There is no significant "lobing and comb-filter effects" with a driver
array that is **NOT** facing the listener -- compared with one that is.

I'm inclined to agree about the lobing -- IF you're far enough back. But I
disagree about comb filtering.

JGH was the first to point this out. The rear drivers "spray" the sound at an
angle against the rear wall. This results in multiple arrival times at the
listener's ears. There is additional interference with the output of the front
driver, as well.

I don't know why these points are still being argued 36 years after the 901 was
introduced. The 901 is a poor speaker, NOT because Arny or I or JGH or anyone
else doesn't like the way it sounds (the 901 can be quite euphonic, actually),
but because everything about its design contradicts what is needed for accurate,
REALISTIC sound reproduction. The 901s are to speakers (roughly) what DynaGroove
was to phonograph records.

I'm tempted to use Julian Hirsch's favorable review as the ultimate condemnation
of his reviewing career, but the sad truth is that many other reviewers -- who
should have known better, and later admitted it -- were taken in. As I was.

As JGH said, in a hi-fi store the 901s sound like the truth and the light. This,
combined with the revolutionary "paradigm shift" the 901s represented, lead many
listeners to believe they represented a real advance in sound reproduction.