To all of the Bose-bashers

[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

[N. Abstentia]

GOOD speakers won't need an EQ. Bose speakers REQUIRE an EQ. What does that tell you?

[3db]

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.

[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?

[3db]

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.

[Audie Oghaisle]

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

[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:

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.

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.

[Audie Oghaisle]

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

[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.

[N. Abstentia]

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.

[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 )

[Pat D]

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.

Well, of course a phone preamp is used so you can hook up a phono cartridge on a tone arm mounted to a turntable. But why is this needed? Well, I'll tell you. First of all, phono cartridges have quite low levels of outputs, which is measured in millivolts. So a phono preamp has to raise up the signal level to line level (tape, aux, CD inputs).

Second, dragging record past a stylus is an inherently noisy process. Anyway, in the mastering process, EQ is applied to the signal to raise up the highs and reduce the bass. Hook up your turntable to a line level input like a Tape or Auxiliary input, and you will not only find it quite low in level but rather screechy. So, on playback, the phono preamp applies reverse EQ to cut down those highs and make the response more or less flat and a lot more mellow! So, you see, phono playback does involve EQ both in recording and playback. There used to be a number of different EQ curves, but the RIAA one became the standard one.

Ahhh, the young! They just lack experience in a lot of things. . . .

[skeptic]

"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?"

I think you misunderstood that one...and maybe one or two others.

With the invention of the microgroove phonograph record, what we call vinyl LPs today, certain limitations of the physics of making records had to be overcome. If the signal was applied to the cutting head flat the bass tones would make the groove much too wide to allow any appreciable playing time and the highs would be obliterated by surface noise. So, engineers wisely devised a standard for boosting the highs and cutting the lows on recording and then applying a complimentary boost to the bass and cut to the highs on playback. This equalization process meets a standard called the RIAA curve. All magnetic phonograph cartridges require this equalization to produce anything close to flat frequency response. (by the way, the boosts and cuts at the frequency extremes are considerable.) Of course they encountered the same problem with other processes like tape recording where they have to do the same thing only their equalization standard is called the NAB curve. FM broadcasts also have a similar problem but they just use a filter on playback called a 75 microsecond de-emphesis but it amounts to the same thing. So before your phonograph record reaches your hands it has undergone at least 2 1/2 equalizations, one on the master tape, one on the mixdown tape and again on cutting the disc. But it doesn't stop there. Look at a picture of a recording engineer sitting at a recording console. See all of those knobs, switches and sliders? Know what they do? There sure are a lot of them. And a good percentage of them are used to apply....you guesed it, equalization. So your recording has been equalized to death before you even get it. What about all of the noise and distortion the other equalizers have introduced? It's usually well below audibility. Oh BTW, many microphones use the mechanical equivalent of equalizers in their design as well. And guess what. The crossover networks in your loudspeaker system is a kind of equalizer especially if it uses the Linkwit Riley criteria where there is a slight boost just before the cutoff filtering for each driver. And the resonant chambers used to tune some speakers are you guessed it, the mechanical equivalent of equalizers of a sort.

BTW, you don't get away from it just because you get away from audio. The video amplifiers in your TV set have special equalization circuits that help it separate and decode the chroma signal so you can see color TV.

Equalization is an inherent part of analog signal processing whether we like it or not. On the other hand, digital signals don't need equalization. They don't rely on any mechanical devices whose physical limitations must be compensated for electrically. It dosn't care what part of the spectrum the ones and zeroes occur in.

[slate1]

GOOD speakers won't need an EQ. Bose speakers REQUIRE an EQ. What does that tell you?

No offense N. Abstentia, but I just have never understood the whole "you should never touch your tone controls and should be hung, drawn and made to listen to polka if you use an EQ" point of view.

I could subscribe to the whole idea if every recording ever made was done in exactly the same recording studio using exactly the same equipment under exactly the same conditions, etc. etc. - but that's simply just not the case.

If you ever get the chance to witness the recording process you'll see that from the moment the first guitar string is plucked to the moment it's placed on the final master there are tonal adjusments via EQ being done throughout the entire process.

I've been using an AudioControl Ten Series III EQ for years with every amp/speaker combination I've ever had. The trick, in my opinon, is not to over do it - I never tweak more than 4-6db and have always been able to compensate for some of the obvious faults in the original recordings.

Ahhh - I hear you already out there, "faults in the original recordings??? but that's the way the record was MEANT to be heard"

How do I know what it originally sounded like unless I've got the exact equipment and monitors that were present in the original recording and mixing studio? I can't - no one can.

Everyone just needs to face the fact that there's no way to exactly duplicate what the originators of the music were intending with a particular mix. Furthermore, everyone also needs to realize that no two amp/speaker combinations are ever going to sound alike and that even if you take the same amp/speaker combinations and place them in two different rooms they're likely to sound dramatically different.

My only point is that, in my opinion, a **GOOD** EQ that doesn't introduce any additional noise (like an AudioControl - which, btw, is going to set you back several hundred dollars) is an essential part of any setup. Tone controls, I will grant you, are fairly useless as they adjust broad swaths of the sound spectrum and unavoidably end up adjusting elements that you don't want tinkered with.

If you know what you're doing and are fairly reserved with your adjustments a high quality EQ can be an invaluable piece of equipment.

Let the flames begin!!!!

[Ja Galus]

I was a sucker back in 1986...I bought a pair of Bose 901s. I played around with placement for a few months...tried everything. I could never get the midrange to sound right. About 6 months later, I heard a friend's DCM Time Window speakers. The 901s went up for sale the next day. I bought into the hype. They were my biggest audio mistake up to that point, with the exception of buying an outboard Carver Digital Time Lens. Mind you, they were a perfect match for the inferior "digital sound" of the day...they were good at masking flaws!

[eisforelectronic]

Lifestyle systems always paid excellent commission. With a little experimenting I did happen upon one way to make a lifestyle system sound decent.....change all the speakers.

[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?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

[Audie Oghaisle]

that's rich...

Audie

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

that's rich...

Audie

I thought you would like that!!!

[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

[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

[Sealed]

..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.

[Audie Oghaisle]

No further text