Almost killed by Bose Lovers

[Audie Oghaisle]

as long as one toes(or is it tows) the party line all is well, what is this "AA" Lite?

Everyone's foundation on that shaky ground? Can't stand the thought of being blinkered Philistines mired in their own pre-conceived notions?

"But you're obviously looking for a huge flame war here, and I fear you've come to a place where people love to flame....You've got way too much time on your hands if that's the case..."

FYI, don't let the "newbie" fool you, I've been about for quite some time. Merely had trouble re-registering from one of this sites previous incarnations. Perhaps you wouldn't remember. I have too much time on my hands? The Bose chum certainly brought out the bottom-feeders, so whatabout them?

"...seriously...what did you hope to accomplish by posting a defense of Bose in the middle of a thread oozing Bose bashing posts?..."

Simply taking my freedom of speech out for a little exercise, problem with that? BTW, I didn't defend anything, simply offered an alternative viewpoint, problem with that?

"Not to make friends with locals, that's for sure."

If I want more friends, I'll adopt another dog!

"...Not to make a worthwhile contribution to another's request, either..."

Another's request? Where? What? Who? The initial poster related a story of what transpired at a car dealership. Oh, I see. Again, I didn't join in with the @$$-slapping, semi-homo-erotic bonding ritual as did others, so I must be at fault. Yes, I see that now.

"Not even a cheap humorous pop."

I am the audience, YOU(the collective) are the humor.

"You seem to understand that you cannot change the opinion of Bose-bashers, so why even bother wasting your time here?'

Because I choose to now and again.

"Please explain your intentions."

I'm not asking for anyone's hand in marriage, is that a requirement of the by-laws?

"Have you've come looking to argue?"

I never engage in a battle of wits with the unarmed.

"Are you lonely?"

Worst internet pick-up line I've ever read...sorry pal, I don't swing that way.

"I would have thought you satisfied that hunger for bickering in your previous thread..."

Just shows you how WRONG you can be.

[kexodusc]

Okay, you got me there...You win!!!

[Worf101]

Well, I'll give you credit Mr. Bose lover you sure no how to clear a room. I guess if it had been you who I ran into in the dealership we'd still be arguing right now. Well, to each his own. My original post was NOT a Bose Bash but a description of what occurred. That's all, no more no less.

Da Worfster

[Swerd]

Well, I'll give you credit Mr. Bose lover you sure no how to clear a room.
Da Worfster

And please, spare us all the hackneyed rhetoric.

I just can't resist that one

"Hell hath no fury like a Bose 901-lover scorned by a bunch of @$$-slapping, semi-homo-erotic ritual bonders."

T.H.E. Swerd

[piece-it pete]

Hey I'm a bottom-feeder! I guess I've been called worse .

We'll have to sic Don on him!

Pete

[Audie Oghaisle]

your characterization of me is an accurate one, I simply am aware of the sonic differences involved. I have no experience with either Bose or JBL auto systems, so I can't comment or make a comparison with a "premium" OEM factory system, I like mine. Anyone who claims to have or know the "best" of anything needs a reality check. As you have said, to each his own.

"My original post was NOT a Bose Bash but a description of what occurred. That's all, no more no less."

I never read it as anything else, unfortunately others did.

Now, has anyone ever explained the unique advantages of a Bose Lifestyle system? ;-)

[DMK]

"Folks you can buy what you like use what you like, but many people who are audio enthusiasts do not consider Bose products top shelf and many believe they're overpriced for the sound produced. As for what's better than Bose? I personally own 6 sets of speakers from various manufacturers that I prefer to Bose. My Allison 4's, Platinum Audio Studio 3's, Ohm Walsh 4's, F's and 2's. All of these speakers old discontinued models and they are STILL superior in sound, fidelity and design to current Bose products. These speakers are NOT sold on late night TV or given away as door prizes. Take a trip to any store that sells B&W or other top flight gear and see what your money can really buy."

:

Dr Bose just called me. It seems your post has caused quite a stir and Dr Bose would like your full name and an address at which to serve your summons. Have a nice day.

[Bryan]

Can't stand the thought of being blinkered Philistines mired in their own pre-conceived notions?

We can as we are David and Bose is Goliath.

If I want more friends, I'll adopt another dog!

So you're saying the vast majority of your friends are dogs or animals incapable of disagreeing with you?

I am the audience, YOU(the collective) are the humor.

No. You are the one in the audience that gets picked on by the comedian.

I never engage in a battle of wits with the unarmed.

And you are here because? Sadly you are the one who is unarmed. Then again, it could be due to your not having any wits to begin with, of which the battle is over long before it began.

I can and do hear the difference in the presentation of both types of loudspeakers, unfortunately it's the Bose-bashing types who can't, and thusly reveal themselves to be the closed-minded cretins they accuse others of being.

If you can hear it, then others must be able to hear it. Unless, you are the only one with "magic ears" capable of hearing the difference between the two speakers.

Close minded is hardly how I would describe this place, especially when suggestions for nOrh, Ascend Acoustics, Klipsch, Axiom, B&W, Dynaudio, Def Tech, NHT, JBL, SVS, Paradigm, PSB, Energy, Wharfedale, Martin Logan, etc. have been mentioned. Yet Bose is the be all end all to some people and they are unwilling to listen to different ideas and suggestions.

The poster who gave the "cupped hand" analogy is quite correct in that characterization, in a side by side audition Bose will fail every time.

If it were so good then it would win the side by side comparison every time.

However, if one takes the time to listen "into" the soundfield produced by a properly set up pair of 901's instead of expecting to be bowled-over by them(or audibly assaulted) based strictly on experience with direct radiator units, the sound is, in fact, quite accurate. Sorry if you don't agree.

And if you take out the EQing of the 901s? Let us disect the 901, shall we? 9 full range drivers? The best 'full range' 3" driver I ever heard was in the nOrh 3.0. Even it only did 75Hz - 20KHz. Yet, a single 901 full range driver can not even do that well. You have to have the sound bounce off the walls to get to the listener in order for it to sound good? Whatever happened to simply toeing in a speaker to increase the sweet spot? Or what about making sure the tweeters are at ear level while the listener is seated? Then again, what if you power those 901s with a Yamaha receiver and use the YPAO feature found in the RX-V1400? Will the 901s still sound good? Not to mention the 901 is available to you for $1,398.

For comparison purposes, competing speakers are:
Onix Rocket RS550 MKII with risers - $1,124
Axiom M80ti - $1,100
nOrh SM 6.9 - $995
Odyssey Nightengale - $1,295
Magnepan MG12 - $1,199
ACI Sapphire - $1,300
ACI Protoge - $1,000
B&W 604 S4 - $1,400
Dynaudio Audience 72 - $1,400
Paradigm Reference Studio 40 v3 - $1,200
Klipsch RF-5 - $1,100

All of those have their different attributes yet setup on those is basically the same. Overall, all will sound good, if not much better than the 901s. As you can buy the 901s factory direct I included other factory direct manufacturers in there. Heck, I'd even have put my $150 (now $200) pair of nOrh 3.0s against the 901s. Granted they may lose (as they were roughly 1/10th the cost of the 901s) but the battle may be much closer than what you think.

[RGA]

Actually Bose is generlaly overpriced but not neccessarily always doling out total disasters - Some may be surprised that in the blind panel listening session the Bose 305 circa 1996 received a recommended speaker rating in the $400.00British Pound range. Issue #78 "Fine Dynamic liveliness and a good room match counter strange imaging and treble."

The 901 is still obnoxious and ridiculously priced - if it was $199.00Cdn It might and I mean Might be worth it for fun and you can put up with the stupid soundstage.

[Woochifer]

Please, don't do me any favors!

I can and do hear the difference in the presentation of both types of loudspeakers, unfortunately it's the Bose-bashing types who can't, and thusly reveal themselves to be the closed-minded cretins they accuse others of being.

The poster who gave the "cupped hand" analogy is quite correct in that characterization, in a side by side audition Bose will fail every time. However, if one takes the time to listen "into" the soundfield produced by a properly set up pair of 901's instead of expecting to be bowled-over by them(or audibly assaulted) based strictly on experience with direct radiator units, the sound is, in fact, quite accurate. Sorry if you don't agree.

They may not be everyone's cuppa, but that's why there's vanilla and chocolate.

Yeah, and a "properly" setup set of 901s will still sound like "mono everywhere" with collapsed ill-defined imaging that sounds big, but gives you nothing in the way of differentiated audio depth perception or left-right panning accuracy. I guess it would sound accurate if I want everything to sound like I placed a pair of speakers on the stage of the Boston symphony hall.

But, given that most soundtracks are already mixed with the ambient and imaging cues in place, and designed for a more acoustically neutral playback, I hardly see that as a benefit. If you want the illusion of a big symphony hall with scads of reflected sound, then buy a receiver with DSP modes. It will still make your speakers sound like they were placed inside an echo chamber, but in the meantime you're not stuck with the liabilities of the 901 for those sources (which would be oh ... say ... 99.9% of the time) that do not benefit from huge wall of mud imaging.

[Woochifer]

Actually Bose is generlaly overpriced but not neccessarily always doling out total disasters - Some may be surprised that in the blind panel listening session the Bose 305 circa 1996 received a recommended speaker rating in the $400.00British Pound range. Issue #78 "Fine Dynamic liveliness and a good room match counter strange imaging and treble."

The 901 is still obnoxious and ridiculously priced - if it was $199.00Cdn It might and I mean Might be worth it for fun and you can put up with the stupid soundstage.

Their 201 and 301 bookshelf models are probably the closest thing to decent speakers that Bose makes. I assume that you're referring to the Bose 301 bookshelf model (I don't think they ever made a model 305, at least for the U.S. market), and that speaker has decent bass extension and is one of the few bookshelf speakers around the $300 price point that uses 8" woofers.

But, their other faults make it very hard to recommend them over comparable alternatives (I should know, my wife had a pair of them and we used it for over a year as surround speakers). For one thing, the overall linearity of the frequency response, especially in the midrange, is poor (a simple sine sweep reveals very erratic SPL over the audible range). The one aspect of that speaker that might charm the ears of some so-called audiophiles is the rolled off high end. It's nonoffensive (though not especially revealing either), but the off-angle and heavy reflected sound from the tweeter make the overall sound highly variable from room to room, and drastically different even within the same room from location to location.

[eisforelectronic]

in a side by side audition Bose will fail every time.

I wouldn't want any speaker, I could describe this way.

[Geoffcin]

[QUOTE=Woochifer]Their 201 and 301 bookshelf models are probably the closest thing to decent speakers that Bose makes. I assume that you're referring to the Bose 301 bookshelf model (I don't think they ever made a model 305, at least for the U.S. market), and that speaker has decent bass extension and is one of the few bookshelf speakers around the $300 price point that uses 8" woofers.
QUOTE]

For a few miserable hours back in the mid 80's I owned a pair of 201's that I was intending to use for rear speakers in an HT setup. I was told by the salesman that "BOSE know's HT" The speakers were awful; poor high frequancy responce, terrible dispertion, tubby bass, ECH! I returned them the next day.

[skeptic]

Now for some objective facts from someone who knows first hand what he's talking about because he owns a pair and other speakers as well.

Anyone read my recent thread about my tinkering with my original Bose 901s which I've owned for 35 years and which sat mothballed for most of that time? Well, Astonishing progress has been made.

OK Brian, lets take the original Bose 901 apart and see what's really in it, not just the hardware by the knowledge and theory behind it and what it can do, and what it can't do. What its real strengths and weaknesses are.

There are some truely amazing concepts in this design which was not only totally innovative but solved many problems for which nobody else had an acceptable solution for.

The 9 drivers used in the original Bose 901 and series II were 4 inch acoustic suspension units. They were deliberately mounted in a small enclosure to push the low frequency resonance UP to 180 hz, exactly the opposite of what other speaker designers try to achieve. Why? Because at and above this frequency, Dr. Bose determined that phase shift is far less audible. Around a speaker's resonant frequency there is significant phase shift and below that frequency there is a linear falloff which can be compensated for with active equalization flattening the bass response so remarkably that it outperformed virtually every other commercially available speaker on the market in bass response at the time of its introduction within it maximum loudness capabilities given enough available amplifier power. That's not an opinion, it's a statement of fact that was verified by every reviewer testing it and publishing their results including the highly respected sound engineer Bert White who wrote for Audio Magazine. Today 35 years later, it still cannot be bettered by speakers of its small size. And its bass will still outperform most other speakers not having a very good subwoofer built in or supplementing it. Sadly, this attribute was lost with series III onward which completely sacrificed the lowest octave for improved overall efficiency.

The use of 9 closely coupled drivers covering the same range eliminates the secondary resonances (the minor little wiggles in response of individual drivers which occur at random) and allows the equalizer to theoretically achieve relatively flat response within the limits of the drivers capability.

The use of one direct driver and 8 reflected drivers allows the front driver to establish the first arriving wavefront providing the cue to directionality and the stereophonic effect while the reflected wave front arrives from a much broader surface in many ways similar to the broad wavefront from panel type speakers. However, to achieve this result requires a suitable room and very careful placement.

The active equalization concept is executed with great precision to match the characteristics of the louspeaker and is far more effective and rational than passive crossover networks used at far higher power levels. The electrical load presented to the power amplifier is much less complex and simpler to drive. A better design will incorporate both.

Where then did Dr. Bose fail?

He failed in at least three ways. First and by far the most serious shortcoming of ALL Bose 901 loudspeakers is their inability to reproduce the highest octave of sound. This is an unforgivable shortcoming for a high fidelity loudspeaker. Why can't it do that? Regardless of what the specifications say, the inertia of a 4 inch cone is simply much too great to reproduce high frequencies acceptably no matter how much power you pump into it. Furthermore, even if it could, the large diameter of the cone compared to the wavelengths would beam the front firing high frequencies in a very narrow angle which is also unacceptable for a high fidelity loudspeaker. In my own experiments, I have added four 3/4 poly tweeters per channel mounted directly on the Bose enclosure, one firing forward and three rearward, two of which are angled left and right and the third firing straight back. The front firing speaker is attenuated 3 db compared to each of the rear tweeters creating a 1 to 6 ratio compared to a 1 to 8 ratio and all are crossed over at about 8 or 9 khz and the system is biamplified allowing independent level adjustment and equalization. This allows the combined system to reproduce a very extended frequency response.

The second problem is that the original had a well documented frequency response peak in the 200 to 500 hz region. I have equalized this out and added even more deep bass. Unfortunately the amplifier I'm using doesn' t have enough power to test the liimits of the speaker. I'm using Marantz SR 930 a fairly high powered receiver but I can easily peg its led meters. I'm not quite sure how much power it can deliver but the power input is fused at 8 amps. I don't know if a single pair will ever challenge my Teledyne AR9s which have 2 12" acoustic suspension woofers in 4 cu ft enclosures, but I will try both more power and multiple enhanced 901s to see how far they can go.

The relationship between the direct and reflected sound fields produced by this speaker have nothing in common between the corresponding sound fields produced by symphony orchestras in concert halls. However, the speaker's radiating pattern is very much more similar to the radiating patterns of actual musical instruments than forward firing speakers bringing the sound of small groups right into the room. When improved in the way I have described, they produce a presence of sound I have not heard with any other loudspeaker. I belive that much better direct/reflecting speakers are possible and I intend to experiment designing and building them for myself over the next few years.

[topspeed]

That funny, I thought this thread was about Worfster shopping for a new toy and at the very most, opinion on Bose car audio. When did this become a dissection of the 901?

Audie, if you like the 901 direct/reflecting gig, hey by all means enjoy! In their car applications however, the speakers are placed in the exact same array as 99% of the other OEM systems and rarely use direct/reflecting unless they are bouncing the tweeter off the windshield or have speakers sitting on the rear deck (which is rare). I've had Bose sound systems in a couple of my cars and had very mixed results. In the Infiniti, it was actually pretty good, although the treble was still too rolled-off for my taste. The one in the Pathfinder is soo bad I actually e-mailed Bose (no reply) and took it into the dealership because I was sure something was wrong. Alas, it just sounds sh!tty; think 20 wool blankets over the speakers. It is, without question, the worst stereo I've ever encountered outside the stock am/fm radio I had in my Bronco in high school. Of all the OEM systems in my vehicles, the best sounding was the Infinity Gold system in my Grand Cherokee. Most of my passengers actually thought I had an aftermarket system installed and while I won't go so far to say it sounded that good, it was far better than any Bose car system I've heard.

Therefore, if we stay on topic, the folks that thought Bose car audio systems were the best had simply not heard a Volvo/Dynaudio, Acura/ELS, Lexus/Mark Levinson, or even Jeep/Infinity system. If they had, I have a very hard time believing they would still find Bose to be the best car audio systems, especially compared to the Acura's true multi-channel dvd-a system.

[Worf101]

Dr Bose just called me. It seems your post has caused quite a stir and Dr Bose would like your full name and an address at which to serve your summons. Have a nice day.

LOL, it's 3:00 AM I just got in from a gig and I'm laughing my BBA off. Touche... Well and truly done son!

Da Worfster

[Worf101]

That funny, I thought this thread was about Worfster shopping for a new toy and at the very most, opinion on Bose car audio. When did this become a dissection of the 901?

Audie, if you like the 901 direct/reflecting gig, hey by all means enjoy! In their car applications however, the speakers are placed in the exact same array as 99% of the other OEM systems and rarely use direct/reflecting unless they are bouncing the tweeter off the windshield or have speakers sitting on the rear deck (which is rare). I've had Bose sound systems in a couple of my cars and had very mixed results. In the Infiniti, it was actually pretty good, although the treble was still too rolled-off for my taste. The one in the Pathfinder is soo bad I actually e-mailed Bose (no reply) and took it into the dealership because I was sure something was wrong. Alas, it just sounds sh!tty; think 20 wool blankets over the speakers. It is, without question, the worst stereo I've ever encountered outside the stock am/fm radio I had in my Bronco in high school. Of all the OEM systems in my vehicles, the best sounding was the Infinity Gold system in my Grand Cherokee. Most of my passengers actually thought I had an aftermarket system installed and while I won't go so far to say it sounded that good, it was far better than any Bose car system I've heard.

Therefore, if we stay on topic, the folks that thought Bose car audio systems were the best had simply not heard a Volvo/Dynaudio, Acura/ELS, Lexus/Mark Levinson, or even Jeep/Infinity system. If they had, I have a very hard time believing they would still find Bose to be the best car audio systems, especially compared to the Acura's true multi-channel dvd-a system.

I was only referring to Bose's CURRENT LINE of products as "not my cup of tea". I lusted mightly for a set of 901's when I rotated back to the world and was inches from being a sillyvilian again, but I couldn't afford them then. The closest I've ever come to a set of vintage 901's was a couple of failed bids on Ebay. My better half has enrolled me in S.A. (Speakers Anonymous) for the duration so, unless I sell or use some spakers, I'm stuck.

Da Worfster

[skeptic]

If you bid on vintage 901s be careful. The original version and series II were acoustic suspension systems which MUST be air tight. Their dirvers had suspension which did not deteriorate. After 35 years, I inspected mine carefully before I started my project and found one to have an air leak not due to driver failure but because the plumbers putty they used between the drivers and the wood enclosure (yes they used real wood) had dried out. I used GE silicone caulking around the metal driver frames being very careful not to get any on the drivres or suspensions. This restored the air tightness necessary for them to produce the bass response they were designed for. The way I tested them was to remove the back grill cloth exposing 8 of the 9 drivers. I gently pushed in slighly on 3 of them and when all of the others moved out, I knew they were air tight again.

I had checked with Bose's service department first and they agreed with this method. They also said that if they needed repair, it would be impossible because of their age and lack of availability of parts. In the manufacture of original Bose 901 and series II the drivers supplied by CTS to Bose were segregated into three groups and the drivers used in each unit were all from the same group. In the original they were segregated manually, in series II they were segregated by a computer. So if you have one with a defective driver, you cannot arbitrarily canabalize another unit for a replacement and be sure you are getting an exact match.

BTW, Bose offered me a trade in at my option for a brand new pair of series VI for my pair and $772. How's that for an offer after 35 years of use? (I'm sure they wouldn't have lost any money on it.) But I declined not wanting to trade downward.