To all of the Bose-bashers

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Speaker placement..when done right you won't need an EQ. If you think you need an EQ to fix sound problems, you have either crappy speakers, don't have them set up right, or your room is not properly damped.

Speaker placement cannot always solve acoustical problems(they lie mostly in the deep bass region). Each move of the speaker creates another one at some point. Acoustical treatment is effective down to about 200hz and then it becomes EXTREMELY expensive(and the foam VERY thick) to fix acoustical problems with treatment.

It is at that point, and in combination with acoustical treatment that Eq DOES become quite cost effective, and just plain effective in dealing with acoustical problems. Place your speakers, treat your room, and when all else hasn't worked(and it occasionally does not) use eq in the bass frequencies to tame/reduce standing waves.

[RomCrazy]

I am inclined to agree with topspeed in this one, if you like the sound you are getting, that's all that counts right? I am not a Bose fan, but the fact is, they are considered by a lot of people to be in the "high" end of audio equipment, and that reputation is not going away. If you enjoy you're 901s, then don't let ANYONE who says that they are less of a speaker than any that they have get to you. Audio is all about preferance. I live in an Air Force dorm, and get comments constantly on why I paid over $1000 for my two channel system when they paid less than $100 and got a full "high performance" surround system. It all comes down to whatever the listener wants to hear.


(As for me, I'll stick with my PSBs for a while )

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I am inclined to agree with topspeed in this one, if you like the sound you are getting, that's all that counts right? I am not a Bose fan, but the fact is, they are considered by a lot of people to be in the "high" end of audio equipment, and that reputation is not going away. If you enjoy you're 901s, then don't let ANYONE who says that they are less of a speaker than any that they have get to you. Audio is all about preferance. I live in an Air Force dorm, and get comments constantly on why I paid over $1000 for my two channel system when they paid less than $100 and got a full "high performance" surround system. It all comes down to whatever the listener wants to hear.


(As for me, I'll stick with my PSBs for a while )

RomCrazy,

I agree with topspeed also. However I would take a long hard pause before I enter a audio website and tell people that the 901's are a top notch speaker that is comparible with speakers from manufacturers that have long been defunct. I would also be very careful in NOT attempting to post so called facts that are simply not true, and use useless inflammatory language to support what I believe. An opinion is an opinion. And like butts we have one. Facts are facts, and sometimes we come up wanting in this area.

I don't think anyone in this day in time REALLY thinks the bose 901 is a high end speaker. Not in the company of today. Maybe 20 years ago, but not today.

[N. Abstentia]

Yeah, I agree somewhat. If YOU like the sound of the speakers then fine. Knock yourself out.

However, the problem I have with Bose people is that they come here and say "Bose sounds better than anything, I don't care what you say, and if you disagree you are stupid, deaf, both, or don't know anything about speakers."

THAT'S what chaps my arse. If you like them, fine. Keep it to yourself. We all know better, and a sales pitch is not going to change our thinking.

[Audie Oghaisle]

Did I ever suggest folks run right out and purchase a Bose product? Some of you think me a shill?

No. I merely gave my opinion of MY system...gave my position on those who dismiss things out-of-hand and suggested how unfortunate it is that very few have had the pleasure of listening to a properly set up system, which admittedly is not everyone's cup of tea; so be it.

In order to realize pleasing results, I have chosen optimum placement and the use of eq...perhaps I would have been better off with tip-toes, trial-and error bass traps or other non-WAF methods, sand, lead shot, concrete blocks, styrofoam cups or wires as tone controls...yeah, that's a plan.

Additionally, I have limited my comments to the Series lls, the last acoustic suspension model produced. The subsequent matrix/bass-reflex hold little interest for me and I have never seriously listened to them. I would never buy a Lifestyle system, but only because I prefer the flexibility of separate components. Other Bose products, the smaller cubes and subs, seem to be capable of high WAF numbers, and properly set up would seem to be useful for moderate HT systems(which are in themselves a plague on the audio landscape). Price? Well that's a whole 'nother area...I won a Wave Radio, took pains to load it correctly and I now have a jim-dandy clock radio which sounds quite good for what it is...would I buy one? I don't really think so.

Specifically to N. Absentia...you might want to take the time to research your hobby...you are confusing a phono pre-amp, now pretty much required for TT use(due to the blight of HT) and head amps for MC carts with the RIAA equalization curve...cutting records requires skewing the signal to the cutter heads to reduce excessive groove excursion. The RIAA curve applies the inverse of that eq curve to produce a flat response in playback. BTW, did you ever consider the eq-ing and signal processing involved in the recording process; tone controls are a drop in the bucket by comparison.

As I recall, there was a time Polks were considered by some to be the cats-@$$...nowadays Matthews' advertising has really gone right up the nose of the fickle who eschew them as much as the use of tone controls...Bad Mathhew, bad, bad, bad.

Audie

[topspeed]

As I recall, there was a time Polks were considered by some to be the cats-@$$...nowadays Matthews' advertising has really gone right up the nose of the fickle who eschew them as much as the use of tone controls...Bad Mathhew, bad, bad, bad.Audie

You've actually got a point on this one. Audio people seem to carry a bizarre chromosone that flares up everytime an audio manufacturer goes "mainstream". It's the same one that forces them to call their favorite band a "sell-out" when their music becomes part of the pop culture (as if it's the bands fault that tastes evolve). Lest we forget, Infinity and JBL also used to make VERY good speakers that were "hi-end" not too long ago. However, as soon as they started selling to the mass market, they lost all credibility with audiophiles. How often do you see members here recommending Polk, Inifinity, or JBL these days instead of Von Schweikert, Green Mountain, Taylor, JM Lab, or some other name that very few have even heard of? Does anybody else remember the thread about 6 months ago about Totem being carried in a chain and the poster questioning their validity as a mid-fi, hi-fi brand? Tweeter carries Sonus Faber, does that mean the products are now automatically inferior?

Interesting point Audie...but I still don't care for Bose

[vr6ofpain]

If you've owned them that long chances are you will be so accustomed to that particular sound that anything else would come across as a shock. Tough to give up smoking too - even if it's good for you.

You've actually got a point on this one. Audio people seem to carry a bizarre chromosone that flares up everytime an audio manufacturer goes "mainstream". It's the same one that forces them to call their favorite band a "sell-out" when their music becomes part of the pop culture (as if it's the bands fault that tastes evolve). Lest we forget, Infinity and JBL also used to make VERY good speakers that were "hi-end" not too long ago. However, as soon as they started selling to the mass market, they lost all credibility with audiophiles. How often do you see members here recommending Polk, Inifinity, or JBL these days instead of Von Schweikert, Green Mountain, Taylor, JM Lab, or some other name that very few have even heard of? Does anybody else remember the thread about 6 months ago about Totem being carried in a chain and the poster questioning their validity as a mid-fi, hi-fi brand? Tweeter carries Sonus Faber, does that mean the products are now automatically inferior?

Interesting point Audie...but I still don't care for Bose

[Audie Oghaisle]

"...and tell people that the 901's are a top notch speaker..."

I said this? When?

"...that is comparible with speakers from manufacturers that have long been defunct..."

You have a problem with contemporaneous comparison?

"...I would also be very careful in NOT attempting to post so called facts that are simply not true..."

Facts. I posted facts? Charts? Graphs? Numbers? Where? Oh, do point them out!

"...and use useless inflammatory language to support what I believe..."

Again, please point out what language produces these flames...you might consider a contextual re-read.

"...I don't think anyone in this day in time REALLY thinks the bose 901 is a high end speaker..."

This is becoming tediously painful...let me put it in simpler terms...me say this when?

And yeah, nowadays you could do an FFT and get a 3-d, time aligned plot and get a parametric to work wonders... a third-octave source and a half-octave eq w/ an SPL meter did a quite satisfactory job...

Audie

[Sealed]

"To all the playah haytah's in da house...don't hate da playah, hate da game"

Bose 901 vs other brands?

Rotten apples to oranges.

enjoy them anyway.

[bturk667]

Sorry, I would rather hate the players!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

"...and tell people that the 901's are a top notch speaker..."

I said this? When?

I have owned 901 Series lls since 1974. I auditioned Allisons, Advents, Dahlquists(pre-mirror imaging mods) etc., etc. and chose Bose.?

By placing the 901's in the company of some truely top notch speakers(the Dahlquists) you are elluding that these speaker belong amoungst the top notch speakers of that time. They in fact do not, as far as performance wise.

"..."...that is comparible with speakers from manufacturers that have long been defunct..."

You have a problem with contemporaneous comparison?

A contemporaneous comparison does you no good now. You are talking about thirty years ago and just MAYBE you would have had a point(that's arguable even for that period)
But to compare 901 on April 12 2004 to speakers that were made in the 70's to make a point is pretty rediculous.

"..."...I would also be very careful in NOT attempting to post so called facts that are simply not true..."

Facts. I posted facts? Charts? Graphs? Numbers? Where? Oh, do point them out!?

1.

They theoretically can and, in practice do, provide crisp and accurate transients and do extend well into the nether areas..

2.

On a wide range of low freq-rich program material, whether it be the tympani in Copland's "Fanfare For The Common Man" , E. Power Biggs pedal work on Bach's organ pieces, synth work on some of Heart's or ELPs cuts...it's there, deep, accurate, clean and visceral.

3.

Highs? Have you really(and I mean really) listened to live music? They(the highs) drop off quite distinctly depending on distance from the source. Do you really listen to trumpet, et al with your ears to the bell? On a close-miked recording with conventional loudspeakers, that's exactly what is happening...hardly realistic, IMHO.

My system is EQd from stylus to listening position. Using a calibrated source( a Crown third-octave test record) and a borrowed pro SPL meter(which by-the-by, the RS unit compares favorably with in side-by-side usage). Multiple room plots and adjustments resulted in near-flat response...but, flat ain't where it's at...a gentle roll-off above 10k provides the most natural sound to me and most of the pots are in the "cut" mode; the few that aren't are +3db max

I didn't say you posted graph, charts. However you did insinuate a number, and most if this information is presented as factual. Let's take your factual opinion, and square it with the true facts.

1.According to the stereophile review, and measurements I took way back when at Paramount pictures, the transients provided by this speakers are blurred and soft because of the technology itself. Any time you have a weak direct wave front, followed be a strong second wavefront(the space and time depends on how far the speaker is from the front wall) the loudest wave takes dominance. In the case of the 901 the reflected rear wave takes dominace by amplitude over the front wave, even though it arrival is first. That sets up conditions for blurred transients. It also blurrs imaging and the position of the instruments in space.

2. In stereophile and my own personal measurement of the 901it cannot provide the bass as you describe. The is a rapid falloff of bass at 40hz, and is down about 15-20db by the time it get's to 20hz. While that is pretty respectable for any speaker, bass at 40hz does not have the tactility of base at 20hz. Also the distortion rises rapidly below 40hz and doubling is also a problem. Also this speaker tends to exicte all room modes and nodes because of its design. So deep accurate and clean are not what I would call the bass response of the 901.

3. The problem with highs that drop off are not small room problems. Movie theaters, concert halls, and outdoor venues have this problem. If a trumpet is close miked, its output does not mix with the air, which should not introduce any high frequency roll off whatsoever. We sit on the average between 7-10ft from our speakers. This is near field listening and that is not far enough away for the highs to fall off. A close miked trumpet should sound like a close miked trumpet regardless of what speaker it is played back. The bose expands the natural deminsion of the trumpet by reflect a majority of its ouput off the front wall and into the room. This is not accurate.

These are your opinions that are replaced by what truely known about the speakers itself as measured and commented objectively

"

...and use useless inflammatory language to support what I believe..."

Again, please point out what language produces these flames...you might consider a contextual re-read.

Here it is. And perhaps you shouldn't purchase speakers that make you have to criticize other designs to bring legitimacy to yours.

Most members ot the "boom and tizz" brigade (long-time readers of the late, lamented "AUDIO" mag will recognize that phrase) are so use to hearing "in-your-face" hi freqs, they believe it to be a hallmark of accurate sound...and the low freq humps designed into most loudspeakers to disguise their rapidly-falling off, below mid-bass reponses...well, let's not go there!

This is a inflammatory statement that is used to tear down other speaker designs, and give you room to push the direct-reflecting hogwash. Good speakers should be able to stand on their own merits without criticizing others. The words boom and tiz cannot be use to describe speakers within the price range of the bose 901. The words were outdated more than 15 years ago.

"...I don't think anyone in this day in time REALLY thinks the bose 901 is a high end speaker..."

This is becoming tediously painful...let me put it in simpler terms...me say this when?

When you mention speaker manufacuturer to the likes of Allison, Dahlquist and Advents, they produced the high end speakers of the 70's. By stating the 901 in the company of these speaker companies, you are insinuating that it belongs amoung the high end. Gotta disagree no matter how painful it is to you.

And yeah, nowadays you could do an FFT and get a 3-d, time aligned plot and get a parametric to work wonders... a third-octave source and a half-octave eq w/ an SPL meter did a quite satisfactory job...
Audie

I seriously doubt it. With a speaker that combines direct and reflecting technology, no less than 1/6 or 1/10 octave eq will truely reveal what is happening at low frequencies. A 1/3 source, SPL meter(with its frequency insensitivities), and a half octave eq will only give you the most rough, smoothed over analysis. It certainly would not give you enough resolution to obtain a flat frequency response. A tone generator, computer based analysis at 1/6 and 1/10, with a third octave, or parametric eq would do the job. You tools are insufficent to get the result you say.

What is apparent from this post is that you probably like the sound of your speakers, but you are trying to convince us to like them also, based on your opinion and not facts. I have listen to, measured, and installed too many speakers to be convinced of the performance of a particular speaker based on a word. I have heard the 901's properly setup and I am no fan of artificial reflections. The swamp the naturally recorded ambience with a speaker and room generated reflections. That IMO is NOT a good speaker if it cannot accurately reproduce what is on a master tape or CD.
Listen to your speaker and enjoy them, there is no need to convince us they sound good. We didn't buy them!

[Geoffcin]

My experiance with Bose 901's is limited to my memory of them from the 70's. A friend of my father had a pair, and he was driving them with a VERY powerful Phase Linear amp. As I remember they played VERY loud, and the bass was VERY tight. My reccollection was that the sound was so much more life-like as compare to direct firing speakers that my father turned our speakers around to see how much of that effect it would create. ( a failed experiment, but a worthwhile one). If you've ever been to a concert, be it rock, jazz or classical, then you know that the laser like imaging, and intense point source sound of most conventional speakers is NOT what you hear. Most of the sound that is heard at a concert, unless your the conductor, is reflected. All monopole speakers are incapeable of producing such a soundstage. To Bose's credit, he saw that was the case, and produced a speaker with the idea to create that. Were they everyones "cup-o-tea"? No, but then that's why we have so many different speakers!

Does this have anything to do with the speakers that Bose produces today? Or their huge investment in marketing vs. improving the product? I don't think so.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

My experiance with Bose 901's is limited to my memory of them from the 70's. A friend of my father had a pair, and he was driving them with a VERY powerful Phase Linear amp. As I remember they played VERY loud, and the bass was VERY tight. My reccollection was that the sound was so much more life-like as compare to direct firing speakers that my father turned our speakers around to see how much of that effect it would create. ( a failed experiment, but a worthwhile one). If you've ever been to a concert, be it rock, jazz or classical, then you know that the laser like imaging, and intense point source sound of most conventional speakers is NOT what you hear. Most of the sound that is heard at a concert, unless your the conductor, is reflected. All monopole speakers are incapeable of producing such a soundstage. To Bose's credit, he saw that was the case, and produced a speaker with the idea to create that. Were they everyones "cup-o-tea"? No, but then that's why we have so many different speakers!

Does this have anything to do with the speakers that Bose produces today? Or their huge investment in marketing vs. improving the product? I don't think so.

To answer your question, yes, I have heard this speaker and all of its versions. I have listened to them in great detail and have measured them(all versions). They may sound do called "realistic"(which is relative from person to person) but they are FAR from accurate. If you look at the frequency plot of these speakers in a room, it looks like sharks teeth.

So what if your source is supposed to be a intimate solo piano work in a small room, how is that conveyed by this speaker?

Or how about a stadium with loads of naturally recorded ambience.?

My question to you is whether you prefer to hear the naturally recorded ambience through an accurate speaker, or artificial ambience imposed by the speaker?