[Codifus]

On Jan 7, 6:52 pm, " wrote:
Bose Corp. introduced the 901 in 1968 (dunno which month). I offer the
following piece as a "tip of the hat" to that significant audio event
seeing that this is 40 years later. I thought that I had previously
published this but couldn't find it anywhere in the archives. Anyway
here goes, and I realize I might be setting the cat among the
pigeons!!!
. Back in the day (late 60s to late 80s) I was an impovirished
audiophile who spent a lot of time auditioning speakers that I could
not afford. These included the 901s, AR3as, AR LSTs, several large
Altecs (Barcelona and VOTTH), J-bells, large Rectilinears,and in the
late 80s, Fulton J-modulars (my candidate for the best speaker system
of all time) and the ML Hartley/Quad/Decca system. Except fot the last
2, what I heard from the Bose equalled or bested them all.

I requested a copy of their testimonial booklet and was shocked to see
what speakers people were trading in for the Bose 901. Everything from
Klipschorns to KLH 9s, in fact most of the big names of the day were
"embarrassed" in the booklet. Ok! It was advertising hyperbole,
especially when Bose told you to place the 901 on top of the biggest,
most expensive speaker that you could find and compare! Around that
time Bose had a hell of a lot of immitators. I always suspected that
my beloved AR LSTS was born out of the Bose emphasized need to have a
widely spread source of sound.

This said, the 901 (in all versions) does sound different from those
others. It has a huge sound, especially considering its size and
unbeliveable clarity and spaciousness. I have read criticisms that
complained it has no lows and no highs. I don't know what speakers
those critics heard but no lows would be the very last thing to be
said about the 901. Listen to the Zubin Mehta "Also Sprach
Zaruthustra" on London Decca. The opening organ pedal note is
reproduced with a power and authority that could make you wet your
pants. Same for the heart beats on the opening cut of Pink Floyd's
"Dark Side of the Moon". Now I know that there are subwoofeer systems
that can reproduce a blue whale's belch at the level of a nuclear air
burst, and this is fine for those who derive their greatest pleasure
from listening to blue whale's belches. But if you want to hear deep,
deep, powerful, bass from musical instruments especially electric
bass, organ or timpani, the 901 would give it to you.

When I could afford top quality speakers, room restrictions for the
901 caused me to look elsewhere. AR LSTs were followed by KEF 105.2s
and finally an ESL 63/Gradient system. By the time I got the 63s I had
a room that allowed more space at the rear and sides than even the
Bose demanded and the sound beguiled me away from any others on the
market. All of these speaker systems I currently have in my house.

No the Bose 901 is not the worlds best speaker (BTW I do not consider
those mega buck systems from Wilson Audio and other insanely designed,
engineered and priced efforts as part of normal audiophile activity),
and yes I believe for most music, the Quad electrostactics and a few
others of their ilk outshine 901s. But the hard edged sometimes
vicious disparagement of the 901s that you often read is uncalled for.
Bose put out a speaker in1968 that has stood the test of time and was
imitated by many.

ESTG/ A 61 year old, 41 year audiophile.

"...what in me is dark illumine; what is low raise
and support; That to the height of this great
argument, I may assert Eternal Providence,
And justify the ways of God to men."
John Milton " Paradise
Lost"

I think the issue with all the Bose haterade is Bose's philosophy.
They gave the consumer just what they wanted and they paid attention
to marketing. While all the speaker manufacturers were continuing
their quest for audio perfection, Bose said, "Who cares, so long is it
sounds good." When it came to imaging and soundstage, everyone else
was striving to produce an accurate left to right, and most
impressively, depth of a musical soundstage. Bose said, "eff it, we'll
just shoot the sound everywhere, accuracy and depth be dammned. If
you're sitting on the left side of the room and can hear right channel
information as clearly as if you're in front of the right channel
speaker, now that's entertainment

The speaker manufacturers hated them for their success because they
delivered to the not too knowledgeable consumer, most of whom assumed
that Bose was real hifi.

While I don't quite agree with the philosophy of Bose audio in the
home, the Bose philosophy in car audio is a match made in heaven.
Compromise audio engineering met the significantly compromised car
audio environment. Priceless.

CD

[Steven Sullivan]

codifus wrote:
Lost"

I think the issue with all the Bose haterade is Bose's philosophy.
They gave the consumer just what they wanted and they paid attention
to marketing.

True for some of their products, but I don't think the 901 was what any
consumer particularly wanted. It's a big, ungainly beast with peculiar
placement requirements. A couple of times I've seen them 'set up'
backwards (rear speakers facing forward) by owners who claimed they didn't
sound good otherwise.

impressively, depth of a musical soundstage. Bose said, "eff it, we'll
just shoot the sound everywhere, accuracy and depth be dammned.

That would be an omnipolar speaker, which have their advocates,
particularly if the room response is good and even across a wide angle.
'Shooting sound everywhere' is not inherently a flawed approach, but
Bose's implementation may be.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[c. leeds]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
... I don't think the 901 was what any
consumer particularly wanted.

Really? How to you account for their enduring popularity?

It's a big, ungainly beast with peculiar
placement requirements.

There are bigger speaker systems by far, and all speakers must be
properly place for best performance.

The amusing thing about the 901 system is that they're reviled by many
of the subjectivists and subjectivists alike. Yet, they remain in
continuous production for 40 years. It's proof that the marketplace
doesn't care about the opinions of the self-appointed experts in this
group.

[Steven Sullivan]

c. leeds wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
... I don't think the 901 was what any
consumer particularly wanted.

Really? How to you account for their enduring popularity?

It's a big, ungainly beast with peculiar
placement requirements.

There are bigger speaker systems by far,

And did I say oor imply therwise? No. Could it be
you're just spoiling for an argument?

and all speakers must be
properly place for best performance.

And again, did I say or imply otherwise? No.

901s are more fussy in that regard than, say, Mirage's
omnipolar designs, or the NHTs I currently use.

Then too there's the requirement for an outboard EQ
just to make them peform to factory spec. That's
rather peculiar too.

Btw, I speak from that direct experience you usually
demand when someone makes a comment on component
sound. I owned a pair of 901s Series IVs for about a decade, using
them in four or five different rooms during that time.
So I presume you've done your share of 'auditioning' 901s too,
right? I'd hate to think you were being hypocritical.

The amusing thing about the 901 system is that they're reviled by many
of the subjectivists and subjectivists alike. Yet, they remain in
continuous production for 40 years. It's proof that the marketplace
doesn't care about the opinions of the self-appointed experts in this
group.

Though of course, most of ink spilled against them has come from subjectivists
....and subjectivists. I've made more than one post to Usenet and
other fora, arguing that not ALL the bad rap 901s get is entirely
fair or justified.

___
-S
"When great musicians play aimless and the lack of ideas continues into despair, give birth to
songs in that way." - unknown

[Harry Lavo]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
c. leeds wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

snip


Then too there's the requirement for an outboard EQ
just to make them peform to factory spec. That's
rather peculiar too.

Does that mean my Thiel 3.5's also don't qualify as high-fidelity speakers,
along with the Bose 901's? How about Carver's subwoofers? C'mon, that
argument is a non-starter.

[Steven Sullivan]

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
c. leeds wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

snip


Then too there's the requirement for an outboard EQ
just to make them peform to factory spec. That's
rather peculiar too.

Does that mean my Thiel 3.5's also don't qualify as high-fidelity speakers,
along with the Bose 901's?

I don't recall arguing that Bose, much less Thiels, 'don't qualify as
hig-fidelity', in this thread, or any other for that matter.

So, again, please take your straw man and tango off somewhere.

How about Carver's subwoofers? C'mon, that
argument is a non-starter.

What part of the word 'peculiar' is proving so
difficult for you? It means: out of the ordinary.

___
-S
"When great musicians play aimless and the lack of ideas continues into despair, give birth to
songs in that way." - The Mole

[Arny Krueger]

"codifus" wrote in message


I think the issue with all the Bose haterade is Bose's
philosophy.

Having lived through the introduction of the Bose 901 as an adult
audiophile, I'm quite sure that the issue with it was based on how the hype
intersected with the sound quality.

The origional Bose 901 was at best a problematical product. In the right
room with the right recordings it sounded great with a few caveats, and
otherwise it sounded poorly or worse.

One of the common questions among audiophiles of the day was "what are those
guys thinking", after reading the hype and the glowing reviews, followed by
actually listening to the speakers in a number of different environments.

They gave the consumer just what they wanted

I don't think so.

While the 901s were themselves physically small which was what consumers
wanted, they had a big footprint if you wanted them to sound as good as
possible, because there needed to be a lot of space behind them and around
them.

The 901s were very power hungry. People didn't have powerful amps at their
disposal like we do now. I seem to recall that one reviewer used them with a
pair of the McIntosh ca. 300 watt monoblocks that were rare, expensive, and
mostly used with LP cutting lathes.

The origional 901s therefore had dynamic range problems for most users. How
many versions of the 901 were there? Bose didn't keep changing the product
just because they wanted to churn the marketplace - the product had audible
problems that they felt they needed to address.

and they paid attention to marketing.

In that regard, Bose arguably advanced the SOTA! ;-)

While all the
speaker manufacturers were continuing their quest for
audio perfection, Bose said, "Who cares, so long is it
sounds good."

I disagree. That's always been the story with speakers - how can something
that measures this bad sound this good? It's still true.

When it came to imaging and soundstage,
everyone else was striving to produce an accurate left to
right, and most impressively, depth of a musical
soundstage. Bose said, "eff it, we'll just shoot the
sound everywhere, accuracy and depth be dammned. If
you're sitting on the left side of the room and can hear
right channel information as clearly as if you're in
front of the right channel speaker, now that's
entertainment

I'll give Bose this much credit: In the right room with the right recordings
they can give a wonderful, detailed soundstage and a strong perception of
lifelike reproduction. Everybody who says otherwise just never had that
experience - which is not their fault. It's a pretty rare experience!
(I've been to a Gary Eckmeyer(sp?) Bose demo, actually several of them.)

The speaker manufacturers hated them for their success
because they delivered to the not too knowledgeable
consumer, most of whom assumed that Bose was real hifi.

More than that, if you read and believed the Bose hype - it was super hifi.

While I don't quite agree with the philosophy of Bose
audio in the home, the Bose philosophy in car audio is a
match made in heaven. Compromise audio engineering met
the significantly compromised car audio environment.
Priceless.

A lot of the very sophisticated technical people I know who have lots of
reservations about Bose in the home also give Bose credit for what they've
done with car systems.

[Gary Eickmeier]

codifus wrote:

I think the issue with all the Bose haterade is Bose's philosophy.
They gave the consumer just what they wanted and they paid attention
to marketing. While all the speaker manufacturers were continuing
their quest for audio perfection, Bose said, "Who cares, so long is it
sounds good." When it came to imaging and soundstage, everyone else
was striving to produce an accurate left to right, and most
impressively, depth of a musical soundstage. Bose said, "eff it, we'll
just shoot the sound everywhere, accuracy and depth be dammned. If
you're sitting on the left side of the room and can hear right channel
information as clearly as if you're in front of the right channel
speaker, now that's entertainment

This is a peculiarly backward analysis. The first impression you got of
the 901s was the depth and spaciousness. Because the reflected sound
made it seem like it was coming from behind the speakers, everyone
commented that "it sounds like they (the musicians) are right in the
room with you." I never ran a demo where the listener didn't walk around
behind the speakers to see how they did that.

The other manufacturers' quest for "audio perfection" was always on a
wrong tack. They were always looking at the specs and measurement for a
quality they called "accuracy" when the answer lay in the spatial
qualities that were caused by the radiation pattern, not the accuracy of
the forward firing drivers. A 12 year quest at MIT led them to consider
only the audible qualities of various design paths, which led very
surprisingly to the direct/reflecting speaker design.

My final comment is that the "sound" of any speaker is greatly dependent
on the room and the placement within that room, but for the 901 this is
even more important. I discovered the secret of placing them for
imaging, not frequency response, and it opened a whole new world for me.
I have written extensively about it and I still use 901s, supplemented
by some subwoofers. I have two in front, placed 10 ft apart and 5 ft out
from the front wall in a 21 x 31 ft room, and two in back reflecting off
the side walls.

PS, it wasn't "marketing" or "advertising hype" that sold so many 901s,
it was their sound, introduced by a Bose travelling road show and many
hi-fi showrooms across the country that would use the 901s to
demonstrate OTHER components to their best advantage. The most
outrageous trick I saw a dealer play on unsuspecting customers was when
Pecar Electronics in Detroit placed a pair of 901s on top of some
Electrovoice Patricians and they either didn't realize the scam or had
to admit the 901s sounded better.

Gary Eickmeier