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.