Replacing Bose 901's with Magnepan 1.6's

[bbrunswick]

After 20+ years, I am considering replacing my beloved Bose 901's with Magnepan 1.6's and adding a REL Storm III sub woofer. Is this a good move? All opinions welcomed. I will be using a Hafler DH500 amp and a Hafler DH110 preamp, both upgraded by Musical Concepts.

[Eric Z]

You'll find a lot of people here are not very fond of Bose, so I'm sure they'll say you have a solid move. I'm not personally familiar with Magnepan, but I've heard some good things about them.

On a side note, I'm in Streamwood- small world.

Enjoy and let us know what you decide.
Eric

[Florian]

I would personally stick with the BOSE 901, it can play louder and has more drivers.

-AD

[JohnMichael]

I would personally stick with the BOSE 901, it can play louder and has more drivers.

-AD


The body snatchers have Florian.

[bbrunswick]

I would personally stick with the BOSE 901, it can play louder and has more drivers.

-AD

The stands are cool too! I know, I am an idiot for even asking such a stupid question, but I was actually looking for insightful feedback from people who can objectively analyze this situation and provide thoughtful analysis of the pros and cons.

[bjornb17]

I would personally stick with the BOSE 901, it can play louder and has more drivers.

-AD

Is it April Fool's Day already? Your shoe is untied.

[bjornb17]

The stands are cool too! I know, I am an idiot for even asking such a stupid question, but I was actually looking for insightful feedback from people who can objectively analyze this situation and provide thoughtful analysis of the pros and cons.

It seems you're a little bothered by his (more than likely) sarcastic response. I guess a good word of advice to newcomers to this forum is not to be bothered by such comments. This is a pretty small community and we joke around and try to have fun with it :)

[bjornb17]

You are just too funny.

Im only 1 post away from catching up to you, better run :)
EDIT: Too late


EDIT 2 : why in the world does it show me as having 3 posts in a row? This message board is messed up :)

[JohnMichael]

Is it April Fool's Day already? Your shoe is untied.


You are just too funny.

[JohnMichael]

The stands are cool too! I know, I am an idiot for even asking such a stupid question, but I was actually looking for insightful feedback from people who can objectively analyze this situation and provide thoughtful analysis of the pros and cons.


Sorry but we like to have fun. The two speakers you are talking about are as different as night and day. The Bose try to reproduce a diffuse sound field that you would hear at a concert. They have a very wide dispersion pattern with little imaging. The Magnepans with the ribbon tweeters will have better imaging. Planar speakers need to be set up rather precisely and Florian has some advice on that in the section for planar and ribbon speakers. One thing that is always stressed is that you listen to the speakers in which you are interested. If you love the Bose 901's you may not like the planar speakers. Take time and listen to all you can. I prefer a point source speaker over a line source or diffuse sound field. To each his own.

[bbrunswick]

The stands are cool too! I know, I am an idiot for even asking such a stupid question, but I was actually looking for insightful feedback from people who can objectively analyze this situation and provide thoughtful analysis of the pros and cons.

You are probably right. I infer from the response that my ears are not large enough or that the audio response center of my brain is not sufficently developed to detect the differences that exist between my barbaric 901s and the obviously more elegant Magnepans. I was hoping that someone who at least acknowledges that there are two sides to the 901 controversy could give me their qualative opinion of the improvement my underdeveloped audio pleasure center might detect. Sarcasim is fun and I can take a shot, but I would also like to get a side order of useful information.

[Florian]

analyze this situation and provide thoughtful analysis of the pros and cons.
Not to bust your bubble, but what cons? I would personally not buy them if i were you, just to ask this question clearly shows that you wont know what to do with a Maggie. Sorry, its not meant in a bad way but this post has to be the most different one ever.

[bbrunswick]

Sorry but we like to have fun. The two speakers you are talking about are as different as night and day. The Bose try to reproduce a diffuse sound field that you would hear at a concert. They have a very wide dispersion pattern with little imaging. The Magnepans with the ribbon tweeters will have better imaging. Planar speakers need to be set up rather precisely and Florian has some advice on that in the section for planar and ribbon speakers. One thing that is always stressed is that you listen to the speakers in which you are interested. If you love the Bose 901's you may not like the planar speakers. Take time and listen to all you can. I prefer a point source speaker over a line source or diffuse sound field. To each his own.
Good points, well taken. Thanks.

[JohnMichael]

Im only 1 post away from catching up to you, better run :)
EDIT: Too late


EDIT 2 : why in the world does it show me as having 3 posts in a row? This message board is messed up :)


You are so much younger, you can keep posting after I am dead.

[bbrunswick]

Not to bust your bubble, but what cons? I would personally not buy them if i were you, just to ask this question clearly shows that you wont know what to do with a Maggie. Sorry, its not meant in a bad way but this post has to be the most different one ever.
Of course I know what to do with them. I would put one on either side of my chair and hook them to my iPod, just like I do with my 901s. Do you think I could lay them on their sides and lay between them?

[Florian]

Of course I know what to do with them. I would put one on either side of my chair and hook them to my iPod, just like I do with my 901s. Do you think I could lay them on their sides and lay between them?
Enjoy yourself

[JohnMichael]

Not to bust your bubble, but what cons? I would personally not buy them if i were you, just to ask this question clearly shows that you wont know what to do with a Maggie. Sorry, its not meant in a bad way but this post has to be the most different one ever.


Thanks friend I suggested he go to your ribbon and planar site for advice. Never mind bbrunswick sorry I suggested it.

[keithant]

Keep them keep them keep them!I am not fond of Bose's lower model numbers,201's 301's 501's and 701's,but the 901's KICK ASS,i used to have a pair of 901 series III back in about 1985 and nothing in there size could touch them.Again i would keep them..Peace.

[Feanor]

After 20+ years, I am considering replacing my beloved Bose 901's with Magnepan 1.6's and adding a REL Storm III sub woofer. Is this a good move? All opinions welcomed. I will be using a Hafler DH500 amp and a Hafler DH110 preamp, both upgraded by Musical Concepts.
But don't be offended. Of course it is true that the Bose and the Magneplanars are very different as has been pointed out. On the other hand the "consensus" -- let us call it -- would be that the Magneplanars, with or without the sub, are far better for the serious listener than the Bose.

For the Maggies setup is critical, but not as difficult as it's made out to be by some. Three feet from the wall behind, preferably two feet from the side wall, toed in to aim directly at your listening position -- and your done under most circumstances. (Note that the quasi-ribbon models like the 1.6's are easier to set up than the true ribbon modes because the dispersion of the quasi-ribbons is narrower than the true ribbons, hence the reflections, both side and rear, are easier to control.)

[GMichael]

I would personally stick with the BOSE 901, it can play louder and has more drivers.

-AD

OK buddy, who are you and what have you done with the real Flo?

[GMichael]

After 20+ years, I am considering replacing my beloved Bose 901's with Magnepan 1.6's and adding a REL Storm III sub woofer. Is this a good move? All opinions welcomed. I will be using a Hafler DH500 amp and a Hafler DH110 preamp, both upgraded by Musical Concepts.

There is a huge difference between Bose 901's and the Mangepan 1.6's. Totally different type of sound and not in the same class at all. The 1.6's would be a great move if you have heard them and know what you are getting. Go check out their website and find some dealers in your area. Give them a listen. I think you'll be shocked at how real they sound.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

This would have been a no brainer for me 20 years ago. Wouldn't have bought the 901's in the first place. I think your choice of Magnapans and REL sub is a pretty nice upgrade.

[E-Stat]

Is this a good move?
Yes. While those speakers are quite different from each other, they share similar requirements: lots of space behind them for optimum imaging and plenty of power.

I think you'll like the Maggies. I had some back in the 70s before moving on to electrostats.

rw

[dmb_fan]

After 20+ years, I am considering replacing my beloved Bose 901's with Magnepan 1.6's and adding a REL Storm III sub woofer. Is this a good move? All opinions welcomed. I will be using a Hafler DH500 amp and a Hafler DH110 preamp, both upgraded by Musical Concepts.

My question to you is, how do you listen to music?

My father has a pair of 901's (maybe series VI) and he loves them. He has no desire to sit in the "sweet spot" in an equalateral triangle with his speakers and try to pinpoint where every instrument is coming from. In fact, most of the time he's up and moving while he's listening to music: working in his office, exercising, cooking, etc. The 901's fit his needs perfectly for a small speaker that can play incredibly loud and send music to every corner of his home.

He'd be miserable with a pair of 1.6's. He'd complain that they can't play loud enough and he'd complain that as soon as you stand up from the sweet spot, the treble dissappears.

If you're looking for a speaker that sounds great from the sweet spot and can throw an engaging soundstage and give you the kind of resolution that allows you to tell a Taylor guitar from a Martin, then the 1.6's are for you. If you're looking for a speaker to do what the 901's do best--play loud and broad--then you might be happier with some of the offerings from Definitive Technologies or Mirage or another company that manufactures bipolar or omnidirectional speakers.

I'm very familiar with both speakers and would be happy to discuss further if you like (and if I remember to come back here and check in).

I hope that helps,
Adam

[Florian]

He'd be miserable with a pair of 1.6's. He'd complain that they can't play loud enough and he'd complain that as soon as you stand up from the sweet spot, the treble dissappears.
Considering that the 1.6 is many times higher then the 901 i can guarantee you that the treble will definetly not disapear. The reason it doesnt happen on the BOSE is because it has no heighs. Also if you setup the 1.6 completely free in room, like 8ft from all sides or more and drive them correctly they will play louder, more control and definetly unqeualled by any BOSE ever made.

Its nice that your dad loves them but there is no advantage that the BOSE has exept for maybe being light, small and made of plastic.

[royphil345]

The 901s aren't light, small, or made from plastic!!! I like the sound of 901s, particularly the older ones. They do have a completely different sound than the Magnepans. The 901s do work better when you're not sitting in the sweet spot. The 901s are more of a warm sounding speaker, not the clearest highs, but can be pleasant to listen to. The Magnepans with a sub will give you better frequency extension, both highs and lows, with clearer highs and more neutral mids while still sounding smooth in most setups, a more defined soundstage. May not sound as pleasing around the whole room / house. If I had to choose between the two, I'd choose the Maggies. Guess it just depends on if you're really looking for a change, or if you're pretty satisfied with what you have.

[dmb_fan]

Considering that the 1.6 is many times higher then the 901 i can guarantee you that the treble will definetly not disapear. The reason it doesnt happen on the BOSE is because it has no heighs. Also if you setup the 1.6 completely free in room, like 8ft from all sides or more and drive them correctly they will play louder, more control and definetly unqeualled by any BOSE ever made.

Its nice that your dad loves them but there is no advantage that the BOSE has exept for maybe being light, small and made of plastic.

Don't you have a club for ribbon speaker lovers or something? If that's the case, it surprises me that you're unfamiliar with the basic ways these speakers work.

The larger a driver is, the narrower its dispersion pattern will be at a given frequency. This is one of the reasons tweeters are small in point-source designs. A tweeter has to be small in order to disperse high frequency sound evenly in all directions--the ubiquitous 1" dome.

The tweeter on the 1.6's is what maybe 60" tall and maybe 1" wide? This means that at high frequencies, the tweeter has a very narrow vertical dispersion pattern and a very broad horizontal dispersion pattern. This is intentional in the design of the Maggies. This narrow dispersion limits floor and ceiling 1st order reflections at high frequencies.


Considering that the 1.6 is many times higher then the 901 i can guarantee you that the treble will definetly not disapear.

The height of the speakers is exactly what makes the narrow dispersion pattern and exactly what makes the treble dissappear at standing heights.

I'm not saying this is an objectively good or bad thing, it's just a fact of the matter.

And in terms of SPL, I've had the 901's up over 120dB (with earplugs) without damage or apparant strain. Every published review of small Magnepans I've ever read notes that a significant downside to these smaller planars is their inability to play loud. If that's not enough for you to believe that they won't play at 120dB, I need simply point out that these speakers are so fragile, they are equipped with fast-acting fuses to stop the tweeters from being damaged by too much power.

Again, this is not objectively good or bad or important or unimportant, it is simply fact of the matter.

There are many many reasons to choose Magnepans over Bose, and no one will ever find Bose speakers in my home, but on these two points, you are just plain wrong. Now I hope that we can put this to bed without hijacking the original poster's thread--a thread to which you seem intent on adding nothing substantive.

-Adam

[Geoffcin]

After 20+ years, I am considering replacing my beloved Bose 901's with Magnepan 1.6's and adding a REL Storm III sub woofer. Is this a good move? All opinions welcomed. I will be using a Hafler DH500 amp and a Hafler DH110 preamp, both upgraded by Musical Concepts.

Your amp should be able to drive them just fine.

[Florian]

Considering the 1.6 is 1.65m tall and your over that hight then yes you will loose some heighs, but you will definetly have more then on the 901 irregardless of where you stand.On my DIVA which is 6'3' tall you can stand up and walk around and loose absolutly nothing.

Also ribbon speakers have less drop off over a larger distance, but you knew that ;-) Here is an example:

Distance: 1m 2m 4m
Ordinary tweeter: 86dB 80dB 74dB
2 meter long ribbon: 86dB 83dB 80dB

Oh well i am not going to argue and i will never ever understand why someone would want a 901 (whatever series) over a any good quality speaker. Id rather have 90db of high quality "surface area" sound then ****ty 125db compressed sound at a close miced distance.

[bobsticks]

there's no way for this to end well...

[royphil345]

"The larger a driver is, the narrower its dispersion pattern will be at a given frequency. This is one of the reasons tweeters are small in point-source designs. A tweeter has to be small in order to disperse high frequency sound evenly in all directions--the ubiquitous 1" dome"

The main reason for the dispersion differences between Magnepans and cone / dome drivers is simply that the magnepans are flat and mostly beam the sound waves straight out. The cones / domes are curved, giving the driver a wider dispersion pattern. For the same reason, the Magnepans have less drop-off at a distance because all their energy is focused in the same direction. A small flat driver (with no horn) won't have a dispersion pattern any wider than a large one.

Tweeters are small to better reproduce high frequencies.

[bbrunswick]

Considering that the 1.6 is many times higher then the 901 i can guarantee you that the treble will definetly not disapear. The reason it doesnt happen on the BOSE is because it has no heighs. Also if you setup the 1.6 completely free in room, like 8ft from all sides or more and drive them correctly they will play louder, more control and definetly unqeualled by any BOSE ever made.

Its nice that your dad loves them but there is no advantage that the BOSE has exept for maybe being light, small and made of plastic.

I do not want to put myself in the position of defending the 901s, but, in a spirit of fairness, I must point out that the 901s are made nearly completely of wood, not plastic, weigh about the same as the 1.6s (35-40 pounds each) and do, indeed, reproduce high frequencies to the threshold of human hearing and beyond. As to how loud they play, my goal when I replaced my stacked Advents 20+ years ago was not to see how hard I could drive the 901's, but to be able to accurately reproduce the sound level I would perceive sitting in a concert hall listening to an orchestral crescendo without blowing a line fuse. Granted, the sound produced by my then amplifier, a Phase Linear 400, could have contributed to that particular problem. After graduating to the Hafler DH200 I have used for nearly 20 years, I was content. I have listened to Magneplaners at various points and was impressed, but not blown away. I never really knew whether the speakers or the exotic electronics that usually accompanied them was the reason for the improvement in sound. I now am improving my electronics to the point that an upgrade to my speakers would be logical. This is the reason I am soliciting the opinions of knowledgable people who are familiar with both technologies. Based upon the responses that you, Florian have provided, I feel it is necessary to ask about your level of familarity with the Bose 901s. I detect just the slightest amount of sarcasm in your responses, yet your grasp of the 901 listening experience seems to me to be, shall we say, a bit shallow. Forgive me if I am wrong about this.

[Florian]

Well your right about that. My experience with the 901's is properbly like your experience with electrostatics and planar magnetics or ribbons. I heard them several times but found the horrible at best in every area. But you shouldnt take my comments too seriously, i cant stand 99% of all the box speakers i have ever heard. For me music starts at 1.6 Maggies or Kharma 3.2, small Avalons or Acoustat 1+1's. I am an sort of outsider on these forums and many consider me arrogant or that my ego matches the size of my speakers. But i dont seek a sound i like, i seek whats real and colored boxes, different drivers, different volumes and uneqaul room loading speakers give me the shivers.

;)

[dmb_fan]

The main reason for the dispersion differences between Magnepans and cone / dome drivers is simply that the magnepans are flat and mostly beam the sound waves straight out. The cones / domes are curved, giving the driver a wider dispersion pattern. For the same reason, the Magnepans have less drop-off at a distance because all their energy is focused in the same direction. A small flat driver (with no horn) won't have a dispersion pattern any wider than a large one.

Well, I only posted here to give some helpful advice to the guy who had questions about the 901's vs. the 1.6's, not to give a physics lesson, but this is from the Sound Reinforcement Handbook by Gary Davis and Ralph Jones, an industry standard. (Paraphrased because I can't show the graphs.)

"The directional characteristics of a loudspeaker driver are dependent on the relationship between the size of the driver and the wavelength of the sound that the driver is reproducing.

"At low frequencies, where the wavelength is long compared to the size of the driver, the driver is omnidirectional.

"As the frequency rises, the wavelength gets shorter, and the directional pattern of the cone very gradually narrows. When the wavelength is equal to the driver diameter, the directional pattern is fairly directional: 45 degrees off axis, the level is approximately 6dB lower than it is directly on axis.

"At higher frequencies, the driver's directional pattern narrows very sharply. When the wavelength is half the diameter of the driver diaphragm, the driver is highly directional. The beamwidth will continue to narrow as the frequency rises."

You're right that shape effects dispersion. But the main factor determining the directional characteristics of all cones, domes, horns, ribbons and electrostats is the "relationship between the size of the driver and the wavelength the driver is reproducing."


A small flat driver (with no horn) won't have a dispersion pattern any wider than a large one.

Nope. It turns out that's not true.

Now, getting back to the conversation about the Magnepan 1.6's... Let's assume the tweeter is 60" tall. By the definition in the Sound Reinforcement Handbook, that means they are "highly directional" over 500Hz.

Again, I state for the record this is not objectively good or bad, it's simply a design preference from the folks who created the speakers, and the 1.6's are very good speakers. They also happen to be the EXACT opposite in almost every way from the 901's. Which is my original point: to inform the person who started the thread that these are very very different speakers and some folks will like one better than the other. Most people here would prefer the 1.6's (so would I) but it would be a big leap to go from the 901's to the 1.6's and since the original poster asked for ADVICE, I tried to explain some of the reasons he might consider staying with the 901's.

-Adam

[royphil345]

"You're right that shape effects dispersion. But the main factor determining the directional characteristics of all cones, domes, horns, ribbons and electrostats is the "relationship between the size of the driver and the wavelength the driver is reproducing."

ABSOLUTELY WRONG


"As the frequency rises, the wavelength gets shorter, and the directional pattern of the CONE very gradually narrows"


It's unlikely that you'll be giving anyone a lesson in physics anytime soon!

It's true that higher frequencies are more directional. It's true that a larger CONE driver (that's what it says in your handbook, read it again) will be a little more directional with higher frequencies than lower frequencies. But it's very basic physics that the direction sound waves travel in is governed mainly by the direction in which they are launched.

You read something about the characteristics of CONE drivers, had little understanding of what you read, twisted it into a physical law that just does not exist and proceeded to give us "lessons" on physics you obviously don't understand. The BIGGEST effect on the dispersion pattern of a driver is the frequency of the sound, followed by driver shape (or horn size / shape). Higher frequencies don't travel well through the cone on a large CONE driver, where the voice coil is in the center. Which is why a large CONE driver will be slightly more directional with higher frequencies than lower ones, mainly because it's too large to reproduce high frequencies efficiently (utilizing the full surface area of the cone). Or to put it another way... In a large cone driver, the higher frequencies are actually being reproduced by a smaller area towards the center of the cone (smaller area = tighter dispertion pattern). Lower frequencies are reproduced by the whole cone (larger area = wider dispertion pattern ). Are you starting to see things more clearly? This is only a characteristic of cone speakers. There is no law in physics where sound waves take off in different directions due to the size of the transducer that's producing them. You cannot apply this rule at all to FLAT PANEL speakers. A given frequency will have the same dispersion characteristics when reproduced by a smaller or larger flat panel driver, although efficiency will suffer if the panel isn't the right size for the frequency being reproduced. YEP, this is true.

Actually, I'll go a step further and say that a larger flat panel driver will (of course, just common sense) disperse sound over a wider area. This is why ribbon speakers are often designed long. To make up for fact they are flat and have poor dispersion, the ribbons are designed larger to cover a larger area.

"The tweeter on the 1.6's is what maybe 60" tall and maybe 1" wide? This means that at high frequencies, the tweeter has a very narrow vertical dispersion pattern and a very broad horizontal dispersion pattern. This is intentional in the design of the Maggies. This narrow dispersion limits floor and ceiling 1st order reflections at high frequencies."

The tweeter is long for the exact opposite reason. It is long to cover a larger vertical area. Where are you coming up with all this utter nonsense regarding the design of the Maggies?

[Florian]

Thank you Sir!

[Resident Loser]

...is to ignore him...unless your gear costs an arm and a leg or otherwise meets his "approval" parameters, it's just plain junk in his sagacious opinion...after all what do you expect from someone who uses the etymological nightmare and virtual non-word "irregardless".

His remark that Bose 901s are "...light, small and made of plastic..." is simply an example of the depths of his vast puddle of knowledge.

And, as someone poiinted out, he seems to be a "threadjacker" par excellence...IMO more of a high handed, ego-centric troll...

jimHJJ(...but, that's just my opinion...)

[bbrunswick]

I really appreciate the spirited debate my question generated. I learned a great deal from all of you. All things considered, I am glad I asked.

[Florian]

...is to ignore him...unless your gear costs an arm and a leg or otherwise meets his "approval" parameters, it's just plain junk in his sagacious opinion...after all what do you expect from someone who uses the etymological nightmare and virtual non-word "irregardless".

His remark that Bose 901s are "...light, small and made of plastic..." is simply an example of the depths of his vast puddle of knowledge.

And, as someone poiinted out, he seems to be a "threadjacker" par excellence...IMO more of a high handed, ego-centric troll...

jimHJJ(...but, that's just my opinion...)
Thanks Looser, i do ignore you since you have no experience with good equipment and generally recommend everything that is cheap and the deal of the year. I have recommended several components and setups and talk to quite a few amount of members over the phone and they all were thankfull to finally get some real suggestion and not a general aproval of british and canadian deal speakers..

[bjornb17]

:o Settle down children and apologize :o

[dmb_fan]

Royphil345, you're absolutely wrong. But there's no way to prove it on an internet forum if I can quote from a respected industry text and you can reply with nothing but your own misinformed opinion.

I'll try again with a couple direct quotes:

http://www.soundstage.com/gettingtechnical/gettingtechnical200312.htm
"Frequency also affects dispersion, as Paul explains.

"'If I place the microphone in the center of the speaker I only know how the sound disperses on-axis. I don't know how the dispersion is changing at other angles around the speaker. Even if a speaker has a great on-axis response, it will sound terrible if the dispersion is narrow. The reflected sound interferes with good, direct sound,' he says. 'But what I do know is that dispersion diminishes as frequency increases. As the wavelengths become very, very small and the dispersion gets narrower, the sound will begin to emit like a laser beam.'

"This occurs because dispersion is dependent on the length of the wavelength relative to the radiator. If the wavelength is long relative to the size of the radiator, there will be good dispersion. Therefore, as the frequency the driver reproduces increases, its wavelength decreases until it is too short and then the driver will begin to "beam" the high-frequency sound. With a tweeter, beaming usually occurs at frequencies beyond our perception; however, with a midrange, the poor dispersion will be noticeable. And speakers with beaming problems will create "sweet spots" in the room."

http://www.integracoustics.com/MUG/MUG/articles/sources/
"Now, let’s examine planars. Suppose we have a conventional ribbon that’s ½” wide by 5’ tall & its acoustical frequency response operates from 1kHz to 30kHz. The ½" width means it will disperse laterally any wavelengths larger than ½” (IE: frequencies it can reproduce below 27kHz) if not physically obstructed by horn loading, or magnets, or mounting. However, the 5’ height diaphragm length limits vertical dispersion. Thus, it will beam frequencies above 230Hz. In order words, for all intense purposes the ribbon disperses only laterally throughout its acoustic operational band. This behavior defines a line-source & given this example you can see how it got its name."

http://www.audio-ideas.com/reviews/r8-130.html
"The Newform ribbon is entirely designed by John Meyer (that's pronounced Mayer, John being of Norwegian background on his father's side), and built by Newform. Its principal radiation characteristics are naturally limited vertical dispersion by virtue of the height of the ribbon, and very wide horizontal dispersion because of its narrowness, with no diffraction effects in the absence of a baffle and very even frequency response over a wide axis."

Again, I'm not saying that the shape of a driver will not effect dispersion. The shape will obviously effect dispersion. This is the reason some line-source arrays are curved, this is the reason Martin-Logan curves their electrostats, this is the reason dome tweeters are curved. But on a basic, unarguable, PHYSICAL level, I'm simply stating that the main factor determining the directional characteristics of all cones, domes, horns, ribbons and electrostats is the "relationship between the size of the driver and the wavelength the driver is reproducing."

If we're going to continue this silly little argument, I'll ask you to quote from someplace besides your own opinion. I hate arguing on the net, but I feel like there's so much audio disinformation out there, that when I have an opportunity to actually introduce some hard scientific information, I'm going to give it a shot.


"Actually, I'll go a step further and say that a larger flat panel driver will disperse sound over a wider area. This is why ribbon speakers are often designed long. To make up for fact they are flat and have poor dispersion, the ribbons are designed larger to cover a larger area."

This is the opposite of the truth. Line sources (of which ribbons are a great example) are vertically long specifically to limit vertical dispersion, and the longer they are, the more limited their vertical dispersion will be. Horizontally, they are thin to better increase their horizontal dispersion.

Again, if you're going to continue to tell me I'm wrong, please bring better sources than your own opinion.

-Adam

[GMichael]

I really appreciate the spirited debate my question generated. I learned a great deal from all of you. All things considered, I am glad I asked.

Oh sure, light the fuse and run.

[royphil345]

You're telling me that if I want to horizontally disperse some sound waves to the guy's house accross the street and to the right of mine.... I'd have a better chance of doing it with a small horizontally placed flat ribbon on my front porch than with a long horizontally placed flat ribbon that actually extended in front of his house? You're totally stoned!!! (It's called applying knowledge to a different problem... If you HAVE knowledge, you can do that)

I'm getting sick of this... but I quickly read some of your stuff.

The Newform ribbon, for example, does limit vertical dispertion compared to conventional speakers where a dome would disperse sound at a slant in all directions. Vertical dispertion of the Newform is pretty much limited to the height of the ribbon due to the flat design. Although, a shorter ribbon would give you even less vertical dispertion (not angle, but end result of vertical area covered). A shorter flat ribbon would make the sweet spot smaller, not larger.

"Frequency also affects dispersion" We established that... Guess you can never post enough random quotes from the internet though...

"When I quoted from the "Sound Reinforcement Handbook" (in the second printing of the second edition) it carried no more weight with you than internet quotes. Any standard physics text will support what I've been saying in this thread. Some of the laws of physics are wacky. This is one that is particularly unintuitive, but that doesn't make it any less true."

What you quoted did explain this effect in cone drivers. However, nowhere does it state that this effect effects dispersion more than driver shape. Maybe you saw that in there... Try blinking and rubbing your eyes a few times.... It's not there. So what did you prove?


"When a tweeter is long and skinny like the one in the MGMC1, the sound will have good side-to-side dispersion, while its length means that vertical dispersion will be tightly controlled"

This does not mean a shorter vertical ribbon will have better vertical dispertion than a longer one. Merely that the shorter one would have a slightly wider angle of dispertion, still covering less area. The longer ribbon gives the speaker better vertical dispersion. The skinny, flat ribbon will never on it's best day have a horizontal dispertion pattern as wide as a domed tweeter. Flat panel speakers are more directional than cone / dome speakers. This is a widely known fact. It's the SHAPE of the drivers that counts the most.

I think you are misunderstanding alot of what you read, trying to make it fit your wacky laws of physics. Alot of what you read about audio on the internet just isn't true, or is overstated to make a product sound more desirable.

Actually, after some more reading, I do see that a narrow ribbon will disperse slightly wider (a sharper angle is created when the diaphram vibrates, a ribbon isn't a perfect flat transducer either). Although, I think you are overstating this effect. A narrow ribbon still beams horizontally compared to a dome of the same width. Meaning shape has more to do with dispertion than size. A longer ribbon will definitely cover a larger area, although the dispertion angle won't be quite as great as with a shorter ribbon. Fact is, even so, a longer ribbon will, of course, cover more vertical area.

If you want to prove you understand something, you need to put it in your own words and not just copy random quotes from the internet.

I gotta' admit you had a point on this one. Driver size does effect dispertion, be it a cone or ribbon driver. You got me there. Still say driver shape will have more effect on dispertion than size, a dome will have better dispertion than a ribbon (although other problems are introduced) and a longer ribbon will cover more vertical area. The effects of ribbon length and width have a very small effect on dispertion angle and I believe are overstated by manufacturers who know the only weakness of their design (flat) is dispertion. The tweeters on the Maggies are long because if they were short the vertical sweet spot would be smaller not larger.

[bbrunswick]

Oh sure, light the fuse and run.

Listen, I wish I was smart enough to take you guys on. After a discussion about a certain Bach Cantata with the musical director of my local church, he asked me what instraments I played. I informed him that I have no musical talent at all. "Well, he said, we need good listeners too." So, I will continue in my roll as a good listener and pick up as much knowledge as I can, along the way, from experts like you.

[dmb_fan]

You're telling me that if I want to horizontally disperse some sound waves to the guy's house accross the street and to the right of mine.... I'd have a better chance of doing it with a small horizontally placed flat ribbon on my front porch than with a long horizontally placed flat ribbon that actually extended in front of his house? You're totally stoned!!!

I didn't tell you anything about the guy's house across the street. This has no relevence.


Although a shorter ribbon would give you even less vertical dispertion.

That's not true. Again, the dispersion of sound is dependant on the relationship between the size of the radiator and the size of the wavelength being reproduced. All things being equal, smaller drivers have BROADER dispersion patterns.


I think you are misunderstanding alot of what you read, trying to make it fit your wacky laws of physics. Alot of what you read about audio on the internet isn't true.

When I quoted from the "Sound Reinforcement Handbook" (in the second printing of the second edition) it carried no more weight with you than internet quotes. Any standard physics text will support what I've been saying in this thread. Some of the laws of physics are wacky. This is one that is particularly unintuitive, but that doesn't make it any less true.


If you want to prove you understand something, you need to put it in your own words and not just copy random quotes from the internet.

No, if you want to show you have an opinion, you need to put it into your own words. We are talking about physics. I don't need to put F=MA into my own words to show that I understand it. There is no room for misunderstanding here. Sound dispersion is dependent on the length of the wavelength relative to the radiator. The longer the radiator is in relation to the wavelength, the narrower the dispersion pattern will be. Quotes serve to support my postion, which isn't a "position" at all--I'm merely informing you of the way the world works.

I've used my own words and the words of others. Here's another quote explaining the relationship between wavelength and driver size. I can supply well-informed quotes all day. But then again, you can probably offer your misinformed opinion all day as well.

http://www.hometheatermag.com/floorloudspeakers/104mag/
"Flat-panel speakers generally radiate their sonic energy in a way that's fundamentally different from box speakers, and this is largely responsible for their unique sonic qualities. The small dome tweeters that most conventional speakers use have excellent dispersion and radiate sound in a fairly even hemispherical pattern, yet the rules of physics tell us that, as the size of a driver increases, its output becomes progressively more directional, resulting in a speaker that will beam quite noticeably. This beaming becomes increasingly pronounced as you go higher in frequency; with some speakers, there's a clearly delineated sweet spot, outside of which the treble response falls off quite sharply. When a tweeter is long and skinny like the one in the MGMC1, the sound will have good side-to-side dispersion, while its length means that vertical dispersion will be tightly controlled."

Find a reputable reference that supports your position and we can further this discussion. This is a learning opportunity for you. Do some research. Take this opportunity to learn something new about a hobby we all obviously enjoy.

-Adam

[Feanor]

"...
Actually, I'll go a step further and say that a larger flat panel driver will (of course, just common sense) disperse sound over a wider area. This is why ribbon speakers are often designed long. To make up for fact they are flat and have poor dispersion, the ribbons are designed larger to cover a larger area.

"The tweeter on the 1.6's is what maybe 60" tall and maybe 1" wide? This means that at high frequencies, the tweeter has a very narrow vertical dispersion pattern and a very broad horizontal dispersion pattern. This is intentional in the design of the Maggies. This narrow dispersion limits floor and ceiling 1st order reflections at high frequencies."

The tweeter is long for the exact opposite reason. It is long to cover a larger vertical area. Where are you coming up with all this utter nonsense regarding the design of the Maggies?
By "large", do you mean long or wide? A wide panel will have a narrower horizontal dispersion than a narrower panel. Yes, its true! In this respect a panel obeys the same rule as a cone speaker. The height of the panel is irrelevant for horizontal dispersion.

The 1.6's quasi-ribbon tweeter panel is about 2" wide; its horizontal dispersion is much narrower than the 3.6's true-ribbon tweeter that is about 0.5" wide.

[Resident Loser]

Thanks Looser, i do ignore you since you have no experience with good equipment and generally recommend everything that is cheap and the deal of the year. I have recommended several components and setups and talk to quite a few amount of members over the phone and they all were thankfull to finally get some real suggestion and not a general aproval of british and canadian deal speakers..

...of my experience regarding performing, recording or the playback equipment I use and have used...and I don't recall advising anyone, anywhere to purchase anything specific at any time...I tell them to listen...

If there are any price limits, they are set by the person asking the question. It makes no sense whatsoever to suggest expensive, esoteric gear when budget constraints preclude such expenditures. Your typical nose-in-the-air behavior does a disservice to the poster, fostering doubts that might cause them to give up on the hobby(or at very least this site) simply because your ego-centric idea of "the best" is priced at a level most cannot afford.

Furthermore, no one, least of all you(who again, seems to invariably equate expen$e with performance), is any sort of arbiter as to what might best fit the needs or perception requirements of those seeking assistance. Denigrating gear on the basis of your resultant opinion means zip...zero...nada...squat...bupkiss!

jimHJJ(...having more money than brains doesn't make you an exspurt...)

[GMichael]

Listen, I wish I was smart enough to take you guys on. After a discussion about a certain Bach Cantata with the musical director of my local church, he asked me what instraments I played. I informed him that I have no musical talent at all. "Well, he said, we need good listeners too." So, I will continue in my roll as a good listener and pick up as much knowledge as I can, along the way, from experts like you.

hahaha sorry dude. I was just playin' with ya. I'm no expert that I know of.

Enjoy the music.

[bbrunswick]

...of my experience regarding performing, recording or the playback equipment I use and have used...and I don't recall advising anyone, anywhere to purchase anything specific at any time...I tell them to listen...

If there are any price limits, they are set by the person asking the question. It makes no sense whatsoever to suggest expensive, esoteric gear when budget constraints preclude such expenditures. Your typical nose-in-the-air behavior does a disservice to the poster, fostering doubts that might cause them to give up on the hobby(or at very least this site) simply because your ego-centric idea of "the best" is priced at a level most cannot afford.

Furthermore, no one, least of all you(who again, seems to invariably equate expen$e with performance), is any sort of arbiter as to what might best fit the needs or perception requirements of those seeking assistance. Denigrating gear on the basis of your resultant opinion means zip...zero...nada...squat...bupkiss!

jimHJJ(...having more money than brains doesn't make you an exspurt...)

I think that this is an excellent point. Unfortunately, most of us do approach this as a hobby and must endure the privations imposed by a household budget. It seems to me that there is a bell curve that lets us get to very good sonic space without going into foreclosure. This is why my system upgrade includes modifications to existing solid electronics. In the speaker arena, I am forced to look for the best bang for the buck (which is how I chose the Advents and later, the 901s). The 1.6s appear to be in this same category, in that they produce high-end sound at a reasonable price (especially used). My plain and simple goal is to enjoy the best possible sonic experience within the constraints of my budget. I admire Florian's dedication and committment of resources. Unfortunately, I can now only afford to be an audiophile 20 years ago.

[royphil345]

I didn't hear Florian say anything bad about the Maggies. As was just pointed out, they are a strong value.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

By "large", do you mean long or wide? A wide panel will have a narrower horizontal dispersion than a narrower panel. Yes, its true! In this respect a panel obeys the same rule as a cone speaker. The height of the panel is irrelevant for horizontal dispersion.

The 1.6's quasi-ribbon tweeter panel is about 2" wide; its horizontal dispersion is much narrower than the 3.6's true-ribbon tweeter that is about 0.5" wide.

Feanor,
This is what I thought. So I am somewhat confused at the direction this debate is taking. I also thought that how the panel was oriented(vertical for broad horizontal dispersion, and horizontal for broad vertical dispersion pattern) was also a factor.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I do not want to put myself in the position of defending the 901s, but, in a spirit of fairness, I must point out that the 901s are made nearly completely of wood, not plastic, weigh about the same as the 1.6s (35-40 pounds each) and do, indeed, reproduce high frequencies to the threshold of human hearing and beyond. As to how loud they play, my goal when I replaced my stacked Advents 20+ years ago was not to see how hard I could drive the 901's, but to be able to accurately reproduce the sound level I would perceive sitting in a concert hall listening to an orchestral crescendo without blowing a line fuse. Granted, the sound produced by my then amplifier, a Phase Linear 400, could have contributed to that particular problem. After graduating to the Hafler DH200 I have used for nearly 20 years, I was content. I have listened to Magneplaners at various points and was impressed, but not blown away. I never really knew whether the speakers or the exotic electronics that usually accompanied them was the reason for the improvement in sound. I now am improving my electronics to the point that an upgrade to my speakers would be logical. This is the reason I am soliciting the opinions of knowledgable people who are familiar with both technologies. Based upon the responses that you, Florian have provided, I feel it is necessary to ask about your level of familarity with the Bose 901s. I detect just the slightest amount of sarcasm in your responses, yet your grasp of the 901 listening experience seems to me to be, shall we say, a bit shallow. Forgive me if I am wrong about this.

BBrunswick,
With all due respect to you, the 901's are known to roll off rapidly above 12khz. They are also have a tendency for high distortion below 80hz if played even moderately loud. If you limited their ouput below 80hz, you could probably play them quite loud, but then you would have increased distortion above 12khz.While the external EQ can compensate for the speakers lack of deep bass and higher frequencies, it does so with the penalty of reducing a amps headroom, and increasing distortion from driver over excursion. It also suffers from the doppler effect of having the same drivers reproduce deep bass and high frequency simultaneously. There are some drawback to trying to reproduce concert hall like diffusion.

These speakers were based on a premise that cannot successfully be done in the home. They smear fine detail, can produce very bloated images, and are known to not have a even frequency response due to comb filtering of all the drivers and the reflections they produce. It was also known to acerbate standing waves in most rooms that they are setup in. So while they have a broad concert hall like dispersion pattern that most owners of the speakers liked, they also had quite a few drawbacks that decreased their sound quality.

[royphil345]

"Feanor,
This is what I thought. So I am somewhat confused at the direction this debate is taking. I also thought that how the panel was oriented(vertical for broad horizontal dispersion, and horizontal for broad vertical dispersion pattern) was also a factor."




Yes, I have just learned that this is true. I'll admit I was wrong about that... I lose... I'll write on the board 500 times... The size of any driver, be it cone or ribbon, effects the dispertion pattern.

The whole debate really started over if the size or shape of a driver was more important to the dispertion pattern though.

I still say shape. Think he's overstating the effects of size. A dome will out-disperse any ribbon, any time. Vertically or horizontally...LOL

And he said that Maggies were designed with a long ribbon to limit floor / ceiling reflections. In fact, if the ribbons were short, they'd hit nowhere near the floor or ceiling and you'd have to keep your head in a very small vertical space to not notice dropoffs in the highs. The short ribbons would have a slightly wider angle of dispertion, but not the coverage of the tall ribbon with a slightly narrower angle of dispertion.

Basically, this is stuff I knew to be true from experience. Sure... the reasons I came up with to try and prove it were total crap!!!... oh well... LOL

I have to call this one a draw... and I did learn things.... So... all is well!!!

[dmb_fan]

royphil345,
All is well, indeed! My apologies for any of my replies that were testy. I'm in the middle of a database upgrade at work and am putting in long hours with a frustrating situation.

I'm glad to see Terrence posting some more detailed info on the 901's. I agree with everything posted there re: doppler effect and comb filtering and standing waves. These are serious problems that would definitely stop me from ever purchasing 901's.

The only quality measurements I've seen on the frequency response of the 901's had them rolling off sharply at 16Khz, not 12Khz, but that's splitting hairs; there are only a couple half-tones in between there. Besides, it's still not the 20Khz+ fidelity most of us like to see in a loudspeaker (even if we can't hear that high anymore). :) For what it's worth, on the bottom-end these measurements also reported the 901's dropping off sharply at 50Hz. I wish I still had the article, but I don't.

I haven't seen any measurements indicating high distortion below 80Hz. The 9 x 4.5" drivers on each 901 have roughly the same surface area of a 12" driver and in my experience can perform quite well (i.e. quite loud and free from distortion) down to their limits around 50Hz. Of course, you still get the doppler effect and intermodulation distortion inherent in any "full-range" driver. (notice full range in quotes) :)

My understanding is that the original couple series of 901's were sealed instead of ported and rolled off much more gradually than the past few series.

Anyhow, just a little more fuel for the 901 fire. :)

-Adam

[royphil345]

royphil345,
All is well, indeed! My apologies for any of my replies that were testy. I'm in the middle of a database upgrade at work and am putting in long hours with a frustrating situation.
-Adam

Good... my apologies as well... Had a rough day myself...

Nothing wrong with a spirited debate from time to time anyhow... I can take it... I really try not to hold onto pigheaded opinions like many people on internet message boards and really do try to understand the other side of a debate, even if it gets a little heated. Not afraid to learn things and admit when I'm wrong. I even learned how to use the quote box thing finally... see?

[thepogue]

my thoughts!!....nicely said.

Pogue



...is to ignore him...unless your gear costs an arm and a leg or otherwise meets his "approval" parameters, it's just plain junk in his sagacious opinion...after all what do you expect from someone who uses the etymological nightmare and virtual non-word "irregardless".

His remark that Bose 901s are "...light, small and made of plastic..." is simply an example of the depths of his vast puddle of knowledge.

And, as someone poiinted out, he seems to be a "threadjacker" par excellence...IMO more of a high handed, ego-centric troll...

jimHJJ(...but, that's just my opinion...)

[bbrunswick]

royphil345,
All is well, indeed! My apologies for any of my replies that were testy. I'm in the middle of a database upgrade at work and am putting in long hours with a frustrating situation.

I'm glad to see Terrence posting some more detailed info on the 901's. I agree with everything posted there re: doppler effect and comb filtering and standing waves. These are serious problems that would definitely stop me from ever purchasing 901's.

The only quality measurements I've seen on the frequency response of the 901's had them rolling off sharply at 16Khz, not 12Khz, but that's splitting hairs; there are only a couple half-tones in between there. Besides, it's still not the 20Khz+ fidelity most of us like to see in a loudspeaker (even if we can't hear that high anymore). :) For what it's worth, on the bottom-end these measurements also reported the 901's dropping off sharply at 50Hz. I wish I still had the article, but I don't.

I haven't seen any measurements indicating high distortion below 80Hz. The 9 x 4.5" drivers on each 901 have roughly the same surface area of a 12" driver and in my experience can perform quite well (i.e. quite loud and free from distortion) down to their limits around 50Hz. Of course, you still get the doppler effect and intermodulation distortion inherent in any "full-range" driver. (notice full range in quotes) :)

My understanding is that the original couple series of 901's were sealed instead of ported and rolled off much more gradually than the past few series.

Anyhow, just a little more fuel for the 901 fire. :)

-Adam

Thanks to both you and Terrance for the great responses to my question. I am beginning to understand the issues the have been expressed as opinions thus far. Of course, I would never use the 901s without the equalizer, and I can see the trade offs it presents. However, on the Stereophile forum, one of the rave reviews of the Magnepan 1.6s strongly recommends the use of the REL Storm III subwoofer to significantly enhance the sound quality of those speakers. Wouldn't a good subwoofer eliminate many of the problems you mention in the 901s?

[dmb_fan]

Wouldn't a good subwoofer eliminate many of the problems you mention in the 901s?

Yes. In fact, if you're looking for improved low frequency performance, an interesting place to start might be to add a decent subwoofer and cross the 901's over at 80Hz. This would greatly reduce intermodulation distortion, overexcursion, the doplar effect, some of the standing wave issues (below 80Hz) etc. But it wouldn't do anything about the comb filtering and the high-frequency roll-off.

This might be the time to post another thread asking for replacement suggestions for the 901s. You'll get a ton of good suggestions for all sorts of speakers.

I liked your comment earlier about only being able to be an audiophile from twenty years ago. That's the way to go! :) I recently bought a pair of top-of-the-line Thiels from circa 1990, and I think they're as good or better than anything on the market for less than several thousand dollars.

Anyway, my point is, it might help to move the discussion to what sorts of music you listen to at what kinds of volumes in what kind of room and what speakers might be a good match for this.

Likewise, adding a subwoofer is a specific decision that makes a lot of sense sometimes and a lot less sense in other situations. Whether to add a sub to your favorite speakers is a whole 'nother topic.

Happy hunting!
-Adam

[gonefishin]

Listen, I wish I was smart enough to take you guys on. After a discussion about a certain Bach Cantata with the musical director of my local church, he asked me what instraments I played. I informed him that I have no musical talent at all. "Well, he said, we need good listeners too." So, I will continue in my roll as a good listener and pick up as much knowledge as I can, along the way, from experts like you.


Wow...this is such great advice! (with exception to the last part...where you make reference to listening to the experts here. It would be good practice to take the rest of your advice though...and use guidence from the other opinions you may find here...at other websites and in magazines. ;) )

If your able...take your time...and have fun!

dan

[bbrunswick]

Yes. In fact, if you're looking for improved low frequency performance, an interesting place to start might be to add a decent subwoofer and cross the 901's over at 80Hz. This would greatly reduce intermodulation distortion, overexcursion, the doplar effect, some of the standing wave issues (below 80Hz) etc. But it wouldn't do anything about the comb filtering and the high-frequency roll-off.

This might be the time to post another thread asking for replacement suggestions for the 901s. You'll get a ton of good suggestions for all sorts of speakers.

I liked your comment earlier about only being able to be an audiophile from twenty years ago. That's the way to go! :) I recently bought a pair of top-of-the-line Thiels from circa 1990, and I think they're as good or better than anything on the market for less than several thousand dollars.

Anyway, my point is, it might help to move the discussion to what sorts of music you listen to at what kinds of volumes in what kind of room and what speakers might be a good match for this.

Likewise, adding a subwoofer is a specific decision that makes a lot of sense sometimes and a lot less sense in other situations. Whether to add a sub to your favorite speakers is a whole 'nother topic.

Happy hunting!
-Adam

My choices in music are part of my problem. I am something of a musical omnivour in that I enjoy virtually all music types (with the possible exception of country) ranging from jazz (DBT), to funk (Prince), to fusion (DMB), to orchestral, to boroque, to choral, to classical, to rock, to Broadway, to disco, to the jam bands, to hip hop, to blue grass, etc. I do not want to engineer a system to the exclusion of any music type. The speakers will live in a 20x20 room with reasonably good acoustics and will not be part of a home theater setup. As to volume, I am looking to approach the sound level I might encounter in a live performance. This does not mean a big box venue sitting 20 feet from a monster speaker tower while someone sets fire to his guitar. More like standing 20 feet from Ramsey Lewis playing the piano. I do, however want to cry when I hear the cannon report during the 1812 Overture. By the way, I assume we are talking about the same DMB.

[dmb_fan]

By the way, I assume we are talking about the same DMB.

Been to 40 shows and still going strong! I'm the only one in the office at 10:40pm, which means I'm trying to blow my computer speakers with a little live "Jimi Thing" from Worcester Mass. in 1998.

More speaker suggestions tomorrow...

Best,
Adam

[Hoho]

… if the reduced overexcursion would improve the treble as well as the bass.

[spacedeckman]

I do not want to put myself in the position of defending the 901s, but, in a spirit of fairness, I must point out that the 901s are made nearly completely of wood, not plastic, weigh about the same as the 1.6s (35-40 pounds each) and do, indeed, reproduce high frequencies to the threshold of human hearing and beyond. As to how loud they play, my goal when I replaced my stacked Advents 20+ years ago was not to see how hard I could drive the 901's, but to be able to accurately reproduce the sound level I would perceive sitting in a concert hall listening to an orchestral crescendo without blowing a line fuse. Granted, the sound produced by my then amplifier, a Phase Linear 400, could have contributed to that particular problem. After graduating to the Hafler DH200 I have used for nearly 20 years, I was content. I have listened to Magneplaners at various points and was impressed, but not blown away. I never really knew whether the speakers or the exotic electronics that usually accompanied them was the reason for the improvement in sound. I now am improving my electronics to the point that an upgrade to my speakers would be logical. This is the reason I am soliciting the opinions of knowledgable people who are familiar with both technologies. Based upon the responses that you, Florian have provided, I feel it is necessary to ask about your level of familarity with the Bose 901s. I detect just the slightest amount of sarcasm in your responses, yet your grasp of the 901 listening experience seems to me to be, shall we say, a bit shallow. Forgive me if I am wrong about this.

I can help you on many fronts here. I've driven Maggies with a LARGE variety of electronics from a small high quality receiver (20w), to tubes, to BIG solid state power amps. They are enjoyable with all of the above. I enjoyed mine.

Later model 901s (IV series onward) are indeed mostly plastic with veneered particle board top and bottom. Unfortunately the plastic is highly resonant.