Bose 901's [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Bose 901's



vandalfsens
01-12-2007, 03:19 PM
The lightning rod of controversy! Bose 901's! But how do they really work?

What does the required equalizer actually do and how do they get away with all of the tiny little drivers?

I've had them before, hooked up to my all-Carver system from the mid-90's and I thought they weren't too bad but I really just want to know besides the "direct-reflecting" stuff, how exactly are they different from a "normal" speaker?

JohnMichael
01-12-2007, 04:36 PM
The lightning rod of controversy! Bose 901's! But how do they really work?

What does the required equalizer actually do and how do they get away with all of the tiny little drivers?

I've had them before, hooked up to my all-Carver system from the mid-90's and I thought they weren't too bad but I really just want to know besides the "direct-reflecting" stuff, how exactly are they different from a "normal" speaker?


Bose 901's are designed to give you the diffuse soundfield of a concert hall. Other speakers like the Shahinian Obelisk also give a diffuse sound by having drivers on many sides of the enclosure. The 901's as you know use 9 full range drivers that require a fair amount of eq to sound balanced. Many feel that the early measurements in the concert hall to create the balance of direct/reflected sound was done too far back in the concert hall. The 901's have 11% direct and 89% reflected. It is a matter of personal tastes if you like the sound.

I prefer a point source speaker which are usually small two ways. They image well and for me I find them the most enjoyable. Listen to all types and decide what works for you.

78vette
01-12-2007, 05:52 PM
The lightning rod of controversy! Bose 901's! But how do they really work?


I agree with JohnMichael. The 901's are a special speaker. How DO they work with 9 small identical drivers and no X-overs??? Amar was a pretty smart guy in my opinion. I will always be impressed with the fact that you can get that much sound from such small speakers, and I am not sure that all of the controversy is not doing Bose some good. At least they are constantly being talked about, which I am sure some other speaker companies would love to hear about their product.

No matter what your opinion is of Bose, you cannot take away the fact that these 901's have been around for so long, largely unchanged. Is there any other speaker in the history of stereo that has done that?

Florian
01-12-2007, 08:09 PM
McDonalds burgers have been around a long time too, unchanged.But they are still ****!

Bottom line: Bose is a absolutly horrible value , the construction is pure garbage, they have an incredibly none-existing response, tons of money for commercials and have sadly enough people with no good hearing that buy them.

SAEA501
01-13-2007, 05:12 AM
I have to hand it to Bose as a company. This is an icredibly successful marketing company. They have convinced a great number of consumers that their product is the "best", and as a result, have sold mass quantities of their ersatz speakers to unsuspecting victims. How mant times have heard people say something to the effect that Bose is the be all end all?

Here is a really good article that speaks to the technical realities behind Bose's imitation speakers and the rest of their pretend hi fi. Some of you all may have seeen it, but it's still fun to read.

http://www.intellexual.net/bose.html

Florian
01-13-2007, 06:09 AM
In the industry, "BOSE" is considered an acronym for "Buy Other Sound Equipment"


:cornut::cornut::cornut::cornut::cornut::cornut::c ornut:

emaidel
01-13-2007, 06:22 AM
I have to hand it to Bose as a company. This is an icredibly successful marketing company.


I too have to hand it to Bose for their incredibly clever marketing. In the late 70's, and early 80's, Bose dealers had to dedicate an entire wall in their store exclusively to Bose products. In return, Bose personnel provided a plethora of Point of Purchase (POP) items to further "demonstrate" their silly claims of the benefits, etc. of "reflected" sound. Most of the dealers thought that the product was awful, but the ease of selling the product (due to the combination of Bose's advertising, and the POP materials in the store) made Bose a top-seller in most of those retailers.

Presently, I own the large Bose "Acoustic Wave" radio/CD player. I didn't purchase it, but actually received it free as part of a Nissan/Bose promotion. I have to admit it sounds very nice indeed, but $1,200 nice? Not a chance!

Speaker manufacturers who make better speakers than Bose (and that includes just about all of them!) could learn a thing or two from Bose's marketing savvy, instead of just attacking it.

Florian
01-13-2007, 06:36 AM
You guys need to watch out on this "reflected" sound, the idea of using reflections is very clever and used in many Studios. BOSE just used it with their Silly Products

audio_dude
01-13-2007, 07:42 AM
yeah, bose doesn't suck, but they charge waaaayyyyy too much for what they sell.

I recently convinced some friends to not buy a bose iPod dock and go with a Kilpsch one, they're very happy with it!

(btw flo, i like the new sig, nice and simple... but id you'll excuse me, i have to go mop up this drool)

basite
01-13-2007, 07:51 AM
these 901's have been around for so long, largely unchanged. Is there any other speaker in the history of stereo that has done that?

yes, the klipshhorn for example, which has been in production since 1946, which is long before there even was a bose...

bose isn't really bad bad, just, you pay alot of money, and get something you can do better with a system that is 1/3 of the price.
people buy bose because of the mass name, they see it's expensive, so they think it's the top of the line and that all the rest is crap,

people, wake up, there is much better than bose.

also, why do they always hide the bose systems sub in shops? marketing trick?


Keep them spinning,
Bert.

thekid
01-14-2007, 06:28 AM
How to make a "Lightning Rod of Controversy" (i.e. typical Bose thread)

Ingredients needed;

5% actual info
50% BS
45% kerosene

Stir
Add match
Consume quickly after fire has burned

Resident Loser
01-15-2007, 10:53 AM
...enjoyed my 901 Series ll ( the last of the acoustic suspension models) for over thirty years now (way before the Lifestyle/Acoustimass products) and never really entertained any thoughts of replacing them...

As JM pointed out, they present a completely different soundfield when compared to conventional direct radiators...In light of that fact, comparing the two is a fool's errand...two completely different presentations, you will either like them or you won't...

jimHJJ(...as it happens, they work for me...)

njspeer
01-15-2007, 05:47 PM
You could almost make the definition of a so-called Audiophile: "Stereo enthusiast who thinks he's smarter than he really is." Thinking you're smarter than you really are is a weakness, and it often renders one easily deceived or duped. As a result most audiophiles feel the insatiable urge to criticize whatever is popular with the lay people. When it comes to the Bose corporation, everything has to be explained as a complicated multi-decade conspiracy to fool the masses, and only audiophiles know the true nature of the corporation. Never mind Ochman's razor or the simplest explanation here. Conventional wisdom among audiophiles is: The Bose corporation, rather than develop products that people actually want, decided instead to spent billions of dollars engaging in a cynical propaganda campaign designed to brainwash the unenlightened into wanting their products.

Well, call me unenlightened then, because my 901 series II speakers sound damn good. I don't care what the self proclaimed stero-intelligentsia says. I prefer the diffuse sound the speakers produce; they fill my entire house with warm music. Moreover, they can produce ample sound down to frequencies I can feel more than hear. And to top it all off, they look very cool on chrome stands in my 1930s Bungalow. Everyone that's seen them has commented on how cool they look, and that's before they hear them. Hooked up to my vintage Sansui 9090db, they will blow you away. And to top it off, I picked mine up for $275. Call me unenlightened, but I've yet to hear anything that sounds that good, let alone for under $300.

BTW, most of the Bose bashing is aimed towards their Acoustimass speakers, with the most of the complaining focused on the sound/price ratio, but when pushed to offer an alternative it's always some speaker thats substantially larger in size. So, here's a question for you: Is there a home theater speaker system that's as small or smaller than Bose that sounds as good or better? I don't know the answer, haven't bothered to look, but I'm guessing the answer is no.

bobsticks
01-15-2007, 05:58 PM
Occam's or Ockham's razor

JoeE SP9
01-15-2007, 06:07 PM
Even I would admit that the earlier 901's didn't sound half bad. When they started using plastic cabinets the sound quality went down hill fast and far.
There are those of us for whom good sound is not dictated by the size of the enclosure. I personally buy speakers that sound good! Size is not a consideration.
As far as hiding speakers, most people don't know my ESL's are speakers until they ask "Where is the sound coming from?". When I point to my panels the response I most often hear is "I thought they were room dividers". :cool:

njspeer
01-15-2007, 07:23 PM
Occam's or Ockham's razor


I can't spell for crap. Thanks

thekid
01-15-2007, 07:43 PM
You could almost make the definition of a so-called Audiophile: "Stereo enthusiast who thinks he's smarter than he really is." Thinking you're smarter than you really are is a weakness, and it often renders one easily deceived or duped. As a result most audiophiles feel the insatiable urge to criticize whatever is popular with the lay people. When it comes to the Bose corporation, everything has to be explained as a complicated multi-decade conspiracy to fool the masses, and only audiophiles know the true nature of the corporation. Never mind Ochman's razor or the simplest explanation here. Conventional wisdom among audiophiles is: The Bose corporation, rather than develop products that people actually want, decided instead to spent billions of dollars engaging in a cynical propaganda campaign designed to brainwash the unenlightened into wanting their products.

Well, call me unenlightened then, because my 901 series II speakers sound damn good. I don't care what the self proclaimed stero-intelligentsia says. I prefer the diffuse sound the speakers produce; they fill my entire house with warm music. Moreover, they can produce ample sound down to frequencies I can feel more than hear. And to top it all off, they look very cool on chrome stands in my 1930s Bungalow. Everyone that's seen them has commented on how cool they look, and that's before they hear them. Hooked up to my vintage Sansui 9090db, they will blow you away. And to top it off, I picked mine up for $275. Call me unenlightened, but I've yet to hear anything that sounds that good, let alone for under $300.

BTW, most of the Bose bashing is aimed towards their Acoustimass speakers, with the most of the complaining focused on the sound/price ratio, but when pushed to offer an alternative it's always some speaker thats substantially larger in size. So, here's a question for you: Is there a home theater speaker system that's as small or smaller than Bose that sounds as good or better? I don't know the answer, haven't bothered to look, but I'm guessing the answer is no.

NJ-
Your response was far more eloquent to what I thought was going to turn into another ordinary Bose bashing thread. The original question struck me a little as trolling i.e new member who seemed to sense they were lighting a match...... :)

emaidel
01-22-2007, 06:40 AM
I picked mine up for $275. Call me unenlightened, but I've yet to hear anything that sounds that good, let alone for under $300.

.


The original 901 sold for $1,400 the pair, plus the cost of stands. I have no idea what they sell for today, but I know that the price escalated annually.

My comments about Bose don't necessarily come under the heading of "Bose-bashing," but rather illustrate the poor performance/price ratio of Bose products. I don't think a single Bose product was ever downright lousy - you could just about always do a whole helluva lot better, for a whole helluva lot less money.

Still, as a marketing company, Bose is on a plateau no one else ever reached. Now, if Bose spent as much money on engineering and parts, as they do on advertising, then you'd really have something to shout about!

Resident Loser
01-22-2007, 07:50 AM
The original 901 sold for $1,400 the pair, plus the cost of stands. I have no idea what they sell for today, but I know that the price escalated annually....

...back in '74-'75 (back in the days of the 'fair-trade' laws) the last acoustic-suspension models, Series Two 901s MSRPd @$525 the pair incl EQ...stands were extra...$1400 is the current list price for the ported version...

jimHJJ(...stands are still extra...and in '74 coffee used to come in full one-pound cans for <$1.00...now it's nearly $5 for 11.5 ozs...you do the math...)

emaidel
01-22-2007, 08:57 AM
You're correct in that my quote of $1,400 for original Bose 901's is wrong, but I don't think your price quote is right either: I worked for ESS from 1979-1981, and one of the company's ad campaigns was called, "ESS Wins on Campus." Double-blind listening tests were performed at various colleges across the U.S., and ESS delighted in having one of its inexpensive "Performance" models consistently outscoring the Bose 901. At the time, the 901 cost just under $1,000 for the pair, so I guess we're equally "wrong."

vandalfsens
01-22-2007, 02:44 PM
But I was only wanting to know simply how they work...

I too have had 901's in my house. I too liked the way they sounded when hooked up to my all- Carver system. But when I went to my Denon 1804 and DVD player I opted for Paradigm v.3 Legends and ditched my 901's.

What does the equalizer do, actually? Take the place of crossovers?

Peter Duminy
01-22-2007, 03:51 PM
But I was only wanting to know simply how they work...

This article and test review will probably answer all your qustions here. (http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/425/index.html)

It maybe old, but the technology remains the same. Bose'e comments at the end of the Review are puzzling to say the least.

Resident Loser
01-23-2007, 05:38 AM
You're correct in that my quote of $1,400 for original Bose 901's is wrong, but I don't think your price quote is right either: I worked for ESS from 1979-1981, and one of the company's ad campaigns was called, "ESS Wins on Campus." Double-blind listening tests were performed at various colleges across the U.S., and ESS delighted in having one of its inexpensive "Performance" models consistently outscoring the Bose 901. At the time, the 901 cost just under $1,000 for the pair, so I guess we're equally "wrong."

...determine, they were $476 pr w/ EQ when Julian Hirsch first reviewd them in High Fidelity in '68...As stated, in '74-'75, as per my copy of the High Fidelity Buyers Guide, they MSRPd for five-and-a-quarter (I purchased mine as part of a "package" to do an end-run around those 'fair-trade' laws and saved around $200 on the speaks/stands, Pioneer 9100 series int amp/tuner, a Phillips 212 TT and a Stanton 681EE cart) and around 900 clams in '85...so for the time period you mention, I'd have to take an edumacated guess at around $750 or so...I'd further guess only one of us is wrong...

jimHJJ(...hint: it ain't me babe...)

Resident Loser
01-23-2007, 06:19 AM
But I was only wanting to know simply how they work...

I too have had 901's in my house. I too liked the way they sounded when hooked up to my all- Carver system. But when I went to my Denon 1804 and DVD player I opted for Paradigm v.3 Legends and ditched my 901's.

What does the equalizer do, actually? Take the place of crossovers?

...neither have, nor do they need Xovers,...each speaker cabinet contains nine identical (and supposedly matched) 4.5 in. full-range drivers...These are essentially mid-range...however (and this is where the EQ comes in) approx. 18dB of bass boost is applied at low freqs...Since the drivers have an excursion (fore and aft cone movement) of +/- 1/4", they can handle that level of boost...also the 9 drivers have an effective radiating area of a 12" woofer with less moving mass than a single 12" speaker would...This translates into better control of the low-freq signal...IMNSHO, very tight , well defined and extended bass...The EQ also provides some boost and a certain amount of control over the high-freqs as it's actually the drivers' dust caps that mimic the response of conventional tweeters...

My reference point is the Series ll of the breed and previous info also applies to the original acoustic suspension models which required a minimum of 100W/pc...Series lll and beyond are ported models with injection-molded enclosures and while they have wood trim, are indeed some sort of plastic, as wood is impractical for constructing the acoustic-labyrinth that they contain...This arrangement allows them to be powered by as little as 10Watts...I haven't really done any extended listening to the later models, so I'll reserve judgement...however, anecdotally, they have been characterized by some, as not up to the same level as the first and second models...

They aren't for everyone and really do require a bit of involvement with regard to placement (I built a reflecting wall for my left channel) and even in listening...the soundfield produced by their design concept is radically different than that of any direct-radiator speaker system...but once you put aside the conventional boom and blare and dismiss any preconcieved notions of what is or isn't hi-fi and really listen into them, that's when they do their thing...

jimHJJ(...thirty years and counting...)

emaidel
01-23-2007, 06:40 AM
. ...so for the time period you mention, I'd have to take an edumacated guess at around $750 or so...I'd further guess only one of us is wrong...

jimHJJ(...hint: it ain't me babe...)

I concede.

BizmanJoe
04-02-2008, 12:48 AM
I just had to chime in on this old thread.

I currently have a Klipsch HT speaker system with a Klipsch subwoofer (KSB 3.1, KSB 2.1, KSB 2.1, KSC-C1, KSW150). The sound is just awesome with a high current amplifier/receiver like the HK7300 (I wish HK made a 130W x 7.1 receiver in the current line... but HK specs are misleading due to the nature of the high current design and all channels driven specs. Pioneer Elite 94TXH clips at 61W when all 7 channels are driven, unlike the HK7300 which clips @ 111W when all 7 channels are driven).

As much as I like my current Klipsch setup, I still MISS the pair of 901V's I used to own in the 80's and 90's. For those of you Bose 901 bashers... it's obvious you haven't gotten even the basics of proper speaker placement and room equalization for the 901's. The 901 speaker placement is CRITICAL, as is the proper equalization with the active 901 EQ that comes with the set. Once said and done, the 901's audio reproduction flows like no other speakers I've ever listened to. Nothing else I've heard so far within a $1,500 - $8,000 price range comes close to producing such an incredible soundstage... where if I close my eyes, I actually FEEL as if I'm at a live performance. The entire wall lights up with life-like sound and it really is amazing how the 901's just disappear into the music. Frankly, I never needed a subwoofer with the 901's, because the bass reproduction was just amazing in the way I had the 901's set up. I gave up my 901's when I got divorced, and settled on a Klipsch KSB 2.1 + KSW 150 subwoofer setup, which sounded awesome in the small confines of my new apartment. It then evolved to two more sets of KSB's plus a Klipsch center channel, but for ONE pair of speakers such as the 901's, I have NOT yet met an equal in the speaker industry for the overall soundstage characterstics that the 901's are capable of... and I've auditioned quite a number of prestigeous brands and well reviewed speakers in the last 20 plus years...

armyscout42
04-06-2010, 02:54 AM
I owned the bose 901 v in the mid 80's and had STACKED pairs which sounded better than just one pair. I used sound processors like dbx expanders and carver sonic holography to make it sound even far better. The problem with bose 901's is that it does not produce tight punchy bass lines on most materials. If the music is chamber or classical it sounds more applicable for such material. Loudspeakers like anything else is always personal taste. There's not a single loudspeakers design that's goingto satisfy everyone. To simply say that bose 901 is the best thing one's heard compared to other is a bias opinion as much as the horn, planar, electrostat and dynamic line source designs ONLY users. I have owned so many designs like that mentioned including bose 901's and 601's, they all sounded different and have their strength and weaknesses. I find for me, the combination of technologies like using a pair of OHM walsh acoustics and mangepans or eminent tech planars to sound far more realistic than any bose 901 in every program material. Not even in the same category to my ears. I loved my bose 901
s in the 80's and early 90's but until I discovered the world of planars, electrostats and CLS or coherent line source from OHM acoustics, to me it's not even in the same boat.
Bose 901 lack real bass and voice reproduction. It only excels in reflections but coaxial designs have always been weak in performance compared to multiple ribbon and dynamic drivers and planar/ribbon or electrostat designs. bose 901's are ok, but it's a matter of what sounds good to your ears. Planars and electrostats are not for everyone either. some would prefer professional loudspeakers like JBL or mackie to produce recorded material because they simply like loudness and not imaging. Bose should have used better materials for their drivers like kevlar, metal, polyproplene etc. instead of the same paper material. They should have incorporated ribbons and line array to enhance their 9 driver only design and could have added additional larger woofers to their designs to create realistc bass and midrange response. Basically the 9 drivers act as a midbass transducers rather than as a multi driver crossoverless design.

hifitommy
04-18-2010, 11:36 AM
whereas one can get pleasant sound from the 901s, the image cast by them is not accurate. the bose theory is that the ration of direct to reflected sound at the listening position, and that is correct.

however, that happens at the microphone so diluting it again at the speakers is INcorrect. a good direct radiator can recreate the captured soundfield and provide the acoustic image of the placement of the musicians therein.

i agree that most people in the audience dont get that localization of each player that comes through on some of the best recordings but the microphones are many times right over the conductors head. the conductor DOES get to hear that and arguably has the best listening position in the house.

the diffuse offered by the 901s would be welcome in the rear channels and i think a used pair of 901s would be ideal there.

the eq is necessary to give the 901s the right frequency balance but might not be necessary for rear channels. the top has never been adquate, some things cant be amplified into existence nor can dynamic range or transparency.

bose apeakers sound better than your tv speakers but thats about it. the cost of them is another mystery.

JoeE SP9
04-18-2010, 02:13 PM
BizmanJoe, there are not many here who agree with your assessment of 901's. They are pretty much universally disliked. With that said, most Klipsch speakers aren't all that popular here either.

GMichael
04-19-2010, 05:58 AM
For a second there, I thought that RL was back.

errol van
04-21-2010, 08:34 AM
The lightning rod of controversy! Bose 901's! But how do they really work?

What does the required equalizer actually do and how do they get away with all of the tiny little drivers?

I've had them before, hooked up to my all-Carver system from the mid-90's and I thought they weren't too bad but I really just want to know besides the "direct-reflecting" stuff, how exactly are they different from a "normal" speaker?
From:Errolvan
I have had my Bose 901s with the Bose eq since the 80s when I was in the Army in Germany! They have been very good speakers for over twenty years and I have been running them using a 100watt JVC receiver along with DBX Sound processors and DBX eq. The speakers are not designed to sound like regular box speakers because they are designed for room placement and reflecting from the place where they are seated throughout the listening area. They do not give direct sound from the front because they are not designed that way!
These speakers have been used by me for over twenty years and they cannot be compared to others because they are totally different in sound, power handling, and you must grow to love them by the positioning and room placement inorder to get the best from them! The Bose eq is designed to tune the bass and treble but you get the best sound in my opinion by adding an additional eq which I did about 20 years ago and I never turned to any other speaker brands because they fill the room with sound like no other speaker I've heard.

errol van
04-21-2010, 08:39 AM
The lightning rod of controversy! Bose 901's! But how do they really work?

What does the required equalizer actually do and how do they get away with all of the tiny little drivers?

I've had them before, hooked up to my all-Carver system from the mid-90's and I thought they weren't too bad but I really just want to know besides the "direct-reflecting" stuff, how exactly are they different from a "normal" speaker?
From:Errolvan
I have had my Bose 901s with the Bose eq since the 80s when I was in the Army in Germany! They have been very good speakers for over twenty years and I have been running them using a 100watt JVC receiver along with DBX Sound processors and DBX eq. The speakers are not designed to sound like regular box speakers because they are designed for room placement and reflecting from the place where they are seated throughout the listening area. They do not give direct sound from the front because they are not designed that way!
These speakers have been used by me for over twenty years and they cannot be compared to others because they are totally different in sound, power handling, and you must grow to love them by the positioning and room placement inorder to get the best from them! The Bose eq is designed to tune the bass and treble but you get the best sound in my opinion by adding an additional eq which I did about 20 years ago and I never turned to any other speaker brands because they fill the room with sound like no other speaker I've heard.

hifitommy
04-21-2010, 10:29 AM
then there is no reason to change. i have heard the 901 "properly" set up and it was sort of fun but didnt resemble reality. for me, the limitations are clear.

they DO require a fair amount of power (100wpc at least) and the pseudo-image they project puts sounds in mid space. thats the fun part. truly low bass frequencies dont happen, nor do the highest frequencies where overtones exist.

we all look for something different in our sound systems. my needs are met with magneplanar MMgs and a hsu subwoofer. i sometimes alternate my spendor s3/5s or infinity primus 150s for different effect.

i surround myself with dynaquad passive ambience extraction and its all driven with 200 wpc.

Nasir
05-09-2010, 01:26 PM
Letīs give credit where itīs due, or at least some of it: the ratio of reflected to direct sound seems to have been investigated by Bose and other speaker manufacturers and funnily enough they come up with different numbers! Bose insist on an 89% reflected to 11% direct sound whereas another well known manufacturer swears on a 70% reflected to 30% direct sound. In my adventures is speaker placement, I experimented with a lot of different ideas, taking into account the physics of soundwave propagation and a lot of speaker placement techniques including the Cardas, WASP, Audiorives, etc....but had to compromise on distances from the wall behind the speakers..... and the best solution in my case was with a substantial amount of toe-in, probably in line with a high ratio of reflected to direct sound......

hifitommy
05-10-2010, 05:43 PM
the bose dont sound like real music as a primary speaker. speaker placement is another philosophy.

the bose 901s require a specific set up to allow the walls behind them to reflect what they were designed to do. most other speakers take some experimentation that eventually result in acceptable sound.

errol van
05-22-2010, 10:00 AM
For the last twenty plus years I have had my 901s and the sound has not changed! From 20wpc to 450wpc these speakers are in a class by them selves so keep sipping hatter aid on the rocks and post when you have a set of twenty plus year old box speakers that can evolve to any amp or set up on the market today!

hifitommy
05-22-2010, 10:21 AM
if youve been sipping yak urine for 20 years,and the taste doesnt change when you pour it into a different glass, then keep on sipping.

you ought to try a different drink though.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
05-22-2010, 10:29 AM
if youve been sipping yak urine for 20 years,and the taste doesnt change when you pour it into a different glass, then keep on sipping.

you ought to try a different drink though.

LOL, now this was a good one......

Sir Terrence the Terrible
05-22-2010, 11:03 AM
I know that fans of the 901 will defend their choice of speaker till death, and will bury their collective heads in the sand about its drawbacks. But as a person who has measured these speakers, it starts off bad right there, and gets worse after that.

I think the Stereophile review of that speaker pretty much sums it up. It is not a very accurate or impressive speaker, but it does add a pleasing amount of spaciousness to the sound at the expense of timbre and correct tonality. I am not sure I would give up those attributes just to get the spaciousness.