• 04-12-2004, 08:39 AM
    Audie Oghaisle
    To all of the Bose-bashers
    I recently came across a recent episode of the never-ending to and fro re: the 901s...let me say to all and sundry, and I'll use a line I've read countless times in other forums @this site, "You don't know how to listen!"

    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!

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

    Why? To me, all the reasons pertaining to their design and execution made perfect sense. Multiple small drivers producing the output of a single 12" woofer with less mass, no hangover, none of the drawbacks of the larger cone. They theoretically can and, in practice do, provide crisp and accurate transients and do extend well into the nether areas...talk about basso profundo!

    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.

    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.

    Indulge me, if you will...Placement is critical, I built a side wall to be sure the installation parameters would match side to side. My power amp is an HK Citation 19 rated @100W/side and I use an SAE 2700B half-octave equalizer. 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. The Bose eq is used to tweak lesser recordings and the tone controls on my pre-amp are bypassed with the "defeat" switch.

    The sound is neither bottom-heavy nor shrill, the net result is smooth sound, uncompromising in its' candor. Good recordings sound as they should and poor ones are revealed...Listener fatgue does not apply and the catch-phrases are all at the ready: imaging and depth, inner details, articulation...an acoustic bass sounds as it should, brushes on a drum kit, ditto. But, only if the source can provide these things.

    Comparing Bose to anything else is like the proverbial "apples and oranges" and those who base an opinon of their sound on a Bose-equipped system that has not been set up correctly don't know what they are missing, how unfortunate. And, don't think they are properly set up in a Bose store, quite curiously they're not!

    Audie
  • 04-12-2004, 10:00 AM
    N. Abstentia
    GOOD speakers won't need an EQ. Bose speakers REQUIRE an EQ. What does that tell you?
  • 04-12-2004, 10:07 AM
    3db
    Although I'm not a Bose fan
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by N. Abstentia
    GOOD speakers won't need an EQ. Bose speakers REQUIRE an EQ. What does that tell you?

    Good speakers can't make up for poor room acoustics and I can think of many instances were good speakers would benefir from eq.
  • 04-12-2004, 10:13 AM
    N. Abstentia
    An EQ can't fix a bad room either. They make acoustical room treatments for that. How many people install a $5,000 system, then install a $75 EQ to try to fix the sound?
  • 04-12-2004, 10:19 AM
    bturk667
    Let those who bash Bose do so, who cares. As long as like the way they sound , well, is not that all that matters?
  • 04-12-2004, 10:24 AM
    Audie Oghaisle
    That they are designed properly...
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by N. Abstentia
    GOOD speakers won't need an EQ. Bose speakers REQUIRE an EQ. What does that tell you?

    Do you use tone controls? What about all the other equalization that occurs in the recording and playback process? RIAA phono eq, tape deck eq, auditorium tweaking, speaker placement. Whether its mechanical OR electronic, its all eq.

    Bose eq does what it does to shape the sound produced and my further eq helps tame room problems...properly done, it certainly makes more sense than relying on wires and the like...

    Audie
  • 04-12-2004, 10:57 AM
    topspeed
    Glad you like your 901's Audie. I think Skeptic here has a pair lying around as well and hopefully he'll chime in on this. While I think it's every person's perogative, especially in a field as purely subjective as audio, to like or dislike any particular piece of equipment, you're being awfully bold by taking the "Bose Bashers" to task with statements like:
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by audie
    Have you really(and I mean really) listened to live music?

    I'd be careful here as there are many members here that are not only avid concert goers but there are also quite few musicians and audio engineers as well. By making this statement, you appear to be questioning the perceptive abilities of people that do not prefer Bose.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by audie
    Comparing Bose to anything else is like the proverbial "apples and oranges" and those who base an opinon of their sound on a Bose-equipped system that has not been set up correctly don't know what they are missing, how unfortunate

    You could be right on this. My counterpoint would be that speakers should not be that difficult to position in the first place. Even "State of the Art" speakers such as the Wilson W/P7, JM Lab Grand Utopia Be (which is a beast), or Maggie 20.1's rarely require the level of "dialing-in" that you did for the 901's.

    I've heard many Bose systems from the 901s3' down do those horrid little Lifestyle systems and have two problems with Bose:
    1) Their sound is not my cup of tea (no biggie, that's what audio's about)
    2) The prices they charge seem excessive for what you get, particularily with their Lifestyle systems.

    FWIW, I'm happy for any person that has found audio nirvana, regardless of what they listen to. I will however, question any person that claims that their gear is the alpha and omega of audio and anything else is inferior. That's just being short sighted.
  • 04-12-2004, 11:24 AM
    Audie Oghaisle
    Ahoy topspeed...
    I am a musician and a semi-serious recordist. My reference to live music was intended to make reference to natural hi freq roll-off...the equivalent of a tweeter at ear level >10ft away doesn't normally happen in a live setting, particularly in orchestral settings...lotsa things happen on the way...close miked material further exacerbates that situation.

    Speaker placement and tweaking to refine the presentation and/or ameliorate problems is part of the hobby to me...it's surprising what information can be gleaned in the process. Using and understanding how equalization (both mechanical AND electronic)can affect delicate frequency relationships, which further affects overall psychoacoustic properties and sound perception, is quite a revelation.

    Audie
  • 04-12-2004, 11:28 AM
    RGA
    Why defend your speaker - people will attack it Bose or not. There is no perfect speaker - simpy dumping Bose marketing on people by trying to claim it's accurate won't fly because it ain't...no speaker is. Bose, the 901 included, have their faults just as other speaker makers have. Truthfully Bose is not as bad as people say they are. They are in my view bad value in that they charge say $600.00 for a speaker that compete resonably well with other manufacturer's speakers selling for $250.00. That is why they get a bad rap. The enormous price tag in the $3k Cdn range of the Lifestyle system for what is essentially no better than a $200.00 boom box is no help in winning over serious audiophiles. Then these products being so painfully bad for so much money gives them a bad reputation and people then attack the 901 I suspect without ever hearing them.

    I don't particularly like the way the 901 does soundstage, imaging, dynamics and bass. Multiple drivers also create large phase problems that a single driver does not create and slugs the sound having to drive multiple drivers. There is zero advantage to multiple drivers - provided you know how to properly design a two-way system. Since most don't they go to sticking a lot more drivers in a box.

    You do note thatthey don't give listening fatigue - and on that alone they're better than a lot of speakers using fatiguing metal tweeters. But the 901 has a car speaker sound to them of blah to me - you need SOME extension. 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.
  • 04-12-2004, 11:28 AM
    3db
    Although room treatments would be the preferred method
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by N. Abstentia
    An EQ can't fix a bad room either. They make acoustical room treatments for that. How many people install a $5,000 system, then install a $75 EQ to try to fix the sound?

    There's the wife acceptance factor that needs to be dealt with. If the room acoustics aren't way out of wack, then an eq could be used to correct the sound.
  • 04-12-2004, 12:06 PM
    Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Audie Oghaisle
    I recently came across a recent episode of the never-ending to and fro re: the 901s...let me say to all and sundry, and I'll use a line I've read countless times in other forums @this site, "You don't know how to listen!"

    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!

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

    Why? To me, all the reasons pertaining to their design and execution made perfect sense. Multiple small drivers producing the output of a single 12" woofer with less mass, no hangover, none of the drawbacks of the larger cone. They theoretically can and, in practice do, provide crisp and accurate transients and do extend well into the nether areas...talk about basso profundo!

    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.

    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.

    Indulge me, if you will...Placement is critical, I built a side wall to be sure the installation parameters would match side to side. My power amp is an HK Citation 19 rated @100W/side and I use an SAE 2700B half-octave equalizer. 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. The Bose eq is used to tweak lesser recordings and the tone controls on my pre-amp are bypassed with the "defeat" switch.

    The sound is neither bottom-heavy nor shrill, the net result is smooth sound, uncompromising in its' candor. Good recordings sound as they should and poor ones are revealed...Listener fatgue does not apply and the catch-phrases are all at the ready: imaging and depth, inner details, articulation...an acoustic bass sounds as it should, brushes on a drum kit, ditto. But, only if the source can provide these things.

    Comparing Bose to anything else is like the proverbial "apples and oranges" and those who base an opinon of their sound on a Bose-equipped system that has not been set up correctly don't know what they are missing, how unfortunate. And, don't think they are properly set up in a Bose store, quite curiously they're not!

    Audie

    Sir,

    I am sorry, but your arguements in favor of the 901 are hollow at there very best.

    Quote:

    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 huge sweeping inflammatory generalization that is made to give foundation to your point. However this doesn't describe 80% of the speakers that are in the 901's price catagory. If the 901 was measured in the same fashion as other speakers in this price catagory, it would measure worst than at least 90% of them because of the comb filtering, and phase/frequency aberrations caused by the mixing of the direct and reflected output.

    Quote:

    I have owned 901 Series lls since 1974. I auditioned Allisons, Advents, Dahlquists(pre-mirror imaging mods) etc., etc. and chose Bose.
    None of these speaker companies exist anymore. Try a comparison with Dunalavy, Thiel, Aerial Acoustics, and as much as I dislike this kind of speaker Martin Logans. These are todays companies turning out speakers that would put the 901's to absolute shame.

    Quote:

    Why? To me, all the reasons pertaining to their design and execution made perfect sense. Multiple small drivers producing the output of a single 12" woofer with less mass, no hangover, none of the drawbacks of the larger cone. They theoretically can and, in practice do, provide crisp and accurate transients and do extend well into the nether areas...talk about basso profundo!
    There is only one problem with your theory. It takes mass to reproduce bass under 40hz. The size of the drivers, and the internal volume of the 901 makes anything under 40hz impossible to reproduce without a great deal of distortion. What is worse is the 901 suffer from a problem of its design, and its interaction with small room acoustics on a couple of levels. By the way, according to Stereophile, the 901 does suffer from hangover. The worst kind of driver hangover. All of its 9 drivers suffer from hangover in varying degrees which is worse than a single driver with the same effect. Now let's talk about the basso profundo that you say is a 901 strong point.

    Room resonances:
    The fact that, in a living room of typical size, the strongest standing-wave resonances usually occur at low frequencies, is the main reason why putting a speaker in a corner will produce the most bass-heavy sound. Once we get out of the corner, though, the efficiency with which each standing wave is stimulated will depend on the speaker's precise location relative to the room corner.
    The crucial factor seems to be the location in the room from which the woofer(s) are feeding energy into it. Thus, it is often (usually, in fact) possible to obtain flatter overall response with a single relatively small woofer, which radiates from a small area, than from a multi-woofer system whose low end radiates from a general area that may be several feet wide.
    By the same token, loudspeakers which radiate their lows in one direction (they are nondirectional after they leave the speaker) seem less prone to excite all the room resonances than ones which radiate from front and rear or front and sides. True omnidirectional (360-degree) bass radiators make it harder still to control standing waves, and that appears to be one of the problems with the Bose 901
    Thus placement and the quality of the bass ouput of the 901 is totally inconsistant from room to room. No good CONSISTANT results can be obtain from the 901's bass output because instead of outputting from a single point in a corner like a good subwoofer, it is coming from a VERY wide point at that corner which definately excites standing waves at a much greater degree than a single driver subwoofer. Therefore in some rooms the 901 can sound passable, but in MOST rooms it will sound one notey and indistinct. This does not bode well for a speaker that is supposed to go into many different rooms, with many different room deminsions.

    Room reflection and Concert hall ambience:

    Dr Bose seems to operate on the principle that his speaker are designed to simulate(very important word here) the multiple reflections of a concert hall. This is a flimsy premise for small rooms which are too small to support concert hall size reverberation(or reflections). Let's face it, my listening room does not have the deminsions of Boston Symphony Hall. It therefore CANNOT produce a reflection pattern that resembles that hall. Hall reverberation requires a long decay for which my room, nor most listening rooms can support. Keep in mind that it is up to the recording to convey the recorded ambience, not up to the speaker to create some. The multiple reflections emited from the 901 does nothing more than to create a frequency comb filter which alters the natural timbre and tonal qualities of the recorded signal. If accuracy is your main goal, then the 901 fails from the jump. What is worse it that the driver facing the listening position emits very little signal directly to the ears, while the sound of the rearward facing drivers produces the most output. Once the rearward output reflects off the walls and into the room, it is out of phase with the signal from the front panel. The combination of these two signals at the ears produces an unwanted phase shift and time smearing. These phase shifts produce short notches in the frequency response depending on frequency. This is what the 901 uses to broaden the sound source at the expense of small detail and tonal shadings. The 901 does this to EVERY recording regardless of whether it was recorded that way. If a Steinway grand was mean't to be heard spread in between the speakers, with the 901 it will sound like it is as wide as the room itself. This effect while very noticeable with solo instruments, makes mass instruments lose image definition and true scale. In other words proper placement between the speakers.

    In these days of hometheater and 5.1 audio, these speakers have outlived their usefulness. There is no need to scatter artificial reflections all over the room to simulate a live concert hall. A well calibrate 5.1 system of tonally matched speakers and a VERY good sub can do this with ease.

    Quote:

    Indulge me, if you will...Placement is critical, I built a side wall to be sure the installation parameters would match side to side. My power amp is an HK Citation 19 rated @100W/side and I use an SAE 2700B half-octave equalizer. 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
    With all due respect to you, a half octave equalizer is useless in trying to eq a speaker where all of the drivers face foward. It is LESS than useless in dealing with the output of a speaker where the majority of the output is scattered everywhere. A third octave test disc has a smoothing effect of a speaker that exibits as much of a combing effect as this one. 1/6 and 1/10 octave anaylsis is much more revealing of a speakers frequency response. I highly doubt that you attained a flat response from this speaker at any point whether in front, sides, or rear.(according to a stereophile review of the speaker, it could NOT be made flat in four different rooms). A SPL meter, and a test disc is an EXTREMELY crude way of measuring a speaker. It tell you nothing about what is going on in the time domain. It also has no way of gating out room reflections which can alter what you measure by a great degree. Based on my understanding of room acoustics(Acoustics was my graduate minor), and my experience measuring speakers for installation in my clients homes, there is no way you can get a near flat measurement from a 901 even if you were to overlay the different plots you measured and average them together. With a speaker of this type, it is virtually impossible.

    Quote:

    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.
    You are correct in your first sentence. However the distance it takes for the highs to drop off in comparison the the 901(without eq) is alot further than the distance to the rear wall of the typical listening room. Since we listen in the near field, high should remain the same as the recording provides at the common distance that most of us sit from our speakers. If a trumpet is close mike, it should sound close mike. That's called accuracy, and it is indeed as realistic as the recording conveys. That same trumpet will bell will sound 2-3ft wide on a 901, which is WAY less realistic when the bell of a trumpet is perhaps 7-10" wide at is widest flare. Since you are normally sitting 6-10ft from your speakers, I can hardly see(or hear if you will) how it would soundlike your ears on the bell. Huge exaggeration here I must say.

    I believe I can stop right here. I have made my point. I believe that you have been a victim of Dr. Bose's brainwashing. I have several magazines with reviews of the above mention speaker, and none of them even remotely report a flat(or even a near flat) frequency response from them. Most applaud them for their spaciousness, but say they are weak at best in every other measured area. If I where you, in the future I would choose a more conventional speaker to blab about. There is VERY good chance it would measure better than the 901, and therefore offer you some cover from your audacious claims of merit for this speaker. In the plain language of my people of Manhattan, you could lie and hide!
  • 04-12-2004, 12:21 PM
    Audie Oghaisle
    And I "blab"...
    that's rich...

    Audie
  • 04-12-2004, 12:33 PM
    N. Abstentia
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Audie Oghaisle
    Do you use tone controls? What about all the other equalization that occurs in the recording and playback process? RIAA phono eq, tape deck eq, auditorium tweaking, speaker placement. Whether its mechanical OR electronic, its all eq.

    Bose eq does what it does to shape the sound produced and my further eq helps tame room problems...properly done, it certainly makes more sense than relying on wires and the like...

    Audie

    No, I don't use tone controls. They add too much noise to the signal path, and I won't buy a preamp that does not have defeatable tone controls.

    RIAA phono EQ? I thought that RIAA thing was just a phono preamp that allows you to hook a turntable up to any RCA input? Did I misunderstand that one?

    Tape deck..gave up on cassettes in 1991.

    Auditorium tweaking..well I don't live in an auditorium so I don't need that.

    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.
  • 04-12-2004, 12:34 PM
    Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Audie Oghaisle
    that's rich...

    Audie

    I thought you would like that!!!
  • 04-12-2004, 12:46 PM
    Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by N. Abstentia

    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.
  • 04-12-2004, 05:19 PM
    RomCrazy
    Bose
    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 :) )
  • 04-12-2004, 06:09 PM
    Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 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 :) )

    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.
  • 04-12-2004, 07:58 PM
    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.
  • 04-13-2004, 04:46 AM
    Audie Oghaisle
    To all:
    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
  • 04-13-2004, 05:23 AM
    E-Stat
    Audie,

    While their peculiar sound is not my cup of tea, I'd say if you enjoy them, then who cares what everyone else says?

    The best speakers in my experience don't use midrange drivers as subwoofers, though.

    rw
  • 04-13-2004, 05:41 AM
    Audie Oghaisle
    We see and read what we want to...
    "...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
  • 04-13-2004, 05:49 AM
    Sealed
    Kind of reminds me
    "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.
  • 04-13-2004, 06:30 AM
    bturk667
    Sorry, I would rather hate the players!
  • 04-13-2004, 06:32 AM
    Sealed
    Bows...err bose
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Audie Oghaisle
    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...
    >>That is a worthless, broad, unfounded generalization that has nothing to do with high end. Accurate sound is even frequency response at the least, not an emphasis in the treble. So that statement, is baseless, and without merit.

    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!
    >>You are referring to other midfi brands available at discount chains like circuit city, not high end. This is pure claptrap.

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

    Why? To me, all the reasons pertaining to their design and execution made perfect sense. Multiple small drivers producing the output of a single 12" woofer with less mass,
    >> That in itself means nothing. Bigger motors move bigger mass just as well as smaller motors move smaller mass. This is a trite statement.

    no hangover, none of the drawbacks of the larger cone.
    >>There are no drawbacks of a well designed larger cone. Any inference to cone size having direct superiority is patently false.

    They theoretically can and, in practice do, provide crisp and accurate transients and do extend well into the nether areas...talk about basso profundo!
    >> The nether areas? Is that the same as the 45hz roll off point? Basso profundo starts below 40hz, where bose has little significant energy. (Or accurate energy for that matter)

    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.
    >>Especially since bose is eq’s to provide a midbass rise, and exaggerate 60hz. Hence the label “mid bass and mid treble eq”

    Highs? Have you really(and I mean really) listened to live music?
    >> yes, sounds nothing like bose.

    They(the highs) drop off quite distinctly depending on distance from the source.
    >>That’s a fundamental law of sound energy.

    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.
    >>That would be only YOUR opinion, but not a fact.

    The sound is neither bottom-heavy nor shrill, the net result is smooth sound, uncompromising in its' candor.
    >>except for the spitty sizzle of the bose whizzer cones, but..ok.

    Good recordings sound as they should and poor ones are revealed...
    >>on other speakers, but not bose.

    Listener fatgue does not apply
    >>it does to me, I hate the grainy, spitty, rolled off treble.

    and the catch-phrases are all at the ready: imaging and depth, inner details, articulation...an acoustic bass sounds as it should, brushes on a drum kit, ditto. But, only if the source can provide these things.

    >>but since the bose rolls off hard at 13.5khz, it can’t reproduce such details. No one could use bose to master a recording because of the gross Doppler distortion and horribly rolled off extremes. (If you can call 13.5 khz and 45 hz extremes)

    Comparing Bose to anything else is like the proverbial "apples and oranges" and those who base an opinon of their sound on a Bose-equipped system that has not been set up correctly don't know what they are missing, how unfortunate. And, don't think they are properly set up in a Bose store, quite curiously they're not!
    >> Actually, I have listened to bose off and on since 1976. They are ok for casual, noncritical listening but are the diametrically opposed thing to accuracy or flat, full range. Response.




    Audie

    This whole thing sounds like a Bose sales pitch
  • 04-13-2004, 07:09 AM
    topspeed
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Audie Oghaisle
    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 ;)