To all of the Bose-bashers

[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!