bose=junk...why?

[aurobot]

I have to admit i've been fighting the impulse recently to buy a pair of old bose 901s. i've never owned a pair of bose speakers and i've read over and over again how some people love them, some people hate them... I'm curious to know why people hate them. Not that i doubt it, necessarily, i'm just looking for more info before i decide to take the plunge or not. The older ones are so funky looking, which makes them even harder for me to resist. If you want to to make comparisons to other speakers, I can tell you I like the sound of older celestions and Bostons, and am rather fond of the Paradigm Titan and the DCM CX-17.

Thanks!

Michael

[RGA]

Keep fighting the impulse. The 901 creates a big sound even when there isn't suppose to be - and from the newer models I have heard they are completly useless in the world of dynamics. A simple two-way design if properly set-up from a competant maker IMO is the best approach - for every addition of complexity to improve something you create a mutitude of problems that have to be "corrected." Bose had an interesting idea - but the result is total garbage. You can do a search on this forum on the 901 to get more technical reason why it's such a bad speaker. But listening to them against pretty much any current $300.00 speaker(from say B&W, PSB, Energy etc) should tell you all you need to know.

[topspeed]

I have to admit i've been fighting the impulse recently to buy a pair of old bose 901s. i've never owned a pair of bose speakers and i've read over and over again how some people love them, some people hate them... I'm curious to know why people hate them. Not that i doubt it, necessarily, i'm just looking for more info before i decide to take the plunge or not. The older ones are so funky looking, which makes them even harder for me to resist. If you want to to make comparisons to other speakers, I can tell you I like the sound of older celestions and Bostons, and am rather fond of the Paradigm Titan and the DCM CX-17.

Thanks!

Michael

Geez, this is becoming a monthly issue around here. Read these:
Does Bose know that they are hated?
To all of the Bose-bashers

If you like 'em, buy 'em and screw everyone else's opinion. It's your money, dammit!

[skeptic]

I own a pair of original Bose 901s. I am the original owner having had them for 35 years. The product is well manufactured. However, the sound does not have the extended range on the high end or the flattest response even with the equalizer many audiophiles demand. A few months ago, I added four tweeters to each of mine (one direct and three indirect), biamplified them and re-equalized them and they are now extremely pleasing to me. If you want to get the best out of the bass performance it can produce, you will need an enormously powerful amplifier. I'd say about 200 wpc or channel or more.

Series one and two are identical except for the equalizer which offers more high end boost curves in series two. Inspect all of the drivers carefully. Be sure that there are no holes in the cones or signs of deterioration to the surrounds. Excellent condition is typical if they were well cared for because series one and two were made from materials that don't deteriorate readily. However, I had to reseal the gasketing around all nine drivers between the metal fames and the wood enclosure with GE silicone caulking. I worked very carefully and got none on any of the drivers. It is very important that the enclosures are abolutely air tight or the system will not produce bass properly. You cannot canabilize one Bose 901 enclosure to scavange for drivers for another. The drivers were segregated into three groups at the factory. If you ever have to replace one driver, you may have a problem assuring an exact match. It is possible that Bose can help if you have the serial numbers for your enclosures. Hopefully they kept their records all these years. When I called them a few months ago they were extremely cooperative and helpful. They offered me a trade in for a new pair of 901s for $772. I turned it down. Starting with series three, they went to a ported system design which doesn't have the extended bass resoponse below 40 hz of series one and two.

Within their capabilities, to get the best out of them, you MUST use the equalizer and you MUST position them to take advantage of their direct reflecting design characteristics. Many people do not or cannot do this and then complain that they don't perform well. Think carefully about what you want to do. Having had experience with them myself, I'd certainly opt for a second pair given the current market price of a couple of hundred bucks. But then I'd also opt for a Crown CE-1000 amplifier to drive them with. Most audiphiles would turn up their noses at that too.

[aurobot]

I should have realized how worn out this subject would be here...sorry! despite this, Skeptic and Resident Loser, between the two, told me exactly what I wanted to know. I've modified a few older speakers because I like their midrange, but want something different in the high end. On the other hand, if I get a good pair and set them exactly as intended, they might be fine as is. I have a memory of demoing speakers in a local stereo store (not a bad one, either, as it was before the strip mall chains took over the local market) and thinking the 901s at least held their own when compared to JBL Century L100s and some ElectroVoices. Not necessarily better, but they had a definite presence. Now that you mention power requirements, I do seem to recall they were some rather large amps powering those 901s, Phase Linear perhaps. I don't have anything near 200wpc, and that may be the deciding factor in the end. Anyway, thanks for the info.

[skeptic]

I have found that a multidirectional array of poly tweeters will easily outperform any single front firing tweeter. The reason is that it is the only way to make the polar response at high frequencies comparable to the rest of the speaker system and threfore the high frequency energy as a function of time is also comparable. This is due to early reflections (echoes) from the direction of the speaker which are unavoidable. This beats pulling the speakers away from the wall or using sound absorbing material on the walls behind the speaker. You also get the advantage of being able to place the speaker against the front wall taking advantage of the bass reinforcement this offers. All of the sound systems in my house used for listening to music use multidirectional tweeter arrays. In my experience, unless you get the high frequency response right in this way, it is impossible to accurately balance the tone of the rest of the system. Even so it takes time and patience depending on how particular you are.

The Crown CE-1000 offers 275 wpc into 8 ohms (one pair of Bose 901s) and 450 wpc into 4 ohms (two pairs in parallel.) It costs only $450 from Parts Express including shipping. It is the ideal solution for powering these speakers.

http://www.partsexpress.com/webpage....WebPage_ID=133

For the original Bose 901, I used four tweeters per channel each crossed over with a single 2.7 mfd capacitor for a 6 db per octave filter. A second amplifier is used to power the tweeters. It derives the signal from the main preamp output which is unequalized by the Bose equalizer but equalized by a 10 band eqalizer in the preamp and controlled by the preamp volume control. The volume control on the second amplifier sets the relative level of the outboard tweeters. That amplifier has its treble level set about flat and its bass control at full cut. The main equalizer has a cut to eliminate the 901's peak in the 500 hz range, some additional bass boost and a slight high end rolloff.

The front tweeter is hung with two small plastic L brackets from the underside of the top plate just above the front 4 inch driver. Two rear tweeters are screwed directly into the rear edge of the top plate on each side between the 4 inch drivers and the last one is at the apex held into the top plate with some long screws. This avoids drilling any holes into the enclosure which might result in an air leak.

The speakers are installed in a 14 x 14 sun room whose walls are about half glass about 12 inches from one wall and about 2 feet from each side.

The overall result is a very wide range clear accurate sound which preserves the unmachable attributes of the direct/reflecting nature of this unique loudspeaker system. The effect of the direct reflecting sound propagation is what IMO attracts so many buyers despite the other limitations and high cost of Bose 901. I think my pair have overcome the main objection audiophiles have of it, namely, its unacceptable frequency response distortions. I just might have the best sounding Bose 901s in the world.

[Resident Loser]

...here is some info from a more recent Bose-bashing extravaganza I had posted in:

http://forums.audioreview.com/showth...p?postid=36870

Take-em or leave-em, it's your bread, YOU should make the decision...

jimHJJ(...Series One or Two, preferably the latter...and make sure you get the equalizer and further make sure it's one that is matched to the speakers...)

[RGA]

I have to admit i've been fighting the impulse recently to buy a pair of old bose 901s. i've never owned a pair of bose speakers and i've read over and over again how some people love them, some people hate them... I'm curious to know why people hate them. Not that i doubt it, necessarily, i'm just looking for more info before i decide to take the plunge or not. The older ones are so funky looking, which makes them even harder for me to resist. If you want to to make comparisons to other speakers, I can tell you I like the sound of older celestions and Bostons, and am rather fond of the Paradigm Titan and the DCM CX-17.

Thanks!

Michael

I would ask your question at http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/speakers/bbs.html
You can technical reasons from acoustic engineers and speaker designers/builders there other than just Skeptics. I posted his view that all front firing tweeters are hopeless and thus all manufacturers know less about speaker design than skeptic does - which is basiclaly what he said.

So if you want people who passed some engineering courses they will let you know everything you need to know about Bose - multidriectional drivers(which are in fact totally inferior to front firing designs) then go there. Their are several forums including a technical forum as to why the Bose 901 is a piece of crap - the fact that one has to practically re-design it by adding tweeters and changing frequencies should tell you that Bose didn't know how to do it right in the first place. http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/speakers/bbs.html

[skeptic]

The hot shot know it alls at CA really have the inside track on audio knowledge don't they? So RGA, in your opinion multidirectional tweeter arrays don't produce more natural sound huh? WRONG!!! Real musical instruments DON'T restrict their high frequency overtones to just the forward hemisphere or less just as they don't restrict the way they radiate any of the rest of their sound. But conventional loudspeakers do. And conventional loudspeakers DON'T SOUND LIKE MUSIC, at least not to me. Dealing with the reality of this problem might explain why so many audiophiles pull their speakers away from the walls and why so many of them prefer bipolar radiators like electrostatic or mangetoplanar speakers or even just bipolar conventional driver speakers like those made by Mirage. Perhaps if manufacturers would do some real research and stop pretending that their tweaking and tinkering actually gets them somewhere, they might just stop producing more me-too products that copy what previous generations did decades ago. Like Sudgen and Audio Note.

[RGA]

Well they seemingly know more than you because they actually are the ones designing and building equipment - unlike you who listen to Bose speakers in Glass rooms they actually know whatthey are in fact talking about over at AA. You have given us no products to demonstrate your superior design building skills.

Sugden copied no-one they are sighted as the FIRST solid State class A amplifier maker that actually made it musically noteworthy. Audio Note -- well thanks they know more about design that you could possibly dream of - I posted your Bose multidirectional garbage on AA and you would be happy to know that a second year student knows you're approach is BS.

And Mirage - well yes now if they only built something that remotely sounded good rather than a fashion statement me too design - something of which in fat stats and planars largely are - with the exception of Quad - but then they have no bass or dynamics - and it is YOU who is always saying with out bass music is crap - but wait for Quad and Magnepan you make an exception? Please.

[skeptic]

Class A designs were developed just after they finished building the Pyramids. Every guy who ever built an amplifier claimed that his was the first and only "musical" one. The tubes are the same, the topologies are about the same, the transformers and the voltages are about the same. OK, they have better capacitors today than they did 40 or 50 years ago. As for A/N's speakers, they tweaked Peter Snell's 20 year old design and charge an arm and a leg for it. Ho hum.

As for Audio Asylum, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze, don't waste my time. I don't go over to injun territory. I just fly over at high altitude every now and then to see if they are on the warpath. Usually it's against somebody who doesn't follow their party line.

[RGA]

Class A designs were developed just after they finished building the Pyramids. Every guy who ever built an amplifier claimed that his was the first and only "musical" one. The tubes are the same, the topologies are about the same, the transformers and the voltages are about the same. OK, they have better capacitors today than they did 40 or 50 years ago. As for A/N's speakers, they tweaked Peter Snell's 20 year old design and charge an arm and a leg for it. Ho hum.

As for Audio Asylum, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze, don't waste my time. I don't go over to injun territory. I just fly over at high altitude every now and then to see if they are on the warpath. Usually it's against somebody who doesn't follow their party line.

Hahah - I kind of figured that would be your response - I think you have the wrong end of the stick old boy - you were made a laughing stock and left because you're hackneyed theories were put in their place - Ohh you were too afraid you would be kicked out for saying bizarre things - hell Johhn Risch is there and they have a DBT okay to discuss section and technical forum now - but you would rather post your stuff to people who don't have Any technical background whatsoever - too chicken to discuss with those who actually know more than you - But of course that applies to your drivel about classical music as well.

If it's so great sell it - but of course it isn't is it obviously.

[WmAx]

RGA. Please explain specifically in what way(s) multidirectional(i assume you als mean omnipolar) are 'totally' inferior to front firing designs? You state this as if it's a universally applicable statement, too. You need to be specific. The generalization you made is not accurate. Explain.

-Chris

I would ask your question at http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/speakers/bbs.html
You can technical reasons from acoustic engineers and speaker designers/builders there other than just Skeptics. I posted his view that all front firing tweeters are hopeless and thus all manufacturers know less about speaker design than skeptic does - which is basiclaly what he said.

So if you want people who passed some engineering courses they will let you know everything you need to know about Bose - multidriectional drivers(which are in fact totally inferior to front firing designs) then go there. Their are several forums including a technical forum as to why the Bose 901 is a piece of crap - the fact that one has to practically re-design it by adding tweeters and changing frequencies should tell you that Bose didn't know how to do it right in the first place. http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/speakers/bbs.html

[RGA]

RGA. Please explain specifically in what way(s) multidirectional(i assume you als mean omnipolar) are 'totally' inferior to front firing designs? You state this as if it's a universally applicable statement, too. You need to be specific. The generalization you made is not accurate. Explain.

-Chris

Interesting you come after me but not Skeptic that multidirectional is superior to ALL front firing designs. Is that a true universal statement WmAx? Yes I should not have said all Omnipolar designs were inferior - but Mr. Superiority Snob Skeptic seems to think he knows everything so lets hear his design.

I am relaying respnses from an engineer - you are quite welcome to get into it with him but this forum has so few engineering types that skeptic can pretty much say whatever unmolested. But his Bose post seemed a bit strange because I have found all multi-directional speaker set-up sto sound BAD - and i mean BAD - expensive or not. The neat factor they may be but listenable - well if you know of one I should try I would eb happy to but because they're so bad no one carries them in my area - because if it was good at all it might actually sell.


Here was the response:
"Total disinformation. A multidirectional tweeter array cannot give anything but poor performance. Any 2nd semester audio engineering student is aware of this, which bespeaks little of the technical expertise of the person who wrote that piece. When you consider that his listening room is half-glassed it's not hard to understand why his concept is so half-assed."
Bill Fitzmaurice

So you are welcome to ask him further as to specifically why. He must be right he even managed to rhyme.
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/spe...es/164454.html

[WmAx]

Interesting you come after me but not Skeptic that multidirectional is superior to ALL front firing designs. Is that a true universal statement WmAx? Yes I should not have said all Omnipolar designs were inferior - but Mr. Superiority Snob Skeptic seems to think he knows everything so lets hear his design.

Thank you for revising your initial statement.

I am relaying respnses from an engineer - you are quite welcome to get into it with him

The link you provided, he said a very short line. When I read his statement, it seems that several inferences/assumptions could be made. Not a consice answer. He did not mention omni, either. Let's assume he meant multi directional, such as Bose implements.

Bose post seemed a bit strange because I have found all multi-directional speaker set-up sto sound BAD - and i mean BAD - expensive or not. The neat factor they may be but listenable - well if you know of one I should try I would eb happy to but because they're so bad no one carries them in my area - because if it was good at all it might actually sell.

With the presumption.... Essentially, the reason a multidirectional tweeter system composed of average tweeters is inherantly flawed, is because the wavelengths being tranmitted are short in relation to the spacing of the tweeters, especially considering the off axis behaviour of each individual tweeter and how it interacts with the other tweeters. This will result in various off comb filter/spurious effects. I am referring to designs with multiple tweeters on one plane or facing many different directions. However, this idea is not automaticly flawed, if executed in a manner that minimizes these effects. A simple, but effective method is to place a tweeter on the rear as well as front. However, this is not ideal. Better idea would be a tweeter with sufficiently small faceplate(or no faceplate) and small size motor(such as neodymium based) tht you can use an array arranged in a cylindrical pattern; this would have fairly linear behaviour. The main point here is by keeping the radiating areas of the speakers close enough to prevent/reduce the errors.... to keep power(summed polar) response as linear as possible throughout the entire bandwidth. Assuming you have acheived this objective, then placement in room is critical. The best omnipolar speakers, such as MBL's flagship line, that have nearly perfect horiztonal polar response at all axises, would sound terrible if room placement was not correct. Symmetrical set up is nesecarry(same distance from walls on both channels, etc.). Usually, minimum spacing from any wall must be at least 2.5' in order to achieve a 5ms or greater elapsed direct/reflecting signal, especially when treble is being reflected. The human auditory system primarily cues spatial information from high frequency information. Sufficient, flat response being reflected, but delayed within a suitable time window results in ambient enhacment. Inadequate time window will result in negative impact on all aspects of the music. Another option is to have a nearly perfect horiztonal response in 180 degree field, focused/limited disperion in the vertical field and essentially have the speaker start from the same position as the side walls. This removes the factor of direct/reflecting propertions/times in respect to the speaker vs. walls all together. Refer to Beveridge line array for this specific aspect.

-Chris

[RGA]

WmAx - I don't have a problem with what you're saying here.

I never initially said omnidirectional though - it was "multidirectional array of poly tweeters" which I directly quoted. If you read the initial segment apparently this should be set up right against the wall which is different from what you propose.

[skeptic]

It seems that for decades, speaker designers considered the ideal speaker to be a "point source" of sound. This would radiate at all frequencies in all directions with equal amplitude. But that was an an intuitive idea. They never said what the rationale was behind it explaining why it was ideal. About 1987 I heard one of my favorite speakers at a trade show, Snell AIIIi. It used a rear firing tweeter in addition to its front firing tweeter. That's when I began experimenting with indirect firing tweeters. I just kept adding them and cutting back on the front firing tweeter and the sound got better and better. It took me seveal years to figure out why. I've noticed that some of the best models from some of the most respected speaker manufacturers also use indirect firing tweeters. This would include Vandersteen and Revel. Altering the spatial radiating pattern this way results in sound that is clearer, mellower, and more musical in my experience. By comparison, speakers firing all of their treble from a single forward facing tweeter sound harsh, thin, and less distinct. When you consider that most if not all loudspeakers are relatively omnidirectional already except at high frequencies, it is easy to understand that the ineveitable early reflections you hear from each note will have almost NO high frequency content whatsoever. IMO, that is where a lot of the problem lies.

Most musical instruments radiate their sound in many directions including high frequency propagation. There are some exceptions such as a vocalist but even a piano with its top partly open to refect its upward sound toward the audience scatters sound in many other directions and is open at the bottom. String insturments including violins radiate sound in many directions. If you have a problem with a loudspeaker doing this, you might have a problem with real musical instruments doing this too.

When people become so narrowly focused on listening to recordings and then not even to the music on the recordings but the equipment playing the recordings, it it pointless to discuss anything meaningful about the problems and solutions for reproducing actual live music. They live in their own worlds and already have their minds made up. This is one reason I never waste my time at Audio Asylum.

[skeptic]

" I am referring to designs with multiple tweeters on one plane or facing many different directions. However, this idea is not automaticly flawed, if executed in a manner that minimizes these effects"

Chris, FYI, one of the most successful designs of its time was Rectilinear III. It used 3 tweeters not closely spaced on its front baffle board all firing forward. Occasionally you will see one on e-bay with its front grill off. Not only was it highly praised by the consumer audio magazines but it was selected by Popular Science Magazine as THE speaker in an article called "The system I wish I owned." It had a very clear sound and many reviewers said it sounded just like the Quad electrostatic but with better bass. Did it exhibit comb filtering? I can't say but it was a fine sounding speaker.