I have a pair of BOSE 901s III.

How do you remove the grills to get at the speakers, without damaging the
grill cloth or the wood?

Thanks in advance.

Kent

"KENT HUFFORD" wrote in message
...
I have a pair of BOSE 901s III.

How do you remove the grills to get at the speakers, without damaging the
grill cloth or the wood?

**Flamethrower.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 11:17:59 +1100, Trevor Wilson wrote:

"KENT HUFFORD" wrote in message
...
I have a pair of BOSE 901s III.

How do you remove the grills to get at the speakers, without damaging the
grill cloth or the wood?

**Flamethrower.


waste of fuel.

"TCS" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 11:17:59 +1100, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

"KENT HUFFORD" wrote in message
...
I have a pair of BOSE 901s III.

How do you remove the grills to get at the speakers, without damaging
the
grill cloth or the wood?

**Flamethrower.


waste of fuel.

None of this answers the OP's questions.

I don't own Bose products, but I wonder why it is attacked when mentioned in
the groups?
Just wondering, John

None of this answers the OP's questions.

I don't own Bose products, but I wonder why it is attacked when mentioned in
the groups?
Just wondering, John


They are saying they can't be removed without destroying them and
replacing them isn't easy BUT overall it isn't worth it since they use
nine identical full range drivers with eight pointing to the rear one to
the front (that is the right way I never did get that).

The 901 was (is) the flagship of the BoSe line. Anyway take a pair of
those and for good measure a wAvE rAdIo and then add one of their latest
most expensive component systems with the 1" x 1" speakers? and subs?

OK so you got these three systems so you can A / B / C direct compare
them - I WANT TO BE FAIR HERE -

Now take the same amount of money spent on assembling the three bOsE
systems and buy three good quality systems.

Six systems to compare three pairs at equal price points.

THE BOSE WILL ALWAYS END UP IN LAST PLACE.

You hear a bOSE and don't know better it sounds good because it's
harshly equalized, has huge gaps, peaks and valleys in it's frequency
response and is diffused sounding. SO it gives an immediate impression
of openess and fills the room. But up next to a real system it's vague
and distilled and vailed.

As if all this were not enough (because if that's the sound you're after
that's cool but it's displeasing to someone who knows audio equipment)
but THE REAL KICKER is BOSe spends 10% on research and development and
90% on marketing. There is some link that exposes all the flaws of bOSE
systems hopefully someone can list that.

So image the pain through an audiophile when friends ask for system
recomendations BUT THEY WANT A BOSE because the slick (brainwashing)
marketing has them convinced!

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 02:13:50 GMT, JohnR66 wrote:
"TCS" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 11:17:59 +1100, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

"KENT HUFFORD" wrote in message
...
I have a pair of BOSE 901s III.

How do you remove the grills to get at the speakers, without damaging
the
grill cloth or the wood?

**Flamethrower.


waste of fuel.

None of this answers the OP's questions.

I don't own Bose products, but I wonder why it is attacked when mentioned in
the groups?

Next question: what is so ****ing hard about opening a web browser,
going to a web search site like google, and searching for "bose 901 grill
repair"

Warning to group : the following is a straight answer to the posters
question. No anti Bose flames are included.

When I did this a few months ago to check for possible foam surround decay,
which I had heard was a problem with these speakers, especially since mine
are at least 20 years old, I put a 1 inch thick block of wood against the
outer edge of the speaker housing, and pried with a 3 inch wide masonry
chisel on the edge of the grill. The chisel was wide enough that it did not
damage the grill, and the block of wood prevented damage to the housing. It
did not take much force to pry them off. I guess basically I am saying
just pry them off placing some sort of material between the speaker and
whatever you use to pry with.

To put them back on I just tapped them firmly back into place. Just line up
the little nails in the grill with the original holes in the frame.

The foam surrounds were fine, by the way.



"KENT HUFFORD" wrote in message
...
I have a pair of BOSE 901s III.

How do you remove the grills to get at the speakers, without damaging the
grill cloth or the wood?

Thanks in advance.

Kent

In , on
02/20/05
at 02:13 AM, "JohnR66" said:

[ ... ]

I don't own Bose products, but I wonder why it is attacked when
mentioned in the groups?
Just wondering, John

The world is polar with respect to Bose products. One group loves them,
the other hates them -- there is no middle ground.

Since everyone likes to feel that they purchased the best product,
either for the price or in an absolute sense, criticism of the product
is not welcome. If you consider yourself an expert and an advice seeker
purchases contray to your advice, then they are stupid. If you consider
yourself a novice and an "expert" (often self styled) claims you got it
wrong, then you beat-up on yourself for being stupid.

Some of the posters who hang out here have very strong egos.

---

The putty knife and wood block trick described in another post works
well for removing the grills. The first staple is the most difficult to
remove. Probe the edge of the grill at several points and pick the
easiest.

If your 901's use small staples to attach the grills, you can often
sneak under them with a small probe such as an ice pick and pry out the
staple. (using your wood block as the fulcrum)

Both of these tricks require a bit of skill to avoid grill or cabinet
damage.

-----------------------------------------------------------
spam:
wordgame:123(abc):14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13 (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------

"Terrified" wrote in message
...

None of this answers the OP's questions.

I don't own Bose products, but I wonder why it is attacked when mentioned
in the groups?
Just wondering, John
They are saying they can't be removed without destroying them and
replacing them isn't easy BUT overall it isn't worth it since they use
nine identical full range drivers with eight pointing to the rear one to
the front (that is the right way I never did get that).

The 901 was (is) the flagship of the BoSe line. Anyway take a pair of
those and for good measure a wAvE rAdIo and then add one of their latest
most expensive component systems with the 1" x 1" speakers? and subs?

OK so you got these three systems so you can A / B / C direct compare
them - I WANT TO BE FAIR HERE -

Now take the same amount of money spent on assembling the three bOsE
systems and buy three good quality systems.

Six systems to compare three pairs at equal price points.

THE BOSE WILL ALWAYS END UP IN LAST PLACE.

You hear a bOSE and don't know better it sounds good because it's harshly
equalized, has huge gaps, peaks and valleys in it's frequency response and
is diffused sounding. SO it gives an immediate impression of openess and
fills the room. But up next to a real system it's vague and distilled and
vailed.

As if all this were not enough (because if that's the sound you're after
that's cool but it's displeasing to someone who knows audio equipment) but
THE REAL KICKER is BOSe spends 10% on research and development and 90% on
marketing.


Can you back up this information with any actual
factual information? I've read this before, but
never with even a shred of supporting evidence.


There is some link that exposes all the flaws of bOSE
systems hopefully someone can list that.

So image the pain through an audiophile when friends ask for system
recomendations BUT THEY WANT A BOSE because the slick (brainwashing)
marketing has them convinced!

"No Spam" wrote ...

Can you back up this information with any actual
factual information? I've read this before, but
never with even a shred of supporting evidence.

Listening might be more revealing than reading.

KENT HUFFORD wrote:
I have a pair of BOSE 901s III.

How do you remove the grills to get at the speakers, without damaging the
grill cloth or the wood?

Thanks in advance.

Kent



If there rattling at all, the foam is probably starting to go.
Best advice? contact Bose about a trade up deal. They used to
do a send them in and give us $500 or so and well will send
you a new set. You might want to check with them and see if
there still doing that. By the time you paid to recone 16+
speakers, it would not be much cheaper. And if one speaker
needs it, they all will soon.

If you do pry off the rear cover, make sure you put something
between you prying device and the wood to help protect it from
gouging damage.

Bob

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"No Spam" wrote ...

Can you back up this information with any actual
factual information? I've read this before, but
never with even a shred of supporting evidence.

Listening might be more revealing than reading.

Bose-bashing is fine when it's backed up by facts,
or by actual listening. But that line about spending
only 10% on R&D and 90% on marketing has never been
credible, and has never been supported by any evidence.
Listening only tells you how they sound. It doesn't
support specific hearsay financial claims.

"No Spam" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"No Spam" wrote ...

Can you back up this information with any actual
factual information? I've read this before, but
never with even a shred of supporting evidence.

Listening might be more revealing than reading.

Bose-bashing is fine when it's backed up by facts,
or by actual listening. But that line about spending
only 10% on R&D and 90% on marketing has never been
credible, and has never been supported by any evidence.
Listening only tells you how they sound. It doesn't
support specific hearsay financial claims.

Listening is enough for me. I don't care about anything else.

There are plenty of examples of companies that are more
into marketing than development. Bose is not unique in
that regard.

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...

"No Spam" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"No Spam" wrote ...

Can you back up this information with any actual
factual information? I've read this before, but
never with even a shred of supporting evidence.

Listening might be more revealing than reading.

Bose-bashing is fine when it's backed up by facts,
or by actual listening. But that line about spending
only 10% on R&D and 90% on marketing has never been
credible, and has never been supported by any evidence.
Listening only tells you how they sound. It doesn't
support specific hearsay financial claims.

Listening is enough for me. I don't care about anything else.

Are you saying that you can tell that bose spends 10%
on R&D and 90% on marketing by listening? Hmmm ...

There are plenty of examples of companies that are more
into marketing than development. Bose is not unique in
that regard.

No Spam wrote:

Bose-bashing is fine when it's backed up by facts,
or by actual listening. But that line about spending
only 10% on R&D and 90% on marketing has never been
credible, and has never been supported by any evidence.
Listening only tells you how they sound. It doesn't
support specific hearsay financial claims.

Didn't Amar Bose have a bet with L. Ron Hubbard over
who could fool more people for longer? :-)

--
Eiron.

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:08:23 GMT, No Spam wrote:
"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"No Spam" wrote ...

Can you back up this information with any actual
factual information? I've read this before, but
never with even a shred of supporting evidence.

Listening might be more revealing than reading.

Bose-bashing is fine when it's backed up by facts,
or by actual listening. But that line about spending
only 10% on R&D and 90% on marketing has never been
credible, and has never been supported by any evidence.
Listening only tells you how they sound. It doesn't
support specific hearsay financial claims.


oh puleeze. Take ONE look at a set of bose speakers. Just one.
It won't kill you.

Once you've done that, you'll suddenly notice that the drivers aren't worth
five bucks a piece. Then try doing some math: $25 worth of drivers,
perhaps that again for the cabinets, add $20 for the crossover network and
another $50 for packaging and you've got $120. Now look at the sale
price of $900 and do the math. Yup. 90% marketing sounds about right.

"TCS" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:08:23 GMT, No Spam wrote:
"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"No Spam" wrote ...

Can you back up this information with any actual
factual information? I've read this before, but
never with even a shred of supporting evidence.

Listening might be more revealing than reading.

Bose-bashing is fine when it's backed up by facts,
or by actual listening. But that line about spending
only 10% on R&D and 90% on marketing has never been
credible, and has never been supported by any evidence.
Listening only tells you how they sound. It doesn't
support specific hearsay financial claims.


oh puleeze. Take ONE look at a set of bose speakers. Just one.
It won't kill you.

Once you've done that, you'll suddenly notice that the drivers aren't
worth
five bucks a piece. Then try doing some math: $25 worth of drivers,
perhaps that again for the cabinets, add $20 for the crossover network and
another $50 for packaging and you've got $120. Now look at the sale
price of $900 and do the math. Yup. 90% marketing sounds about right.

So, I guess you don't know what marketing is and you
don't know what R&D is. And you think that marketing
and R&D are the only expenses that go into a speaker?
If you believe the 10%/90% myth, I guess you don't
think manufacturing and parts cost anything. Oh, yeah
you just ITEMIZED your estimate of the cost of parts,
and the cost of packaging. Are those part of the 10%
R&D, or do they fall under marketing? I'm not saying
that these speakers are worth the money they get for them,
but I AM saying that the 10% R&D/90% marketing accusation
is TOTALLY BULL****. And the posts, so far, backing it
up are in a different universe, where costs are estimated
and then ignored, packaging costs are R&D, sales costs
ar marketing I guess, and manufaturing is FREE! Such a
deal! And you can tell by listening! AMAZING! You guys
should work for Bose marketing ... you have all the skills
that you say they use!

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:13:04 GMT, No Spam wrote:

So, I guess you don't know what marketing is and you
don't know what R&D is. And you think that marketing
and R&D are the only expenses that go into a speaker?
If you believe the 10%/90% myth, I guess you don't
think manufacturing and parts cost anything. Oh, yeah
you just ITEMIZED your estimate of the cost of parts,
insane rant snipped

What R&D? There nothing on any bose product that is unique or newer
than 25 year old technology.

Christ. I'm argueing with cheese-head again. You almost had me fooled
that I was arguing with something more sentient than an eliza clone. plonk

"TCS" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:13:04 GMT, No Spam wrote:

So, I guess you don't know what marketing is and you
don't know what R&D is. And you think that marketing
and R&D are the only expenses that go into a speaker?
If you believe the 10%/90% myth, I guess you don't
think manufacturing and parts cost anything. Oh, yeah
you just ITEMIZED your estimate of the cost of parts,
insane rant snipped

What R&D? There nothing on any bose product that is unique or newer
than 25 year old technology.

Christ. I'm argueing with cheese-head again. You almost had me fooled
that I was arguing with something more sentient than an eliza clone.
plonk

So you're saying that the 10% R&D estimate is too high?

I note that you run and hide when I mention that the
10%R&D/90%marketing formula does not include manufaturing
and material, even though YOU cited material costs. Hey,
if you can't back up your bull**** with facts, that's not
my fault. Run away and hide, change the subject, toss in
irrelevant rants. There is plenty of fact-based and opinion-
based reasoning for bose bashing. But this particular meme
(10%R&D/90%mark.) is totally bull****. You really don't
support your point by whining like a crybaby about your
inability to reason or debate on the facts.

Sucks to start an argument and have it noted that you don't
know what you're taling about, doesn't it?

news:rec.audio.opinion is a more appropriate place to
discuss Bose. This newsgroup is chartered for more
technical discussions.

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
news:rec.audio.opinion is a more appropriate place to discuss Bose. This
newsgroup is chartered for more
technical discussions.

How convenient. You make an unsupportable claim, and
then when it's challenged, you whine about the group's
charter. But you still haven't explained how you can
judge the percentages spent on R&D and marketing by
listening. Care to support your claim, or admit that
you can't support it?

No Spam wrote:

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...

news:rec.audio.opinion is a more appropriate place to discuss Bose. This
newsgroup is chartered for more
technical discussions.


How convenient. You make an unsupportable claim, and
then when it's challenged, you whine about the group's
charter. But you still haven't explained how you can
judge the percentages spent on R&D and marketing by
listening. Care to support your claim, or admit that
you can't support it?


Minimal expenditure on R&D to hurt the bottom line. Massive and
effective marketing, even the so called "patents" they have are
brilliant marketing. Premium prices charged for their mediocre products.

It's a common pattern with big companies.

CD

No Spam wrote:
"Richard Crowley" wrote ...
news:rec.audio.opinion is a more appropriate place
to discuss Bose. This newsgroup is chartered for
more technical discussions.

How convenient. You make an unsupportable claim, and
then when it's challenged, you whine about the group's
charter. But you still haven't explained how you can
judge the percentages spent on R&D and marketing by
listening. Care to support your claim, or admit that
you can't support it?

You seem to have me confused with someone else. Go back
and study the thread more carefully. My only "claim" is
that I don't like how they sound, I think they cost too
much and I think they are hyped beyond their ability to
deliver. You may draw your own conclusions from that.
You need not subscribe to my conclusion.

Sorry you missed my apparently too-subtle suggestion that
this thread has developed into a discussion of opinion
that has nothing to do with technology.

TCS wrote:

oh puleeze. Take ONE look at a set of bose speakers. Just one.
It won't kill you.

Yeah, yeah, but we can't get the darn grille off ;-)

On 23 Feb 2005 18:19:12 -0800, wrote:
TCS wrote:

oh puleeze. Take ONE look at a set of bose speakers. Just one.
It won't kill you.

Yeah, yeah, but we can't get the darn grille off ;-)

I recently came accross an IBM monitor with a build in "bose sound system". I
was using the monitor to set up a minimal system for a friend and thought "If
I tap into the 12V of the computer and use a 15W/chan car stereo amp I've
laying around, it might not sound too bad". The speakers were about 4" wide
and 12" tall on each side so they looked like they might be a two way setup
with a 3.5" woofer. Maybe not too bad.

Took the grill off and discovered that the 48 sq. inches of grill were to hide
a 1" plain paper driver. ONE INCH! Damn pathetic. I left those "speakers"
unconnected and went with a $10 pair of computer speakers. At least those had
a 2.5" driver.

TCS wrote:

On 23 Feb 2005 18:19:12 -0800, wrote:

TCS wrote:


oh puleeze. Take ONE look at a set of bose speakers. Just one.
It won't kill you.


Yeah, yeah, but we can't get the darn grille off ;-)


I recently came accross an IBM monitor with a build in "bose sound system". I
was using the monitor to set up a minimal system for a friend and thought "If
I tap into the 12V of the computer and use a 15W/chan car stereo amp I've
laying around, it might not sound too bad". The speakers were about 4" wide
and 12" tall on each side so they looked like they might be a two way setup
with a 3.5" woofer. Maybe not too bad.

Took the grill off and discovered that the 48 sq. inches of grill were to hide
a 1" plain paper driver. ONE INCH! Damn pathetic. I left those "speakers"
unconnected and went with a $10 pair of computer speakers. At least those had
a 2.5" driver.
Not that I'm a BOSE lover, but is music about how many inches the driver
is? Maybe the 1 inch BOSE speakers sounded better than the 2.5" driver
you replaced them with. Of course the 1" BOSE speakers will be very
limited in power capability and frequency response, but when it comes to
speakers built into a computer monitor, how much can you really expect?

Case in point, I've been a big fan of Cambridge Soundworks speakers, hi
fi and the computer ones. Even though Creative owns them, there is still
a distinguishing quality between the Canbridge Soundworks speakers and
the Creative speakers. You always get more bang for the buck with the
Creative speakers in terms of speaker size, power handling, etc, but in
terms of sound, the Cambridge soundworks speaker walk all over the
Creatives models.


CD

"Codifus" wrote ...
Case in point, I've been a big fan of Cambridge Soundworks speakers,
hi fi and the computer ones. Even though Creative owns them, there is
still a distinguishing quality between the Canbridge Soundworks
speakers and the Creative speakers. You always get more bang for the
buck with the Creative speakers in terms of speaker size, power
handling, etc, but in terms of sound, the Cambridge soundworks speaker
walk all over the Creatives models.

Some of the models "sound nice" and are likely OK for caual
computer use. But they have horrible anomolies in their frequency
response and we have found them unsuitable for even minimal
video production sound track use. I'm replacing two sets of them
on our edit systems.

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 09:01:10 -0500, Codifus wrote:
TCS wrote:

On 23 Feb 2005 18:19:12 -0800, wrote:

TCS wrote:


oh puleeze. Take ONE look at a set of bose speakers. Just one.
It won't kill you.


Yeah, yeah, but we can't get the darn grille off ;-)


I recently came accross an IBM monitor with a build in "bose sound system". I
was using the monitor to set up a minimal system for a friend and thought "If
I tap into the 12V of the computer and use a 15W/chan car stereo amp I've
laying around, it might not sound too bad". The speakers were about 4" wide
and 12" tall on each side so they looked like they might be a two way setup
with a 3.5" woofer. Maybe not too bad.

Took the grill off and discovered that the 48 sq. inches of grill were to hide
a 1" plain paper driver. ONE INCH! Damn pathetic. I left those "speakers"
unconnected and went with a $10 pair of computer speakers. At least those had
a 2.5" driver.
Not that I'm a BOSE lover, but is music about how many inches the driver
is? Maybe the 1 inch BOSE speakers sounded better than the 2.5" driver
you replaced them with. Of course the 1" BOSE speakers will be very
limited in power capability and frequency response, but when it comes to
speakers built into a computer monitor, how much can you really expect?

Oh puleeze. These were 1" paper drivers, the kind used in answering machines.

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Codifus" wrote ...

Case in point, I've been a big fan of Cambridge Soundworks speakers,
hi fi and the computer ones. Even though Creative owns them, there is
still a distinguishing quality between the Canbridge Soundworks
speakers and the Creative speakers. You always get more bang for the
buck with the Creative speakers in terms of speaker size, power
handling, etc, but in terms of sound, the Cambridge soundworks speaker
walk all over the Creatives models.


Some of the models "sound nice" and are likely OK for caual
computer use. But they have horrible anomolies in their frequency
response and we have found them unsuitable for even minimal
video production sound track use. I'm replacing two sets of them
on our edit systems.
Yes, I would agree with that. I have sensed a little bit of something
missing between the satellites and the bass module. I'm the casual
computer user, so they're fine by me

CD