[Sonnova]

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:34:39 -0800, Mike McGinn wrote
(in article ):

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.



My point was merely that you really can't use them without the equalizer.
With the equalizer they produce a lot of , what sounded to my ears like bass
distortion and doubling. I suspect that the equalizer asked a lot from the
amp too, and if it was too small, I suspect that the bass would clip the
amplifier rather severely. I never liked the equalized bass on the Bose 901s.