **NOT** facing the listener - compared with
> > one that is.
>
> In most cases the back drivers on a 901 are facing a smooth wall. Lobes
> bounced off a wall are still lobes.
** The lobes are spread way out by the off angle reflection and lost to
the listener.
A listener seated in the usual central position could not detect them.
>Furthermore, there are those oddities where the array has a critical
distance,
** Define your terms, please.
>This affects 89% of the sound coming out of a 901, if Bose is to be
believed.
** The "Hass" effect plus the extra proximity and brighter sound of the
forward facing driver normally makes it the apparent source for a centrally
positioned listener.
The other rear facing ones will produce a delayed and duller sound -
depending on the nature of the walls, distance away and their coefficient of
absorption at various frequencies. If the walls are far away and
acoustically dead then the forward facing driver dominates strongly.
The "lobing ... effects" are only going to be audible if the listener
moves their head in the direct field where the lobes exist - ie behind the
901.
The "...comb-filter effects" are audible where rear wall proximity and
reflection of sound creates them - it is not due to the way the drivers are
arrayed.
IME both the 901 and 802 suffer from *gross* IM and Doppler distortion at
high SPL levels - nauseatingly so to my ears.
............ Phil
Arny Krueger
I've cited this paper once already, and it's clear that there aren't a lot
of people on this thread who have actually even glanced at it:
Author(s): Keele, Jr., D. B. Publication: JAES Volume 38 Number 10 pp.
723·748; October 1990.
Well, not everybody has the kind of library I have at my disposal. Sadly, I
can't find any online references with enough detail. The "critical distance"
w/r/t to an array of speakers is the point where the sound from the array
drivers starts to fuse into a single pattern. This is independent of the
reverberant nature of the room - it is actually most noticeable in an
anechoic room. The parameters of the fusion are frequency and array-design
dependent. This has the result that even aside from the lobing, the
frequency response of the array changes quite a bit as you move away from
it. At some point it stabilizes, but this is usually some distance from the
array.
So much for arrays in general. One strength of a good Bessel array is that
this effect is minimized. The dispersion gets smoother as you move away, but
the average response is more consistent at most practical distances. Just to
clarify, I'm not recommending using any kind of multi-speaker array for near
field critical listening.
>> This affects 89% of the sound coming out of a 901, if Bose is to be
>> believed.
> ** The "Hass" effect plus the extra proximity and brighter sound of
> the forward facing driver normally makes it the apparent source for a
> centrally positioned listener.
Already considered. Since I've been doing SR quite a bit I've learned to
love the Haas effect and figuratively take it to the bank every opportunity.
However, Haas Effect fusion is not perfect - there is some perception of
added fullness or fuzziness, depending on the individual perceptions.
> The other rear facing ones will produce a delayed and duller sound
> - depending on the nature of the walls, distance away and their
> coefficient of absorption at various frequencies. If the walls are
> far away and acoustically dead then the forward facing driver
> dominates strongly.
Agreed that if the back wall is dead than much of what the back speakers do
is moot. However, most architectural features are not good absorbers below 1
KHz, less below 500 Hz, and very few below 200 Hz. Since all drivers in the
901 are supposedly full-range...
> The "lobing ... effects" are only going to be audible if the
> listener moves their head in the direct field where the lobes exist
> - ie behind the 901.
Or as I've said once and feel somewhat put-upon to have to repeat - the
lobes will exist in front of the 901s if the walls are good reflectors. Bose
seems to recommend using a reflective back wall, see page 6 of
http://www.bose.com/pdf/customer_service/owners/og_901.pdf .
> The "...comb-filter effects" are audible where rear wall proximity
> and reflection of sound creates them - it is not due to the way the
> drivers are arrayed.
I've cited this paper once already, and it's clear that there aren't a lot
of people on this thread who have actually even glanced at it:
Author(s): Keele, Jr., D. B.
Publication: JAES Volume 38 Number 10 pp. 723·748; October 1990
Abstract: The Bessel array is a configuration of five, seven,
The title of the paper is misleading in that some of the "Bessel Arrays"
that are analyzed are really common configurations that we know and maybe
*love*.
> IME both the 901 and 802 suffer from *gross* IM and Doppler
> distortion at high SPL levels - nauseatingly so to my ears.
Well, that too. I think we're now agreeing about one of my earlier points
about how many small drivers it takes to equal a larger one. On a good day a
Bose 901 should be equaled or bettered in the bass range by a single long
stroke (i.e., JL Audio W7 series or equivalent) 8 or 10 inch driver.
On detailed inspection, the Bose 901 suffers from what now looks like a
really bad basic design. It was controversial when it was new, but that was
then and this is now. It's been around for about 30 years, right? I suspect
that even Bose would like to send it out to pasture.
For serious listening, if that's possible at all with a speaker with so many
inherent flaws, 901s should be used with a competent subwoofer.
William Sommerwerck
> a different driver design for every "series" (currently 6). The
> original Bose 901 driver was AFAIK OEM'd by CTS, but it
> is my understanding that the driver building was eventually
> brought "in house".
The 2201 used Carbonneau [sic] drivers, so I always assumed the series 1 used
them as well. Regardless, Bose went with its own driver with series 2, I
believe. Certainly no later than series 3.
It's important to understand that Amar Bose, aided and abetted by the late
Thomas Stockham, was (probably) the source of one of The Big Lies promoted as
truth by the "flat response is all that matters" community.
Dr. Bose had one really clever insight, and that was the idea of pushing an
eighth-sphere array into the corner of a room. Trying to figure out how to
properly equalize it, he and Dr. Stockham performed an experiment in which a
spark was set off at the speaker's position (but with the speaker removed, of
course). As the spark was very brief, it was the acoustic equivalent of an
impulse. What the test microphone picked up was (presumably) the impulse
response of the room in response to the spark.
Here's where it gets controversial. Dr. Stockham used an MIT computer to
convolve this impulse response with recordings. These recordings (the originals,
not the convolved versions) were later played through a 2201 and recorded with
the same mic.
Now, according to Drs. Bose and Stockham, the frequency response of the 2201
could be equalized in such a way that its output and the sound of the recordings
convolved with the impulse response were subjectively indistinguishable. That
is, the sound of the 2201 could not distinguished from the sound of a perfect
eighth-sphere speaker playing in the same corner of the room.
Oh, how I wish this were true. It would solve so many problems in sound
reproduction...
William Sommerwerck
I'm inclined to agree about the lobing -- IF you're far enough back. But I
disagree about comb filtering.
JGH was the first to point this out. The rear drivers "spray" the sound at an
angle against the rear wall. This results in multiple arrival times at the
listener's ears. There is additional interference with the output of the front
driver, as well.
I don't know why these points are still being argued 36 years after the 901 was
introduced. The 901 is a poor speaker, NOT because Arny or I or JGH or anyone
else doesn't like the way it sounds (the 901 can be quite euphonic, actually),
but because everything about its design contradicts what is needed for accurate,
REALISTIC sound reproduction. The 901s are to speakers (roughly) what DynaGroove
was to phonograph records.
I'm tempted to use Julian Hirsch's favorable review as the ultimate condemnation
of his reviewing career, but the sad truth is that many other reviewers -- who
should have known better, and later admitted it -- were taken in. As I was.
As JGH said, in a hi-fi store the 901s sound like the truth and the light. This,
combined with the revolutionary "paradigm shift" the 901s represented, lead many
listeners to believe they represented a real advance in sound reproduction.
William Sommerwerck
> 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 obviously didn't understand what I wrote. THE DESIGN OF THE BOSE 901 IS
OBJECTIVELY INCORRECT, for engineering and pyschoacoustic reasons that are
well-understood. The fact that you or like or dislike the speaker is completely
beside the point.
Stop by sometime and listen to my Krell/Apogee system. Then tell me which sounds
more like live sound.
Scott Dorsey
>
>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
>speakers any credibility by using the same stupid excuses like "older
>etc. I, for one DO NOT play politics nor will I succumb to these ploys by
Have you actually listened to the Bose stuff?
Ammar is something of a genius, but he's more of a marketer than an engineer
these days. That's fine... he makes a product that's designed to sell rather
than to be accurate, and from a business perspective that's a good idea.
But personally, I'd rather not listen to it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Tim Williams
Tim
--
"That's for the courts to decide." - Homer Simpson
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms
"Peter Sammon" <camm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1025k3h...@news.supernews.com...
> http://www.epinions.com/content_105506836100
>
> In 1968...<snip huge nef>
Peter Völpel
>
> > 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.
>
I bought 901s in 1972 and used to listen to them until 1985 always with
the impression there is something missing in the sound.
Then I got my present, much older technology, my Klipschorns.
ON A/B listening, the difference in sound to the 901s was the same, as
between the 901s and cheap PC-speakers.
Peter
Scott Dorsey
>So why the hell is it here on RAT.
Well, the Bose 901 has a lot to do with tubes. For example, if you put
a speaker at the end of a long plastic tube and then put your ear to the
other end, it would sound a lot like the Bose 901.
Unknown
> Tim Williams <tmor...@charter.net> wrote:
> >So why the hell is it here on RAT.
>
> Well, the Bose 901 has a lot to do with tubes. For example, if you put
> a speaker at the end of a long plastic tube and then put your ear to the
> other end, it would sound a lot like the Bose 901.
> --scott
>
>
FWIW, I heard a set of 901s in late august
at an open air party. I guess there wasn't
any reflective surface behind them, nor did I
inspect the condition / amps etc, but the sound
wasn't pretty. Harsh and blurred in lower registers,
not much in the way of low "oomph", a "paper" like
quality IMHO.
Out of interest: Does anyone remember Bose's
"Bass Cannons" from the late '80s / early '90s?
I heard a set once, they sounded even stranger
than they looked: loose and distorted. Either the
firm that set them up didn't know how to implement
them (they are / were a respected firm, the other
room's Turbo rig sounded fine) or the Cannons were a
piece of opportunist marketing cashing in the burgeoning
"rave" scene's demands for more bass. Haven't ever
heard about them since, anyone recall the things?
----------
Sent via SPRACI - http://www.spraci.net/ - Parties,Raves,Clubs,Festivals
graham
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:c00n8q$pgt$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> Tim Williams <tmor...@charter.net> wrote:
> >So why the hell is it here on RAT.
>
> Well, the Bose 901 has a lot to do with tubes. For example, if you put
> a speaker at the end of a long plastic tube and then put your ear to the
> other end, it would sound a lot like the Bose 901.
... I find that the gray electrical plastic conduit sounds much better than
the white water pipe ... I think size really matters!
Scott Dorsey
>
>Out of interest: Does anyone remember Bose's
>"Bass Cannons" from the late '80s / early '90s?
>I heard a set once, they sounded even stranger
>than they looked: loose and distorted. Either the
>firm that set them up didn't know how to implement
>them (they are / were a respected firm, the other
>room's Turbo rig sounded fine) or the Cannons were a
>piece of opportunist marketing cashing in the burgeoning
>"rave" scene's demands for more bass. Haven't ever
>heard about them since, anyone recall the things?
They still sell them, and they turn up now and then in theatre installs.
They are basically resonant cavities that produce a lot of bass at one
frequency. They are very small, easy to set up and pull down, and they
are fine for things like theatre work where you don't really need accurate
low end, just a lot of rumble.
fronobulax
> Peter Sammon <camm...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:1025k3h...@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
>
I spent quite a few years in Massachussets in and around the hif-fi
scene and, for a time, worked as a temporary employee at "The Mountain"
in Framingham. I was employed as a technician on a project to build a
custom mixing console for the marketing department. At the time, Bose
was using a multimedia slide-tape show and a pair of doctored 901 series
IIIs (driven by a four-channel amp with one channel feeding and
independent signal to four of the eight rear drivers). The amount of
effort spent on these specialized shows was stunning. The tapes were
carefully tweaked, the program material was carefully selected (and
presented in two-to-four second snippets) and an awful lot of voice-over
marketing hype was applied.
To me, that is the genius of the Bose company. They convince people that
little plastic boxes with $2 drivers in them are somehow worth six or
seven hundred dollars.
And if you think that it's "audio snobs" who are jealous, here's a
little story. About a year and a half back, I designed and built a set
of transmission-line speakers. This was the first set of my speakers
that my second wife had ever heard. Prior to marrying me she was the
proud owner of a plasticky Onkyo all-in-one system. When I hauled the
new TLs out of my basement shop and hooked them up, she sat slack-jawed
at what she heard. About a month later, we found ourselves in a Bose
store and we watched and listened to one of these multimedia
extravaganzas for the Bose AM-7s. I made a point of not saying anything
to her. When I aked her what she thought, she said that the Bose product
couldn't hold a candle to my TLs. As others have suggested, you really
do need to go listen to something else.
Peter Hansen
www.geocities.com/bunkie21 (for those interested in my TL design)
Rob Adelman
Peter Sammon wrote:
> It's a well known engineering fact that audiophile quality speakers such as
> the 901s work well on tube amplifiers.
l.o.l.
ScotFraser
Yeah, I recall they sucked. Flabby ill-defined wumpy tubby pseudo-bass.
Scott Fraser
Chris Hornbeck
<qro175...@compuserve.de> wrote:
>I bought 901s in 1972 and used to listen to them until 1985 always with
>the impression there is something missing in the sound.
>Then I got my present, much older technology, my Klipschorns.
>ON A/B listening, the difference in sound to the 901s was the same, as
>between the 901s and cheap PC-speakers.
Paul Klipsch's comment when the Bose were introduced: "Well,
at least they don't seem to mess up the rhythm."
Chris Hornbeck
"Life is in colour, but black and white
is more realistic." - Wim Wenders
Geoff Wood
>
> 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.
I suppose you enjoy slide-shows, with the projector aimed at a series of
mirrors ? All the best with your religon.
geoff
Geoff Wood
> On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 21:12:05 GMT, fronobulax <frono...@null.net>
> wrote:
Bose are selling a watch here (as well as the Wave Radio) - lots of
marketing hype. I don't know if it gives you a range of different choices,
all near-but-not-quite the actual time ...
geoff
Phil Allison
> "Phil Allison" <
> >
> >>> There is no significant "lobing and comb-filter effects" with a
> >>> driver array that is **NOT** facing the listener - compared with
> >>> one that is.
> >>
> >> In most cases the back drivers on a 901 are facing a smooth wall.
> >> Lobes bounced off a wall are still lobes.
> >
> >
> > ** The lobes are spread way out by the off angle reflection and
> > lost to the listener. A listener seated in the usual central position
could not detect
> > them.
> >
> >> Furthermore, there are those oddities where the array has a critical
> >> distance,
>
> > ** Define your terms, please.
>
> I've cited this paper once already, and it's clear that there aren't a lot
> of people on this thread who have actually even glanced at it:
** Being pompous and quoting absent documents does you no credit.
>
> Author(s): Keele, Jr., D. B. Publication: JAES Volume 38 Number 10 pp.
> 723·748; October 1990.
>
> Well, not everybody has the kind of library I have at my disposal. Sadly,
I
> can't find any online references with enough detail. The "critical
distance"
> w/r/t to an array of speakers is the point where the sound from the array
> drivers starts to fuse into a single pattern.
** Which makes your original "oddities" remark even more mysterious.
> >> This affects 89% of the sound coming out of a 901, if Bose is to be
> >> believed.
>
> > ** The "Hass" effect plus the extra proximity and brighter sound of
> > the forward facing driver normally makes it the apparent source for a
> > centrally positioned listener.
>
> Already considered. Since I've been doing SR quite a bit I've learned to
> love the Haas effect and figuratively take it to the bank every
opportunity.
> However, Haas Effect fusion is not perfect - there is some perception of
> added fullness or fuzziness, depending on the individual perceptions.
>
> > The other rear facing ones will produce a delayed and duller sound
> > - depending on the nature of the walls, distance away and their
> > coefficient of absorption at various frequencies. If the walls are
> > far away and acoustically dead then the forward facing driver
> > dominates strongly.
>
> Agreed that if the back wall is dead than much of what the back speakers
do
> is moot. However, most architectural features are not good absorbers below
1
> KHz, less below 500 Hz, and very few below 200 Hz. Since all drivers in
the
> 901 are supposedly full-range...
** You say there is significant lobing going on at or below 500 Hz from an
array of 4 inch drivers ??
Below 500 Hz 901s pretty soon become non directional - providing there is
actually a wall behind them.
>
> > The "lobing ... effects" are only going to be audible if the
> > listener moves their head in the direct field where the lobes exist
> > - ie behind the 901.
>
> Or as I've said once and feel somewhat put-upon to have to repeat - the
> lobes will exist in front of the 901s if the walls are good reflectors.
** Keep repeating the dubious claim - it gets more convincing every time
you know. You need to show these alleged lobes are actually audible to a
listener seated in the central position on *music* programme.
>
> > The "...comb-filter effects" are audible where rear wall proximity
> > and reflection of sound creates them - it is not due to the way the
> > drivers are arrayed.
>
> I've cited this paper once already, and it's clear that there aren't a lot
> of people on this thread who have actually even glanced at it:
** Quoting the absent expert is a debating cheat - Arny.
You have seen my 10 cheats list.
> > IME both the 901 and 802 suffer from *gross* IM and Doppler
> > distortion at high SPL levels - nauseatingly so to my ears.
>
> Well, that too. I think we're now agreeing about one of my earlier points
> about how many small drivers it takes to equal a larger one.
** The comparison fails since the Bose 901 has falling output below 300Hz
without its equaliser. Early 901s ( there are at least 12 distinct
versions) used a sealed box with the drivers operating below resonance. The
equaliser added up to 15 dB boost ( 31 times power) at low frequencies to
compensate. The excursion limit of those drivers was *very soon* exceeded
if an amp of any size ( PL700s were popular !) were being used.
A good 10 inch driver has about the same cone area as the 9 used in the
Bose 901. Mounted in a tuned box somewhat bigger than a 901 it could equal
the 901's SPL at low frequencies with 31 times LESS power input and hence
massively reduced THD. Allow that 10 inch to be accompanied by a mid and
treble drivers and IM is reduced to nil as well.
I well remember a demo session with 901s and a PL700 in 1977 - every time
the bass drum thumped there was a distinct crack from the 901s and the mids
and tops went on a short holiday. The only surprising thing was that the
owner thought this sounded great and pushed the PL700 right up to clipping.
I left the room suffering from nausea after 10 minutes - just the sight of
a 901 induces that feeling now.
............ Phil
Phil Allison
"Peter Sammon" <camm...@yahoo.com
Dr. Amar G. Bose is Chairman of the Board and Technical Director of the
Bose Corporation and Professor of Electrical Engineering at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He was born in Philadelphia
in 1929, and received his bachelor, master and doctoral degrees from MIT
in the mid-50s. In 1956, Dr. Bose began research into physical acoustics
and psychoacoustics: the study of human perception of sound.
Bose’s studies at the Institute led to numerous patents in the fields of
acoustics, electronics, nonlinear systems, and communication theory, as
well as the founding of the Bose Corporation in 1964.
After initially questioning why loudspeakers with advanced technical
specifications failed to reproduce the realism of a live performance, Dr.
Bose began his 12-year study of speaker design and psychoacoustics. The
Bose Corporation introduced the Bose 901 Sound System, which set a new
standard for sound quality and promptly received worldwide acclaim.
The Bose Corporation currently designs and manufacturers some of the most
sophisticated and highly regarded audio products in the world—including
the Bose Wave® Radio. The Bose name is synonymous with quality sound and
is known for its lifelike sound and dependability.
Dr. Amar G. Bose was inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame in 2000.
** What is this pack of marketing vile puke doing here ?????
Peter Sammon is a walking Bose Bozo.
............ Phil
Carey Carlan
> Dr. Amar G. Bose is Chairman of the Board and Technical Director of
> the Bose Corporation and Professor of Electrical Engineering at the
> Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He was born in
> Philadelphia in 1929, and received his bachelor, master and doctoral
> degrees from MIT in the mid-50s. In 1956, Dr. Bose began research into
> physical acoustics and psychoacoustics: the study of human perception
> of sound.
>
> Bose’s studies at the Institute led to numerous patents in the fields
> of acoustics, electronics, nonlinear systems, and communication
> theory, as well as the founding of the Bose Corporation in 1964.
>
> After initially questioning why loudspeakers with advanced technical
> specifications failed to reproduce the realism of a live performance,
> Dr. Bose began his 12-year study of speaker design and
> psychoacoustics. The Bose Corporation introduced the Bose 901 Sound
> System, which set a new standard for sound quality and promptly
> received worldwide acclaim.
>
> The Bose Corporation currently designs and manufacturers some of the
> most sophisticated and highly regarded audio products in the
> world—including the Bose Wave® Radio. The Bose name is synonymous with
> quality sound and is known for its lifelike sound and dependability.
>
> Dr. Amar G. Bose was inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame in 2000.
Quoted verbatim from the Radio Hall of Fame website.
http://www.radiohof.org/pioneer/amarbose.html
Phil Allison
"Peter Sammon" <camm...@yahoo.com
>
> As any true audiophile knows it's the sound that counts and companies
> such as Bose incorporate the latest research. There have been
> advancements in audio that you are obviously not aware of. Many of the
> Bose models incorporate these advancements.
>
> It's not religion, it's appreciation of engineering, audio and live
> music.
>
** Who agrees this Sammon dude is some kind of bot ??
............ Phil
Carey Carlan
> It's true. The matching of two sophisticated technologies such as
> advanced contemporary tube amplifiers and state-of-the-art Bose
> electronics produces the most advanced audio sound yet developed. Very
> cutting edge.
Give up, ladies and gentlemen. Peter hasn't heard a thing anyone has said
in this entire thread. I suggest we let it drop and let him listen to his
901 as long as he likes.
Just so long as I don't have to listen, too.
Rob Adelman
Phil Allison wrote:
> ** Who agrees this Sammon dude is some kind of bot ??
>
But who sent him?
Scott Dorsey
>
>As any true audiophile knows it's the sound that counts and companies
>such as Bose incorporate the latest research. There have been
>advancements in audio that you are obviously not aware of. Many of the
>Bose models incorporate these advancements.
Then why do they keep selling the 901?
>It's not religion, it's appreciation of engineering, audio and live
>music.
If the Acoustimass system is fine engineering, something is horribly
wrong. That something includes most of the midrange.
Rob Adelman
Peter Sammon wrote:
> It's true. The matching of two sophisticated technologies such as advanced
> contemporary tube amplifiers and state-of-the-art Bose electronics produces
> the most advanced audio sound yet developed. Very cutting edge.
>
Umm, Peter, we've HEARD them.
george craig
N/G......George
"Peter Sammon" <camm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1028b0f...@news.supernews.com...
> Rob Adelman <SPAMLESS...@mn.rr.com> wrote in
> news:c016if$tca0v$1...@ID-75267.news.uni-berlin.de:
Roger W. Norman
> >> such as the 901s work well on tube amplifiers.
Sheer nonsense. Again, if you like it, fine, but I can think of a lot of
people that make their livings at creating music and putting on live shows,
and Bose is not a company that they espouse as being usable in any manner.
As for audiophyles, well, different beasts they are, and not in the same
vein as a master of sonics such as George Massenburg.
I also found your little diatribe somewhat condescending and totally
misinformed when it comes to people who's job it is to listen to music
everyday and for long periods. I daresay that if you do that with Bose,
it's no wonder you find them so wonderful. But you might try listening to
some real speakers sometime. At the end of the day you'll wonder why your
ears aren't fatigued and why you can still talk with people and understand
what they are saying. So far it appears as if even reading and
comprehending what people are telling you has been affected.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Peter Sammon" <camm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Phil Allison
"george craig" <geoc...@worldnet.att.net>
> You gotta be a glutton for punishment for bringing up Bose products on
this
> N/G......George
** Haven't you worked out this is a ****troll*** - yet ???
A check on Google Groups shows Peter Sammon has never posted on
usenet before.
He is having fun.
.......... Phil
Geoff Wood
I think he's actually a troll. Nobody could seriously believe all that
stuff.
geoff
Ben Bradley
following groups:
rec.audio.tubes,
rec.audio.pro,
rec.audio.misc,
"Phil Allison" <phila...@optusnet.com.au> responded thusly:
Dare I use the T word? I wonder if he listens to guitar
performances of J*** S***** through his B*** 9**'s.
>
>
>
>
>............ Phil
>
>
fronobulax
(actually landfill, now *there's* a metaphor for you) back in 1978, I
would often walk by the "museum", a room with early Bose efforts and a
wall of glass. The first Bose speakers were one-eigth sperical gizmos
designed to fit into a corner. They looked a bit like they were geodesic
with a small full-range driver on each facet. I can't remember the model
number. Weird.
I didnt last there very long. I was young and outspoken. And an
audiophile. I think that's what did it.
Peter Hansen
Kalman Rubinson
wrote:
>The 901 was not Amar's first effort. When I worked at "The Mountain"
>(actually landfill, now *there's* a metaphor for you) back in 1978, I
>would often walk by the "museum", a room with early Bose efforts and a
>wall of glass. The first Bose speakers were one-eigth sperical gizmos
>designed to fit into a corner. They looked a bit like they were geodesic
>with a small full-range driver on each facet. I can't remember the model
>number. Weird.
I vaguely recall something like 2201, 2401 or some similar number. I
also recall it being demonstrated at a New York hi-fi show back in the
70s and being intrigued by the technical blather but disappointed in
the sound.
Kal
Geoley
Every one said I should consider the Bose 901 speakers. I had a friend that
worked at a hi fi shop in LA so I stopped in to see him one day and get some
advice on what to buy. He took me into the listening room where there were
many good brand name speakers and he punched in the Bose 901 speakers while
playing a demo record, and I thought they sounded pretty good, then he
punched in the Dalquist DQ-10 speakers and I was taken aback by the sound
difference. The demo music came alive on the DQ-10s and I was hooked. I was
able to get the pair of DQ-10s for $1100.00 and I still have them and I love
them.
Geoley
Phil Allison
William Sommerwerck
> (actually landfill, now *there's* a metaphor for you) back in 1978, I
> would often walk by the "museum", a room with early Bose efforts and a
> wall of glass. The first Bose speakers were one-eigth sperical gizmos
> designed to fit into a corner. They looked a bit like they were geodesic
> with a small full-range driver on each facet. I can't remember the model
> number. Weird.
It was the 2201 and I mentioned it in a previous post. It's an interesting idea
that perhaps deserves further research with high-quality drivers.
> I didnt last there very long. I was young and outspoken. And an
> audiophile. I think that's what did it.
You can't speak truth to power.
Why has no one pointed out that, in German, böse means "evil"?
William Sommerwerck
The DQ-10 was one of the first dynamic systems that imaged well. I, too, went
from 901s to the DQ-10s. The Dahlquists delivered what the Boses only promised.
Batholomew Jojo
> Dr. Amar G. Bose is Chairman of the Board and Technical Director of the
> Bose Corporation
True. And despite what was written in an earlier post,
he is no marketing genius. He has virtually nothing to
do with marketing. He's an executive, and yes, still
involved in engineering.
> and Professor of Electrical Engineering at the
> Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
Nope. Resigned well over a year ago. A perfesser no more.
> The Bose Corporation currently designs and manufacturers some of the most
> sophisticated
Now that's a stretch.
> and highly regarded
Maybe by deaf old neo-fascist coots like Paul Harvey.
> The Bose name is synonymous with quality sound
Now that's some ripe and aromatic bovine fertilizer.
Pure fiction!
> and is known for its lifelike sound
Only while Paul Harvey is still lifelike.
> and dependability.
... except maybe for those power caps in the car amplifiers,
or the 402's that were top heavy and fell over on children,
or all those disintegrated surrounds. Or the "DVD" players
that didn't even have any DVD electronics in the CD drive.
Et cetera.
Batholomew Jojo
> The 901 was not Amar's first effort. When I worked at "The Mountain"
> (actually landfill, now *there's* a metaphor for you)
Another urban legend. It's actually been cut down, not built
up. It was originally much taller than it is now. It's a
fairly isolated hill, and with it's original pointy top,
it did sort of look like a mountain when it was named "The
Mountain" by English settler in the 1600's. Now it's more
broad and flat shaped, with a lot of level acreage at the top.
Both the Bose jockers and the Bose bashers seem to be full
of what might be politely called "speculative fiction."
hank alrich
> from the late '80s / early '90s?
I tried those once and got arrested for fishing with a firearm.
--
ha
hank alrich
> > Peter Sammon <CuttingEdge> wrote:
>> <snipitty doo dah>
> Give up, ladies and gentlemen.
Shit. I just got here. Y'all were gettin' pretty entertaining.
--
ha
Prometheus
"Peter Sammon" <camm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1028do4...@news.supernews.com...
> "Geoff Wood" <ge...@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote in news:rpBUb.21086
> $ws.27...@news02.tsnz.net:
>
> > Peter Sammon wrote:
> >> 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
> >
> > Which planet are you from. Or which universe more like it.
> >
> > Nice try, Amar, but we still don't belive that the 901 is anything but
> a
> > gimmick, and a crappy-ounding one at that. ....
>
> Dr. Amar G. Bose is Chairman of the Board and Technical Director of the
> Bose Corporation and Professor of Electrical Engineering at the
> Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He was born in Philadelphia
> in 1929, and received his bachelor, master and doctoral degrees from MIT
> in the mid-50s. In 1956, Dr. Bose began research into physical acoustics
> and psychoacoustics: the study of human perception of sound.
>
> Bose's studies at the Institute led to numerous patents in the fields of
> acoustics, electronics, nonlinear systems, and communication theory, as
> well as the founding of the Bose Corporation in 1964.
>
> After initially questioning why loudspeakers with advanced technical
> specifications failed to reproduce the realism of a live performance, Dr.
> Bose began his 12-year study of speaker design and psychoacoustics. The
> Bose Corporation introduced the Bose 901 Sound System, which set a new
> standard for sound quality and promptly received worldwide acclaim.
>
> The Bose Corporation currently designs and manufacturers some of the most
> sophisticated and highly regarded audio products in the world-including
> the Bose Wave® Radio. The Bose name is synonymous with quality sound and
Prometheus
"Phil Allison" <phila...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:40243f21$0$28869$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
So whats in it for him? Being a proponent for Bose cannot pay that much
and I hope he must be lonlely since he is the only person on Usenet
advocating these products.
Prometheus
"Peter Sammon" <camm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1028737...@news.supernews.com...
> "Tim Williams" <tmor...@charter.net> wrote in news:1027nfhh3o9q8c1
> @corp.supernews.com:
>
> > So why the hell is it here on RAT.
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > --
> > "That's for the courts to decide." - Homer Simpson
> > Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms
> >
> > "Peter Sammon" <camm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1025k3h...@news.supernews.com...
> >> http://www.epinions.com/content_105506836100
> >>
> >> In 1968...<snip huge nef>
> >
> >
> >
> It's a well known engineering fact that audiophile quality speakers such
as
> the 901s work well on tube amplifiers.
>
> Cheers!
Phil Allison
"Prometheus" <Prome...@airnews.net>
>
> "Phil Allison" <phila...@optusnet.com.au>
> >
> > ** Who agrees this Sammon dude is some kind of bot ??
>
> So whats in it for him?
** Same as for any troll - there is fun in making mischief.
........... Phil
Mark
>
>After initially questioning why loudspeakers with advanced technical
>specifications failed to reproduce the realism of a live performance, Dr.
>Bose began his 12-year study of speaker design and psychoacoustics.
The problem (or delusion) is that the 901's DO NOT reproduce the
ambience of the RECORDING--they REPLACE it with their own. They are
patently incapable of recreating a palpable soundstage. That being
said--they are pretty good club speakers where the space is small and
would be overloaded by huge stacks of drivers. You know--a banquet
hall or the highschool dance. Of course a savvy DJ probably wouldn't
spend $1500 for plastic boxes loaded with auto-door speakers.
Now who wants to talk about the thrift in spending hundreds for a
plastic table radio?
Scott Dorsey
It wasn't an original idea either. A lot of folks have built omnidirectional
radiators like this... I think Bruel and Kjaer made a popular one intended for
acoustical measurements. None of them sound very good, because even a real
omnidirectional radiator is a poor choice for playback in a real room, and
poor real-world approximations are considerably worse.
--scott
>
>Kal
Phil Allison
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com
> It wasn't an original idea either. A lot of folks have built
omnidirectional
> radiators like this... I think Bruel and Kjaer made a popular one intended
for
> acoustical measurements. None of them sound very good, because even a
real
> omnidirectional radiator is a poor choice for playback in a real room, and
> poor real-world approximations are considerably worse.
** Remember Stig Carlsson and his colourful Sonab speakers ??
A trendy Swedish competitor to Bose in the 1970s - cheaper, no
equaliser, no mega amp needed.
Stereo anywhere in the room - even with mono sources !
......... Phil
P Stamler
to decide to return it to the store. Said it sounded like a jukebox. Well, she
added a few adjectives with which I will not burden you.
Peace,
Paul
Mark D. Zacharias
money that they still have actual people working there, answering the
phones, repairing equipment (at a fair price, too!) providing tech support,
etc.
My every dealing with the company itself has ended satisfactorily. Not so
with Denon, Marantz, Sony and others I deal with on a regular basis. It's
such a competitive business, with such slim margins, that there's a constant
wave of layoffs, forced retirements etc. Broken promises, people dropping
the ball, voice - and E-mails never returned, incompetent service etc are
the rule these days. Bose is a very pleasant exception to this trend.
Now if their speakers only sounded good!
Mark Z.
--
Please reply only to Group. I regret this is necessary. Viruses and spam
have rendered my regular e-mail address useless.
"Phil Allison" <phila...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:402438ab$0$4249$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> "Arny Krueger" <
> > "Phil Allison" <
> > >
> > >>> There is no significant "lobing and comb-filter effects" with a
> > >>> driver array that is **NOT** facing the listener - compared with
> > >>> one that is.
> > >>
> > >> In most cases the back drivers on a 901 are facing a smooth wall.
> > >> Lobes bounced off a wall are still lobes.
> > >
> > >
> > > ** The lobes are spread way out by the off angle reflection and
> > > lost to the listener. A listener seated in the usual central position
> could not detect
> > > them.
> > >
> > >> Furthermore, there are those oddities where the array has a critical
> > >> distance,
> >
> > > ** Define your terms, please.
> >
> > I've cited this paper once already, and it's clear that there aren't a
lot
> > of people on this thread who have actually even glanced at it:
>
> ** Being pompous and quoting absent documents does you no credit.
>
> >
>
> > Author(s): Keele, Jr., D. B. Publication: JAES Volume 38 Number 10 pp.
> > 723·748; October 1990.
> >
> > Well, not everybody has the kind of library I have at my disposal.
Sadly,
> I
> > can't find any online references with enough detail. The "critical
> distance"
> > w/r/t to an array of speakers is the point where the sound from the
array
> > drivers starts to fuse into a single pattern.
>
> ** Which makes your original "oddities" remark even more mysterious.
>
>
>
> > >> This affects 89% of the sound coming out of a 901, if Bose is to be
> > >> believed.
> >
> > > ** The "Hass" effect plus the extra proximity and brighter sound of
> > > the forward facing driver normally makes it the apparent source for a
> > > centrally positioned listener.
> >
> > Already considered. Since I've been doing SR quite a bit I've learned to
> > love the Haas effect and figuratively take it to the bank every
> opportunity.
> > However, Haas Effect fusion is not perfect - there is some perception
of
> > added fullness or fuzziness, depending on the individual perceptions.
> >
> > > The other rear facing ones will produce a delayed and duller sound
> > > - depending on the nature of the walls, distance away and their
> > > coefficient of absorption at various frequencies. If the walls are
> > > far away and acoustically dead then the forward facing driver
> > > dominates strongly.
> >
> > Agreed that if the back wall is dead than much of what the back speakers
> do
> > is moot. However, most architectural features are not good absorbers
below
> 1
> > KHz, less below 500 Hz, and very few below 200 Hz. Since all drivers in
> the
> > 901 are supposedly full-range...
>
>
> ** You say there is significant lobing going on at or below 500 Hz from
an
> array of 4 inch drivers ??
>
> Below 500 Hz 901s pretty soon become non directional - providing there
is
> actually a wall behind them.
>
>
>
> >
> > > The "lobing ... effects" are only going to be audible if the
> > > listener moves their head in the direct field where the lobes exist
> > > - ie behind the 901.
> >
> > Or as I've said once and feel somewhat put-upon to have to repeat - the
> > lobes will exist in front of the 901s if the walls are good reflectors.
>
>
> ** Keep repeating the dubious claim - it gets more convincing every
time
> you know. You need to show these alleged lobes are actually audible to a
> listener seated in the central position on *music* programme.
>
>
> >
> > > The "...comb-filter effects" are audible where rear wall proximity
> > > and reflection of sound creates them - it is not due to the way the
> > > drivers are arrayed.
> >
> > I've cited this paper once already, and it's clear that there aren't a
lot
> > of people on this thread who have actually even glanced at it:
>
>
> ** Quoting the absent expert is a debating cheat - Arny.
>
> You have seen my 10 cheats list.
>
>
>
> > > IME both the 901 and 802 suffer from *gross* IM and Doppler
> > > distortion at high SPL levels - nauseatingly so to my ears.
> >
>
> > Well, that too. I think we're now agreeing about one of my earlier
points
> > about how many small drivers it takes to equal a larger one.
>
>
> ** The comparison fails since the Bose 901 has falling output below 300Hz
> without its equaliser. Early 901s ( there are at least 12 distinct
> versions) used a sealed box with the drivers operating below resonance.
The
> equaliser added up to 15 dB boost ( 31 times power) at low frequencies to
> compensate. The excursion limit of those drivers was *very soon* exceeded
> if an amp of any size ( PL700s were popular !) were being used.
>
> A good 10 inch driver has about the same cone area as the 9 used in
the
> Bose 901. Mounted in a tuned box somewhat bigger than a 901 it could equal
> the 901's SPL at low frequencies with 31 times LESS power input and hence
> massively reduced THD. Allow that 10 inch to be accompanied by a mid and
> treble drivers and IM is reduced to nil as well.
>
> I well remember a demo session with 901s and a PL700 in 1977 - every
time
> the bass drum thumped there was a distinct crack from the 901s and the
mids
> and tops went on a short holiday. The only surprising thing was that the
> owner thought this sounded great and pushed the PL700 right up to
clipping.
>
> I left the room suffering from nausea after 10 minutes - just the sight
of
> a 901 induces that feeling now.
>
>
>
>
> ............ Phil
>
>
Phil Allison
"Mark D. Zacharias" <mzach...@yis.us>
> One complimentary thing I must say about Bose.
** Why fucking top pot this tripe on one of my posts ?????
Are you some kind of cuckoo ?
.......... Phil
William Sommerwerck
> plastic table radio?
Nothing wrong with that -- if the radio actually delivered high quality for its
price.
It doesn't. It doesn't even come close.
Daniel Fuchs
William Sommerwerck wrote:
> Why has no one pointed out that, in German, böse means "evil"?
Because it's irrelevant. Bose is a common Bengali family name. Nothing
german about that.
Daniel
William Sommerwerck
>> Why has no one pointed out that, in German, böse means "evil"?
> Because it's irrelevant. Bose is a common Bengali family name.
> Nothing German about that.
Amusing coincidences are never irrelevant.
Scott Dorsey
It does... that big low end hump makes for very unnatural-sounding voice
reproduction.
But the little KLH table radio isn't half bad at all. Another sleeper is
the GE Superradio, although the newer ones have much poorer RF sections than
the original ones.
Is Nakamichi still making table radios?
--scott
Don
These may be converted into cash, I suppose.
Eroyalties. If you are 18 or older, you may accrue Eroyalties. Regardless of
your Eroyalties balance on the site, all Eroyalties are subject to our
verification and approval. Among other reasons, we may disapprove Eroyalties
if your account terminates or is suspended or if we suspect fraud. Thus, you
should not consider Eroyalties "earned" until we have approved your redemption
request for payment. All redemptions will need to comply with applicable
redemption and validation policies (such as when you can redeem and how often,
minimum redemption amount, any redemption fees and any geographical
restrictions). Eroyalties are not transferable; we will issue checks only in
the accountholder's name. We are not responsible for fraudulently redeemed
Eroyalties if the redeemer presents your password. You are solely responsible
for paying any taxes on your Eroyalties.
William Sommerwerck
Do you mean the Eight or 21? Both are quite good, though I prefer the tubed
Eight when listening in mono.
If you mean the Tivoli One, it's a major disappointment. It's a shame it was the
last product Henry Kloss designed. Hardly worthy of his reputation.
Single-piece stereo table radios are not very good. I heard the Cambridge
SoundWorks recently -- mediocre sound, way overpriced.
If you want a small system for your desktop, get one of those little "executive"
systems. I have a $200 TEAC that's amazingly good, and very much worth what it
costs. Look for models that have two-way (rather than single-driver) speaker
systems.
Rob Adelman
Wow! Tough room...
George
Rob Adelman <SPAMLESS...@mn.rr.com> wrote:
Not really Ron
Phil is just a psychopath
nobody responds to him at aapls anymore so he has come trolling for
others to annoy
George
fronobulax
> ** Remember Stig Carlsson and his colourful Sonab speakers ??
>
> A trendy Swedish competitor to Bose in the 1970s - cheaper, no
> equaliser, no mega amp needed.
>
> Stereo anywhere in the room - even with mono sources !
>
>
>
>
>
> ......... Phil
>
>
>
>
>
I worked for a dealer that sold Sonab speakers. I rather liked them.
Later on at AEI (Audio Engineering International), I was playing with
passive radiators and I took our Evolution II 8" 2-way PR test mules and
laid them on their backs elevated off the floor with a few bricks and I
added an Audax super tweeter which I mounted on the front (now top) of
the cabinet a la Sonab. These sounded quite nice as I remember.
Peter Hansen
fronobulax
> Another urban legend. It's actually been cut down, not built
> up. It was originally much taller than it is now. It's a
> fairly isolated hill, and with it's original pointy top,
> it did sort of look like a mountain when it was named "The
> Mountain" by English settler in the 1600's. Now it's more
> broad and flat shaped, with a lot of level acreage at the top.
>
> Both the Bose jockers and the Bose bashers seem to be full
> of what might be politely called "speculative fiction."
>
I stand corrected.
Peter Hansen
Roger Christie
Don't you mean -audiophobe-?
Edi Zubovic
wrote:
>Peter Sammon <camm...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:1025k3h...@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
This started yet another BoseBattle, at this NG too :)))
Some like the sound, the others not... personally, I like the direct
sound and I dislike Reflecting (r) sound. If you want a room full of
sound, than these may be OK.
I remember a local band in the seventies having 4 Bose loudspeaker
which were, as I remember, looking as early 901s (without that jet
nozzles) turned back. The sound has been clean but.. somehow lacking
on force ie. life (at open space). In a local discoteque, one had such
loudspeakers. The sound has been relatively clean too, w/o much low
end though (in a room).
Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia
Scott Dorsey
>> But the little KLH table radio isn't half bad at all.
>
>Do you mean the Eight or 21? Both are quite good, though I prefer the tubed
>Eight when listening in mono.
>
>If you mean the Tivoli One, it's a major disappointment. It's a shame it was the
>last product Henry Kloss designed. Hardly worthy of his reputation.
I was thinking of the Tivoli One. No, it doesn't sound as good as the
Eight at all, and no, it doesn't have the RF performance of a typical
AA5 radio from the fifties, but it's a huge step up from the usual
table sets today.
>Single-piece stereo table radios are not very good. I heard the Cambridge
>SoundWorks recently -- mediocre sound, way overpriced.
I would tend to agree. RF section on that isn't bad, though.
Scott Dorsey
>
>I remember a local band in the seventies having 4 Bose loudspeaker
>which were, as I remember, looking as early 901s (without that jet
>nozzles) turned back. The sound has been clean but.. somehow lacking
>on force ie. life (at open space). In a local discoteque, one had such
>loudspeakers. The sound has been relatively clean too, w/o much low
>end though (in a room).
Probably the 801 PA systems. Those actually aren't all that bad for
acoustical groups. They are beamy, have some weird lobes, and no real
top end, but when you compare them with typical horn systems in that
price range, the vocal quality isn't so bad....
Phil Allison
"George" <g.p.g...@worldnet.att.net>
> Not really Ron
> Phil is just a psychopath
> nobody responds to him at aapls anymore so he has come trolling for
> others to annoy
> George
** George Gleason is a pig ignorant cowboy - with a PA system for hire.
He has permanent shit on his boots from doing rodeos.
He has no intelligence whatever.
He is the self appointed leader of many NG lunch mobs.
Get my drift ?
......... Phil
Rob Adelman
Phil Allison wrote:
> He has no intelligence whatever.
>
> He is the self appointed leader of many NG lunch mobs.
>
> Get my drift ?
Hey, I'm always up for a good lunch. What's on the menu? <g>
William Sommerwerck
Hmmm... Where do they eat?
Phil Allison
"William Sommerwerck" <will...@nwlink.com>
> > He is the self-appointed leader of many NG lunch mobs.
>
> Hmmm... Where do they eat?
** Typos do amuse some.
....... Phil
George
"Phil Allison" <phila...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
Reese does the rodeo's , I do the folk music
George
Phil Allison
"George" <g.p.g...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:g.p.gleason-184B...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
** So, as you see, he agrees with the rest.
.......... Phil
Roger W. Norman
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Phil Allison" <phila...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:40258c30$0$18303$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Ted Spencer
>> Out of interest: Does anyone remember Bose's "Bass Cannons"
>> from the late '80s / early '90s?
>
>I tried those once and got arrested for fishing with a firearm.
>
>--
>ha
VERY funny...
Ted Spencer, NYC
"No amount of classical training will ever teach you what's so cool about
"Tighten Up" by Archie Bell And The Drells" -author unknown
Phil Allison
"Roger W. Norman" <rno...@starpower.net
> Most of us have a body of work to back up our words.
** Septic Tank fuckwits like the one above are obsessed with a phoney
notion called "cred".
If you own some pile of fancy junk or have done something in the public
eye then you get instant "cred !! " Once you have this invisible stuff you
can declare yourself an ** EXPERT** on **ANY** and all topics.
It don't matter one bit that the subject is way outside any actual
knowledge or experience you have.
If someone comes along with less "cred" than another then his views on
whatever topic are dismissed out of hand - no matter how well qualified he
may be on the particular topic and how unqualified the other.
It would be hysterically funny to watch - if the stupid shits did not
really believe in this insanity.
........... Phil
Rob Adelman
Phil Allison wrote:
> If someone comes along with less "cred" than another then his views on
> whatever topic are dismissed out of hand -
No, actually that takes a *special* talent.
Roger W. Norman
doobies. May a plague of owning a thousand houses each with a thousand
rooms and each with a thousand beds cause you, in your sleep, to jump from
bed to bed, room to room in your search of your ultimate truth. But you
won't find it on RAP because you, sir, are a dipshit delictible. An Idiot
Savant with no talent. The scum that the scum scraps off their shoes. May
you die the death of big black warts, ever encompassing your scummy ass
because you speak way too much out of it.
Oh, but actually, you are of no import at all, and worth not the amount of
time I take to type this missive. So, for all pratical purposes, you have
as much wit and intelligence as George Bush. In fact, I dare say you are
the Hitler of the idiots, were someone willing to give you a title.
In other words, you are a great guy, judging by your most important posts on
RAP based on your widely acknowledged experience and major body or work.
When you're gone we will all miss you, often lamenting the demise of one so
young with so many things to say of importance. A vertible cornicopia of
intelligence. A man among men. A shit among shits.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Phil Allison" <phila...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4025ae52$0$15135$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Rob Adelman
whatever you're having :)
Roger W. Norman wrote:
> OK, let's just get this out once and for all. You, Phil, suck big donkey
> doobies.
Phil is just living the same day over and over. He's getting frustrated..
Mark D. Zacharias
BECAUSE, the subject was Bose, and I had another slant on the subject, and
since I had changed the subject a bit, I also changed the subject line a
bit.
Shithead.
mz
> > ** Why fucking top pot this tripe on one of my posts ?????
--
Please reply only to Group. I regret this is necessary. Viruses and spam
have rendered my regular e-mail address useless.
"Rob Adelman" <SPAMLESS...@mn.rr.com> wrote in message
news:c0314c$12c874$1...@ID-75267.news.uni-berlin.de...
Mike Rivers
> OK, let's just get this out once and for all. You, Phil, suck big donkey
> doobies. May a plague of owning a thousand houses each with a thousand
> rooms and each with a thousand beds cause you, in your sleep, to jump from
> bed to bed, room to room in your search of your ultimate truth. But you
> won't find it on RAP because you, sir, are a dipshit delictible.
Gee, I must have really missed something profound by skipping over
this thread. I just figured that anyone talking about Bose 901
speakers wouldn't have anything of interest to share.
--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mri...@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Roger W. Norman
back except that the good part of this newsgroup apparently outweighs the
bad part. Bad enough that Phil was invading AAPLS with his tripe. Out of
hundreds of posts I have yet to see something of socially redeeming value to
them.
And I tried the Hitler word to see if I could shut the thread down, in case
you didn't notice! <g>
And yes, Phil, you twisted bad excuse for wasted air, I'm
top-fucking-posting.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Rob Adelman" <SPAMLESS...@mn.rr.com> wrote in message
news:c04kvq$12v9lh$1...@ID-75267.news.uni-berlin.de...
Roger W. Norman
news:znr1076245356k@trad...
>
> Gee, I must have really missed something profound by skipping over
> this thread. I just figured that anyone talking about Bose 901
> speakers wouldn't have anything of interest to share.
It's not even Phil's thread unless he posted the original as someone else,
which isn't outside of his tendencies. Spend more time on AAPLS and you'll
see why I get frustrated.
And, to be honest, I might just be a little pissed that the guy who was
supposed to handle one of my rooms at the jazz festival cancelled for no
good reason with less than a week to go. But then again, no, it's just that
Phil never brings anything positive to the table.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
>
>
>
0jun...@bellsouth.net
On 2004-02-08 phila...@optusnet.com.au said:
>> Most of us have a body of work to back up our words.
>** Septic Tank fuckwits like the one above are obsessed with a
>phoney notion called "cred".
rec.audio.pro with the appearance of this troll.
Should have known it, a thread on Bose and this creature as well. I
thought something smelled pretty bad in here lately.
Richard Webb
Electric Spider Productions
REplace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real email
--
Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
A: Why is top posting frowned upon?