Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 70
  1. #26
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    39

    Thank you...

    ...for your opinion...it is as valueless to me as mine is to you.

    Audie

  2. #27
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    39

    Well, I'm hardly trying to convince...

    ..anyone to rush right out and buy a Bose product, just relating my experience with the one I do own...I really don't give a ratz@$$...just watching the feeding frenzy on the part of some...

    Regardless of other opinions, I believe the multiple drivers with eq, can and do provide quite respectable bass performance...there are a coupla' cuts...one on ELPs "Brain Salad Surgery" if memory serves me correctly and Heart's "Magic Man" where a synth note does sort of a nose-dive reverse glissando down to the Marianas Trench sonically...as reproduced on my system, it is smooth and even, no false humps, no sharp cutoffs, to a point where one can nearly count the cycles.

    In the same vein, on Herb Ellis' and Red Mitchell's "Doggin' Around" there is a cut "Big M And the Bear"(I think that's the title) featuring Mitchell's stand-up bass...nicely articulated, sharp transients, deep low notes and proper sounding higher ones. Anyone who has actually heard jazz bass, knows there is a range of notes that will be augmented and resonate with the sound box of the instrument as a product of sympathetic vibrations and those outside the optimum range which will be less powerful but none the less identifiable as being produced by a bass fiddle...I get that...When it's captured in the source, I also get fingers sliding on the round-wound string's surface...nothing sloppy, no indiscriminate thumps.

    Some time back, Audio mag had a column entitled "Auricle". Based solely on aural perception of high-end gear...As I recall, they did a review of a direct-to-disc recording of Charlie Byrd and his combo...White, heavyweight, virgin vinyl...45rpm...all the bells and whistles associated with the then "state-of-the-art"...they loved it, raved about the soundstage and depth, the near-eerie presence of the cornet player...one complaint...rimshots on the snare were a mile wide.

    They did a really wonderful word-picture of the disk, so I head on out to my local audio "salon" purchase it and give it a lisssen...see just how lousy my gear is...just as described, a very, very impressive piece of work, imaging, the horn player and the snare...just as described...I can only relate my experience and you can believe me or not.
    They work, if you know how to listen to them.

    And I do listen to other gear in the shops, I've liked some electrostatics and B&Ws weren't bad, a bit directional but not bad...and I do have a pair of STAX SR-44s with a dedicated amp and source...I do keep in touch with convention and "reality"...

    Audie

  3. #28
    Forum Regular Sealed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    189

    Auricle

    Quote Originally Posted by Audie Oghaisle
    ..anyone to rush right out and buy a Bose product, just relating my experience with the one I do own...I really don't give a ratz@$$...just watching the feeding frenzy on the part of some...

    Regardless of other opinions, I believe the multiple drivers with eq, can and do provide quite respectable bass performance...there are a coupla' cuts...one on ELPs "Brain Salad Surgery" if memory serves me correctly and Heart's "Magic Man" where a synth note does sort of a nose-dive reverse glissando down to the Marianas Trench sonically...as reproduced on my system, it is smooth and even, no false humps, no sharp cutoffs, to a point where one can nearly count the cycles.

    In the same vein, on Herb Ellis' and Red Mitchell's "Doggin' Around" there is a cut "Big M And the Bear"(I think that's the title) featuring Mitchell's stand-up bass...nicely articulated, sharp transients, deep low notes and proper sounding higher ones. Anyone who has actually heard jazz bass, knows there is a range of notes that will be augmented and resonate with the sound box of the instrument as a product of sympathetic vibrations and those outside the optimum range which will be less powerful but none the less identifiable as being produced by a bass fiddle...I get that...When it's captured in the source, I also get fingers sliding on the round-wound string's surface...nothing sloppy, no indiscriminate thumps.

    Some time back, Audio mag had a column entitled "Auricle". Based solely on aural perception of high-end gear...As I recall, they did a review of a direct-to-disc recording of Charlie Byrd and his combo...White, heavyweight, virgin vinyl...45rpm...all the bells and whistles associated with the then "state-of-the-art"...they loved it, raved about the soundstage and depth, the near-eerie presence of the cornet player...one complaint...rimshots on the snare were a mile wide.

    They did a really wonderful word-picture of the disk, so I head on out to my local audio "salon" purchase it and give it a lisssen...see just how lousy my gear is...just as described, a very, very impressive piece of work, imaging, the horn player and the snare...just as described...I can only relate my experience and you can believe me or not.
    They work, if you know how to listen to them.

    And I do listen to other gear in the shops, I've liked some electrostatics and B&Ws weren't bad, a bit directional but not bad...and I do have a pair of STAX SR-44s with a dedicated amp and source...I do keep in touch with convention and "reality"...

    Audie
    Audio never had a love for bose. "boom and sizzle" or "boom and tizz" was the way they described most bose products, including a very negative 601 review.

    Anthony B Cordesman, who now writes for TAS wrote Auricle. He detests Bose. His personal system (one of them), is the VMPS Supertower III which he purchased after a review.

    Now, if you told me that those big speakers effortlessly went to 16hz, I'd believe it. But bose?

    The reason bose reviews draw flames, is because they are written like one is describing an ultra high end system. The reviews (like yours) give bose charactaristics that are outside the operational parameters of the system.

    If you had said you thouroughly enjoy bose for the soundstage and effects, and reach sonic bliss, I doubt anyone would critisize that much.

    But when you obviously target real highend systems with your comments, you will draw flack.

    You can admit you enjoy bose. You can love them. But don't tell me they can accurately reproduce the bottom of 1812's cannon shots, because that isn't possible with 901's. Not my law, just physics.

    And don't tell anyone bose has brilliant treble detail when the design was in fact measured to roll off sigificantly under 14khz, or less than am radio. You can hear what isn't there by design.


    BTW, I have all of those recordings, many on Lp and cd. The bass in heart doesn't go all that deep, it's more 30's and 40's. That is verifiable on any system that is capable of reproducing it, not just mine.

  4. #29
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    39

    So sez you...thank you for your opinion, etc., etc., etc.

    No further text

  5. #30
    JSE
    JSE is offline
    MIA - Until Rich is back! JSE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Denial
    Posts
    1,929
    "Thank you... for your opinion...it is as valueless to me as mine is to you."

    "I really don't give a ratz@$$...just watching the feeding frenzy on the part of some..."


    Then GO AWAY TROLL!

    Go away!

    JSE

  6. #31
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    39

    Is that as informative as you get?

    Those who give respect get respect...

    Perhaps I should clarify my statements since you have decided to take them out of context...naah, not worth the effort...

    Thank you for your opinion...it is as...get my drift?

    Audie

  7. #32
    Forum Regular Sealed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    189

    respect

    Quote Originally Posted by Audie Oghaisle
    Those who give respect get respect...

    Perhaps I should clarify my statements since you have decided to take them out of context...naah, not worth the effort...

    Thank you for your opinion...it is as...get my drift?

    Audie
    I really didn't slam you per se. I just framed the 901 capabilities back to reality, not science fiction.

    this is not much different then a post I once read about a small 2-way with a 6.5' woofer that supposidly "Made so much bass it shook my house."

    That fellow had as little concept of reality as your post.

    Nothing was taken out of context, except the fact that you appear to be a sales droid pushing bose like "sam pro" ring any bells?

  8. #33
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    39

    Which one is the sock puppet?

    Sealed or JSE? I thought the new site system was supposed to straighten out the multiple-moniker problems.

    "...I really didn't slam you per se..."

    Really? Just like your not doing now?

    "... I just framed the 901 capabilities back to reality, not science fiction..."

    I'm a liar? I didin't take a series of serious measurments with my woefully inadequate test gear? They are not capable of the performance levels as stated?

    "...this is not much different then a post I once read about a small 2-way with a 6.5' woofer that supposidly "Made so much bass it shook my house."..."

    It could happen. I've heard a two-way with a 5.5in driver produce far more accurate bass than it oughta'. It's all relative. Threatening concept?

    "...That fellow had as little concept of reality as your post..."

    I'm delusional? Hearing things?

    "...Nothing was taken out of context..."

    In your mind, perhaps.

    "...except the fact that you appear to be a sales droid pushing bose like "sam pro" ring any bells?..."

    You mean 901 Series lls...haven't been produced since 1970-when...some shill, pushing one set of 30 year-old MD gear...

    Thank you...you know the drill...doncha'

    Audie

  9. #34
    Forum Regular Sealed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    189

    sniff sniff

    Quote Originally Posted by Audie Oghaisle
    Sealed or JSE? I thought the new site system was supposed to straighten out the multiple-moniker problems.

    "...I really didn't slam you per se..."

    Really? Just like your not doing now?

    "... I just framed the 901 capabilities back to reality, not science fiction..."

    I'm a liar? I didin't take a series of serious measurments with my woefully inadequate test gear? They are not capable of the performance levels as stated?

    "...this is not much different then a post I once read about a small 2-way with a 6.5' woofer that supposidly "Made so much bass it shook my house."..."

    It could happen. I've heard a two-way with a 5.5in driver produce far more accurate bass than it oughta'. It's all relative. Threatening concept?

    "...That fellow had as little concept of reality as your post..."

    I'm delusional? Hearing things?

    "...Nothing was taken out of context..."

    In your mind, perhaps.

    "...except the fact that you appear to be a sales droid pushing bose like "sam pro" ring any bells?..."

    You mean 901 Series lls...haven't been produced since 1970-when...some shill, pushing one set of 30 year-old MD gear...

    Thank you...you know the drill...doncha'

    Audie
    I thought I smelled a troll. I was right.

  10. #35
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    39

    Just as correct as all of your previous posts.

    No further text

  11. #36
    Forum Regular Sealed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    189

    then

    Quote Originally Posted by Audie Oghaisle
    No further text
    Then I was 100% correct,

    You are a naughty, naughty assmonkey troll!

    Thanks for confirming.

  12. #37
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    39

    180deg OOP

    ...and we clear up loudspeakers with excessive hi freqs by changing CD players?

    That's an example of your advice?

    Audie

  13. #38
    JSE
    JSE is offline
    MIA - Until Rich is back! JSE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Denial
    Posts
    1,929
    Quote Originally Posted by Audie Oghaisle
    Sealed or JSE? I thought the new site system was supposed to straighten out the multiple-moniker problems.

    Doh! You caught us!

    JSE

  14. #39
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    I've owned Bose 901 since 1970 so I know exactly what I am talking about. I also own and listen to other speakers. Recently I moved mine from my 20 x 20 bedroom with relatively dead acoustics to a 14 x 14 room which is on the live side. They are being powered by a Marantz SR 930 Receiver. I've been experimenting with biamplifying them using additional outboard tweeters similar to Audax AW010E1 and Dayton 275-065 four in parallel per channel---three indirect firing one direct. I have always maintained that the one real shortcoming of Bose 901 series I and II was the treble because of the high inertia of the 4 inch cones being unable to produce the highest octave of sound. My tweeters are crossed over at 6 khz and additional overall equalization is used to improve tonal accuracy. The results are outstanding. Easily a match for most loudspeakers available today and producing tremendous bass far surpassing most dedicated subwoofers. The only loudspeaker which outperforms them in bass response that I have experience with is my enhanced Teledyne AR9s. You won't find much at any price that compares with that, it is earthshaking.

    A lot of people who don't know much about Bose 901 have loved bashing this product. And I must add that the versions from series III to VI are too expensive, not accurate enough, and no longer have the capability of reproducing low frequencies that series one and two did. I would not buy them today.

    However, the original version when properly enhanced is IMO opinion an outstanding sound reproducer and there is no doubt of it.

  15. #40
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    5

    This might not be on target but...

    Sound of the Bose line-up aside, why don't they publish the frequency response of there speakers? Just curious...

  16. #41
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    515
    And you are someone whose message sounds very familiar to one who sang the praises of the Bose AM system a while back. I do believe that is game, set, match.

  17. #42
    JSE
    JSE is offline
    MIA - Until Rich is back! JSE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Denial
    Posts
    1,929
    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan
    And you are someone whose message sounds very familiar to one who sang the praises of the Bose AM system a while back. I do believe that is game, set, match.

    Kindof even reminds me of ALDO as well, but not as hostile. Hmmmm?

    JSE

  18. #43
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826

    We say what we want to say and expect ot by unchallenged

    Quote Originally Posted by Audie Oghaisle
    "...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.



    Quote Originally Posted by Audie Oghaisle
    "..."...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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Audie Oghaisle
    "..."...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

    "
    Quote Originally Posted by Audie Oghaisle
    ...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!
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  19. #44
    Silence of the spam Site Moderator Geoffcin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    3,326

    I dunno guys, have you heard 901's?

    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.
    Audio;
    Ming Da MC34-AB 75wpc
    PS Audio Classic 250. 500wpc into 4 ohms.
    PS Audio 4.5 preamp,
    Marantz 6170 TT Shure M97e cart.
    Arcam Alpha 9 CD.- 24 bit dCS Ring DAC.
    Magnepan 3.6r speakers Oak/black,

  20. #45
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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?
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  21. #46
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    First of all, I have never commented on any other Bose product because I don't know anything about them.

    Secondly, it would be pointless to publish anything about the frequency response of Bose 901 because its response at your ears which is the only one that counts is so very dependent on room acoustics and placement that the response in one room would have nothing in common with the response in another. The notion that you can somehow draw a magic line called frequency response and describe a loudspeaker is as absurd as quoting a number of watts and describe an amplifier. As for the Bose 901 series 1 and 2 using CTS drivers, the overall balance of the high end was not much worse than many contemporary products of its era which is to say not very good. That is why the top octave or so must be supplemented with tweeters. The newer versions may have slightly better treble, I'm not so sure about that but the lowest octave of bass is gone.

    According to measurements by laboratories of the day, the in room frequency response of the Bose 901 held up to about 26 hz with strong output, 23 with reduced output, had a broad hump in the 500 hz region, and fell off above 14 khz. Once the design was changed to a ported version, bass below 40 hz was gone. I have not read subsequent reviews. BTW, the bass response of the Bose 901 series one and two given sufficient electrical power outperformed every other commercially available speaker of its day including monsters like JBL Ranger Paragon D44000, AR3, Altec A7 Voice of the Theater, Klipschorn, Tannoy 15 inch Dual Concentric Monitor, and the largest Bozaks. It will still outperform most loudspeakers today in that regard. As for the high end, what there was of it was unlike other loudspeakers having virtually perfect horizontal dispersion. Eliminating the wasteful inefficient crossover network and replacing it with a precision equalizer matched exactly to the speaker system, eliminating internal standing waves by having the drivers mounted on baffles without other sides parallel to them, using multiple drivers to eliminate the secondary resonances of individual drivers were just some of the innovations of this speaker system. Those who dismiss it lightly because its sound is so different and not of audiophile quality today fail to see that when much better materials emerge allowing for powerful true full range drivers, this design will be resurected to produce a remarkable product again. Even today, with its limitations, many people are highly attracted to it and enhanced as mine are, it is far preferable to the me too $2000 to $3000 little boxes with a pair of 8 inch woofers, a 3 inch midrange, and a 1 inch dome tweeter built by a guy who tells you if you want to hear deep bass, go buy a subwoofer for another $1000 to $2000.

    Are the special qualities of Bose 901 series one and two worth all the time, effort, and expense to experiment with enhancing its frequency response to bring it in line with modern thinking and expectations? IMO, the answer is definitely yes.

  22. #47
    Silence of the spam Site Moderator Geoffcin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    3,326
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    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?
    Wow, am I glad I'm not you. To spend so much time with a speaker you don't like, it must have been hell.

    Frequancy responce is one part of the equation, but not the whole part. Phase coherance, transiant responce, box resonance, diffraction effects, all are part of the whole picture. The comb effects that you observed as a saw tooth responce graph can be changed by the proper speaker positioning. As I remember the 901's were set about 6' from the back wall. Actually I thought it was funny, as I never saw anyone set speakers out in the middle of the room!

    No, I never did hear any intimate piano on them, but I did hear some classical, and I brought my Doobie Bros album over, and boy did it sound good!

    Yes, there's a big difference when you hear naturally recorded ambiance replayed through a point source, and then played through a dipole. I prefer dipoles, and so do a lot of other audiophiles.
    Audio;
    Ming Da MC34-AB 75wpc
    PS Audio Classic 250. 500wpc into 4 ohms.
    PS Audio 4.5 preamp,
    Marantz 6170 TT Shure M97e cart.
    Arcam Alpha 9 CD.- 24 bit dCS Ring DAC.
    Magnepan 3.6r speakers Oak/black,

  23. #48
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    39

    I have been accused of...

    ...being a liar, presenting fantasy as fact, being a shill, countless other transgressions...and of course, dead wrong about everything I've stated...

    So...in that light, I really have nothing to lose...

    I have IN FACT done all that I say I have, I do IN FACT hear the levels of performance as claimed...I have IN FACT presented those statements subjectively and not gotten into a numbers game because numbers do not apply...My thirty year-old 901s are not direct radiators...comparing them to conventional speakers is inappropriate...the boom and tizz will always sound much more impressive at first glance...the outer gloss cannot compare to looking deep into the performance...one cannot approach these speakers with a mindset conditioned by years of listening to woofers and tweeters and crossovers, close miking techniques, mixing boards and pan pots...you must suspend all you think you know, immerse yourself in their sound field and ignore the specsmanship...they require much more listener involvement than most are willing to contribute...in auditioning these units, most really don't know how to listen...and it really is a shame.

    Audie

  24. #49
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Geoffcin
    Wow, am I glad I'm not you. To spend so much time with a speaker you don't like, it must have been hell.
    Dude, you have no idea!! But it is my job to recommend the best speakers for my clients, so I do just to keep informed. After listening to them, and measuring them, you can safely assume that I didn't recommend them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoffcin
    Frequancy responce is one part of the equation, but not the whole part. Phase coherance, transiant responce, box resonance, diffraction effects, all are part of the whole picture.
    All of this I am accutely aware of. This speaker had a poor frequency response, profound phase variances(because of the reflections) poor transient response(also because of the reflections) some box resonance, and there was no need to talk about diffraction. In that day they paid no attention to that at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoffcin
    The comb effects that you observed as a saw tooth responce graph can be changed by the proper speaker positioning. As I remember the 901's were set about 6' from the back wall. Actually I thought it was funny, as I never saw anyone set speakers out in the middle of the room!
    You are not correct. The comb filtering is an effect of the design of the speaker and cannot be avoided. Comb filtering happens when the different reflections emitted by the speaker collide with each other adding and subtracting the frequency response of the speaker. Moving the speaker further away from the walls creates distinct echo's, and causes the bass response to roll off even higher than it does. Placing them closer to the walls kills the transient response further, causes imaging to be extremely diffused(worse than it already is), and causes it to stimulate room modes and nodes profoundly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoffcin
    No, I never did hear any intimate piano on them, but I did hear some classical, and I brought my Doobie Bros album over, and boy did it sound good! .
    I never knock anyone's taste, this speaker just doesn't fit mine for the reasons I mention previously.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoffcin
    Yes, there's a big difference when you hear naturally recorded ambiance replayed through a point source, and then played through a dipole. I prefer dipoles, and so do a lot of other audiophiles.
    I always thought so called audiophile's holy grail was accuracy. Now I REALLY do not understand what an audiophile is. They buy cables that have a distinct sonic character, speakers that create artificial reflections, and pair these will ultra expensive tube amps with tons of distortion, turntables with ultra expensive tone arms, and pay very little to room acoustics. If this is what audiophile stands for, I am glad I am not one!
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  25. #50
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    39

    By definition...

    ...an audiophile is a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction...

    Certainly there are folks who post @ this site who are quite enthusiastic...hobbyists can be quite fanatical in fact...

    Who can define what hi-fi reproduction is? IS it straight wire with gain? Can be...mostly it's not...in order to achieve that goal one would need to replicate the gear and listening room sonics present at the final mix...and even that's not quite it...you would need access to the raw inputs to the board before editing and mixdown...that is neither practical, possible nor commercially viable...

    Hi-fi is what each individual is satisfied as to what that might be...eye, or in this case, ear of the beholder...

    There are those who think wire is wire and others who think insulations sound different, those who like to like to warm their cheese sandwiches on a bank of 6L6s, those who prefer vinyl over an approximation thereof or those who think Kenny G. is jazz...

    Audie

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Can I replace Bose sub with another?
    By acqui in forum Home Theater/Video
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 01-03-2008, 10:43 AM
  2. Review of Bose 901s
    By sam_pro in forum Speakers
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 06-06-2007, 07:31 AM
  3. Bose strikes again, a guy I know bought their Lifestyle 35 system
    By Widowmaker in forum Home Theater/Video
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 03-12-2004, 04:00 PM
  4. Just one more reason Bose blows!
    By Woochifer in forum Home Theater/Video
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 02-28-2004, 06:33 PM
  5. Why Bose doesn't get into Front-Firing speakers design?
    By Smokey in forum Home Theater/Video
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 02-26-2004, 05:27 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •