[KH]

On 7/23/2012 6:01 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
Barkingspyder wrote

Your obsession with Bose doesn't cut it with me. I heard 901's and
was not as impressed with that as I was with Carver's demo recording
of sonic holography. Worst of all for me the 901's had horrible
mushy bass. Like what you want, it's fine with me. You do seem to
have a problem getting all the facts you know into some sort of
cogency.

Even so, I always thought that
the "direct/reflected sound" theory to be a bunch of hooey.

Have to agree.

901's imaged
horribly. They would take recordings with pin-point imaging and turn them
into vague, nebulous sounding pastiches of sound "thrown up" on the walls
behind the speakers.

That's my biggest issue with them as well. I have always had my
attention "drawn" to the reflected sound, i.e. far from creating a
realistic *image*, the presentation always drew my attention to the
periphery of the room, and how much unnatural reverberant sound was present.

Frankly, I've always thought that Amir Bose was a bit of
a charlatan. Most (but not all) of his ideas were marketing over engineering.

Again, hard for me to argue. Nor are you alone in that cadre of
skeptics. That said, I thought the earlier renditions of the 201 were
actually fairly good sounding speakers for their size, and for poking
into corners where other small bookshelf speakers sounded pretty poor.
But then, as I said in a previous post, the 501 was one of poorest
speakers I've ever heard, so a bit of a dog's breakfast in my opinion.