[Mike McGinn[_2_]]

Sonnova wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 16:22:55 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):
snipDaDeeDooDa
OK, I realize that this is mostly a matter of taste, but I have never seen
the appeal of ANY Bose product. To me it's always been a matter of extreme
hype, clever advertising over engineering. Bose always achieves "bass" by
cheating. If you hear a pair of 901s WITHOUT their bass equalizer, they sound
thin and lifeless. They also have little in the way of highs (IIRC, the later
ones had tweeters added to the "Sweet 16" formula. I believe that they were
piezo tweeters which always sounded harsh to me). With the equalizer, the
Bose 901s produce a prodigious amount of mid-bass but no very low bass. I
once bought a pair of used 901s ostensibly to use as rear channel cinema
speakers. I thought that the "direct-reflecting" principle would work well
for surround. I played with them quite a bit, even replacing my main speakers
with them. I thought they were horrible. No real bass, lousy sound stage and
a dark rolled-off top. They didn't even work all that well for surround, but
in fairness I must add that these were the days of Dolby pro-logic matrix
surround and laser discs, so maybe with mp3 or DTS discreet 5.1, they would
fare better as surround speakers.
___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

They 901's were designed to be used with the equalizer. Using them
without an equalizer seems kind of silly to me.

--
Mike McGinn
"more kidneys than eyes"
Registered Linux User 377849