| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Happy Anniversary Bose 901
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" |
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Happy Anniversary Bose 901
|
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Happy Anniversary Bose 901
|
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Happy Anniversary Bose 901
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 |
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Happy Anniversary Bose 901
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
... 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. Has anyone ever authoritatively measured a 901s? I realilze an anaechoic chamber test would be inappropriate for speakers with this design, but omni and bipolar speakers do get measured , so why not the 901s? And if so, are the 'lows' being reported here really accurate low bass, or are they upper bass, midbass , or some distortion product? As far as I could tell, they were real. I had a pair back in 70-72 driven by solid state amplification in a large room, and the organ on Also Sprach Zarusthka was definitely there...in fact it was probably the best reproduction of that underpinning that I've ever heard (I don't use subwoofers but my Thiel system does hold up to 32hz and at one time I owned AR3a's). |
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Happy Anniversary Bose 901
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 |
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Happy Anniversary Bose 901
"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. |
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Happy Anniversary Bose 901
On Jan 7, 6:52 pm, " wrote:
BoseCorp. introduced the901in 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 theBoseequalled or bested them all. I requested a copy of their testimonial booklet and was shocked to see what speakers people were trading in for theBose901. 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 whenBosetold you to place the901on top of the biggest, most expensive speaker that you could find and compare! Around that timeBosehad a hell of a lot of immitators. I always suspected that my beloved AR LSTS was born out of theBoseemphasized need to have a widely spread source of sound. I don't think the sound is widely spread, but it is diffused a lot more into the living space, so the room is very much the determining factor controlling sound. This said, the901(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 the901. 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, the901would give it to you. The bass is very deep, but very limited in SPL at the bottom. When I could afford top quality speakers, room restrictions for the901caused 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 theBosedemanded and the sound beguiled me away from any others on the market. All of these speaker systems I currently have in my house. No theBose901is 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.Boseput out a speaker in1968 that has stood the test of time and was imitated by many. I have seen almost no imitation. ESTG/ A 61 year old, 41 year audiophile. I think the 901 is best in small rooms and where you are less than 10 feet from them. The room treatment is very important. Yes, I did own a pair of the series II. greg |
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Happy Anniversary Bose 901
"Sonnova" wrote in message
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. It's done with equalization. If its fair to listen to Bose 901 without equalization then its fair to listen to LPs without equalization, right? If you hear a pair of 901s WITHOUT their bass equalizer, they sound thin and lifeless. If you play a LP through a mic preamp instead of a RIAA equalizer, it will sound harsh and tinny. They also have little in the way of highs Equalization was applied to both bass and treble. (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). There was never a 901 with separate tweeters. With the equalizer, the Bose 901s produce a prodigious amount of mid-bass but no very low bass. Please define what you mean (in terms of Hz) by these terms. |
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Happy Anniversary Bose 901
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 |
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Happy Anniversary Bose 901
I'm finding it funny how disparate the claims and recommendations are
about 901s just in this one thread. So, has there been no attempt at objective measurement of the performance of 901 + EQ systems? FWIW, I owned a pair of Series IV's in the 80's, eventually coupled with the Bose 'Spatial Control' receiver. Mighty impressive at the time but in my hands, very fussy as to placement. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Happy Anniversary Bose 901
I own an old pair of DBX Soundfield One's that still sound good. They
are a "copy" of Bose's 901 concept of spreading the sound throughout the room. They also use an equalizer. Room treatment and equalization are very critical. I use their equalizer controls to roll off the bass in favor of several sub woofers. ---MIKE--- In the White Mountains of New Hampshire (44° 15' N - Elevation 1580') |
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Happy Anniversary Bose 901
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 |
|
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Happy Anniversary Bose 901
On Jan 10, 6:55 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
I'm finding it funny how disparate the claims and recommendations are about 901s just in this one thread. So, has there been no attempt at objective measurement of the performance of901+ EQ systems? FWIW, I owned a pair of Series IV's in the 80's, eventually coupled with theBose'Spatial Control' receiver. Mighty impressive at the time but in my hands, very fussy as to placement. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason Consumer reports used to test them when they did high priced speaker systems. The had their usual graphs. You also have to know how CR tests speakers. They play back noise while they are rotated 360 degrees. I don't know if anybody else does this. If you understand this, one can make certain judgments. The 901's after the series II's have no internal damping, very BAD. Its easy to add some. The overall response is fairly smooth, with peaking around 300 Hz, and not much above 12 kHz. greg |
|
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Happy Anniversary Bose 901
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. |
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Happy Anniversary Bose 901
wrote in message
Consumer reports used to test them when they did high priced speaker systems. This led to a lengthy lawsuit that Bose eventually lost on first amendment-related grounds. The had their usual graphs. You also have to know how CR tests speakers. They play back noise while they are rotated 360 degrees. I don't know if anybody else does this. Polar response curves are fairly common where loudspeakers are implemented as technical tools, such as live sound. Lots of loudspeaker development labs have turntables for rotating speakers while they are being measured. If you understand this, one can make certain judgments. Polar response is very important for predicting the performance of a loudspeaker in a given environment. The 901's after the series II's have no internal damping, very BAD. Not necessarily. Its easy to add some. Certainly Bose is not leaving it out to save the big bucks. The overall response is fairly smooth, with peaking around 300 Hz, and not much above 12 kHz. Bose sort of broke ground by applying the theory that one can equalize a system for flat response below the bass resonance, if the bass drivers have enough linear excursion. It takes a lot of power, but these days clean power is relatively cheap. |
|
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Happy Anniversary Bose 901
Sonnova wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:34:39 -0800, Mike McGinn wrote (in article ): Sonnova wrote: 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 .. OK -- I like my 901's and when I last went speaker listening 20 odd years ago nothing else was nearly as good. Placement is absolutely critical with these speakers. When I last moved ten years ago I arranged the room around where the speakers had to go and convinced my wife that is how everything looked best. ( I get away with a lot. I also have an electronics bench in the living room.) They do require quite a bit of power because of the bass boost in the equalizer -- but this was mentioned in everything I read about them back when I read Stereo Review as a teen (don't know what they say now). I drive mine with a Mac MC2105, I would use a pair of MC 3500's if I had the cash to spare. Yeah, I'm partial to Macs too. I also enjoy buying as much stuff used as much as I can. -- Mike McGinn "more kidneys than eyes" Registered Linux User 377849 |
|
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Happy Anniversary Bose 901
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. |
|
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Happy Anniversary Bose 901
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 07:58:04 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): wrote in message Consumer reports used to test them when they did high priced speaker systems. This led to a lengthy lawsuit that Bose eventually lost on first amendment-related grounds. The had their usual graphs. You also have to know how CR tests speakers. They play back noise while they are rotated 360 degrees. I don't know if anybody else does this. Polar response curves are fairly common where loudspeakers are implemented as technical tools, such as live sound. Lots of loudspeaker development labs have turntables for rotating speakers while they are being measured. If you understand this, one can make certain judgments. Polar response is very important for predicting the performance of a loudspeaker in a given environment. The 901's after the series II's have no internal damping, very BAD. Not necessarily. Its easy to add some. Certainly Bose is not leaving it out to save the big bucks. The overall response is fairly smooth, with peaking around 300 Hz, and not much above 12 kHz. Bose sort of broke ground by applying the theory that one can equalize a system for flat response below the bass resonance, if the bass drivers have enough linear excursion. It takes a lot of power, but these days clean power is relatively cheap. But that wasn't necessarily true in the late sixties when the 901 was introduced. In those days, 60 watts/channel was considered a BIG amplifier and most people had amps in the 25-40 watt/channel region (the Dyna MKIII and the McIntosh 60/260 being pretty much the top of the power output game). Transistor amps were just becoming widely available then, and when Dynaco came out with their ST-120, It was considered a breakthrough in price/performance for such a big transistor amp*. *Barely! They were using the output transistors (2n3055s IIRC) at so close to the ragged edge with respect to Vce, that they had to hand pick the transistors that they used. I know first hand the rather dubious "pleasures" of trying to get one's ST-120 up and running again after blowing a channel by circumventing Dynaco's parts department and buying generic replacement transistors locally. I'd get the thing put back together, clean the heat - sink goop off of everything, turn the amp on and listen for an hour, maybe two hours, and then Bang! Blown again! Trials and tribulations with early SS amps blowing their output (and often driver) transistors (the H-K Citation 12 had a similar problem) might be the basis of my preference for tubes :-) |
|
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Happy Anniversary Bose 901
"Mike McGinn" wrote in message
... Sonnova wrote: On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:34:39 -0800, Mike McGinn wrote (in article ): Sonnova wrote: 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 . OK -- I like my 901's and when I last went speaker listening 20 odd years ago nothing else was nearly as good. Placement is absolutely critical with these speakers. When I last moved ten years ago I arranged the room around where the speakers had to go and convinced my wife that is how everything looked best. ( I get away with a lot. I also have an electronics bench in the living room.) They do require quite a bit of power because of the bass boost in the equalizer -- but this was mentioned in everything I read about them back when I read Stereo Review as a teen (don't know what they say now). I drive mine with a Mac MC2105, I would use a pair of MC 3500's if I had the cash to spare. Yeah, I'm partial to Macs too. I also enjoy buying as much stuff used as much as I can. I had the Series I's, and yes, you are right....the speaker's power needs were not ignored in the reveiews. As a result, when I bought mine I upgraded (in power terms) from a Dyna Stereo 70, to an Acoustech 100wpc SS amp. It was sufficient for a smallish living room, which nonetheless opened into an open kitchen and dining room giving the bass a 40' dimension in which to develop. I really got an excellent sonic presentation from the speakers....they flanked a fireplace with solid mahogany vertical paneling behind them, and with a bit of placement tweaking they gave an excellent simulated soundstage. Later I added two tiny ADC speakers as rears and went matrixed surround with a Dynaco Quadapter and on live recordings had a "your-are-there-in-their-space" experience for the first time. This was in 1971. I got rid of the Bose's and went to stacked Advents in 1972, when after a divorce, I moved into a garret apartment and had no suitable room setup for the Bose's. But when I had them, I had really excellent sound. |
|
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Happy Anniversary Bose 901
"Sonnova" wrote in message
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 07:58:04 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): wrote in message Consumer reports used to test them when they did high priced speaker systems. This led to a lengthy lawsuit that Bose eventually lost on first amendment-related grounds. The had their usual graphs. You also have to know how CR tests speakers. They play back noise while they are rotated 360 degrees. I don't know if anybody else does this. Polar response curves are fairly common where loudspeakers are implemented as technical tools, such as live sound. Lots of loudspeaker development labs have turntables for rotating speakers while they are being measured. If you understand this, one can make certain judgments. Polar response is very important for predicting the performance of a loudspeaker in a given environment. The 901's after the series II's have no internal damping, very BAD. Not necessarily. Its easy to add some. Certainly Bose is not leaving it out to save the big bucks. The overall response is fairly smooth, with peaking around 300 Hz, and not much above 12 kHz. Bose sort of broke ground by applying the theory that one can equalize a system for flat response below the bass resonance, if the bass drivers have enough linear excursion. It takes a lot of power, but these days clean power is relatively cheap. But that wasn't necessarily true in the late sixties when the 901 was introduced. In those days, 60 watts/channel was considered a BIG amplifier and most people had amps in the 25-40 watt/channel region (the Dyna MKIII and the McIntosh 60/260 being pretty much the top of the power output game). One of the initial reviews was based on the use of a pair of those 300 watt Mac monoblocks that were built for cutting lathes. Transistor amps were just becoming widely available then, and when Dynaco came out with their ST-120, It was considered a breakthrough in price/performance for such a big transistor amp*. The ST120 is just 60 watts a channel all over again. The first generation of amps that were really capable of driving a 901 right were the DC 300, Dyna 400, Bose 1801, etc. *Barely! They were using the output transistors (2n3055s IIRC) at so close to the ragged edge with respect to Vce, that they had to hand pick the transistors that they used. I know first hand the rather dubious "pleasures" of trying to get one's ST-120 up and running again after blowing a channel by circumventing Dynaco's parts department and buying generic replacement transistors locally. I'd get the thing put back together, clean the heat - sink goop off of everything, turn the amp on and listen for an hour, maybe two hours, and then Bang! Blown again! Trials and tribulations with early SS amps blowing their output (and often driver) transistors (the H-K Citation 12 had a similar problem) might be the basis of my preference for tubes :-) I have a Dyna 120 with the origional outputs. In fact AFAIK it is all origional - I can detect no signs of any repairs anyplace. Last time I tested it a couple of years back, it met or beat origional specs. |
|
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Happy Anniversary Bose 901
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 |
|
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Happy Anniversary Bose 901
On Jan 12, 10:58 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message Consumer reports used to test them when they did high priced speaker systems. This led to a lengthy lawsuit thatBoseeventually lost on first amendment-related grounds. The only thing the suit was about was the statement that the image wandered around. The had their usual graphs. You also have to know how CR tests speakers. They play back noise while they are rotated 360 degrees. I don't know if anybody else does this. Polar response curves are fairly common where loudspeakers are implemented as technical tools, such as live sound. Lots of loudspeaker development labs have turntables for rotating speakers while they are being measured. CR does not test polar response. They just average frequency response, very different. If you understand this, one can make certain judgments. Polar response is very important for predicting the performance of a loudspeaker in a given environment. The901'safter the series II's have no internal damping, very BAD. Not necessarily. Its easy to add some. CertainlyBoseis not leaving it out to save the big bucks. Everything about the speaker is about saving bucks and saving build time. Leaving it out increases efficiency by adding peaks. Many computer speakers also do not have damping material. You can often increase sound quality by 100% by properly damping. The overall response is fairly smooth, with peaking around 300 Hz, and not much above 12 kHz. Bosesort of broke ground by applying the theory that one can equalize a system for flat response below the bass resonance, if the bass drivers have enough linear excursion. It takes a lot of power, but these days clean power is relatively cheap. Back then amplifiers were not cheap, especially with inflation. I got 200 watts out of my SWTP amps. The series III and above have higher efficiency due to the peaking cabinets, more efficient drivers, and ports. Of course series I and II were full up with fiberglass. greg |
|
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Happy Anniversary Bose 901
wrote in message
On Jan 12, 10:58 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message Consumer reports used to test them when they did high priced speaker systems. This led to a lengthy lawsuit thatBoseeventually lost on first amendment-related grounds. The only thing the suit was about was the statement that the image wandered around. The had their usual graphs. You also have to know how CR tests speakers. They play back noise while they are rotated 360 degrees. I don't know if anybody else does this. Polar response curves are fairly common where loudspeakers are implemented as technical tools, such as live sound. Lots of loudspeaker development labs have turntables for rotating speakers while they are being measured. CR does not test polar response. They just average frequency response, very different. Actually CR do test polar response, which is how they calculate a weighted average frequency response. |
|
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Happy Anniversary Bose 901
"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. |
|
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Happy Anniversary Bose 901
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 |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
even whn many people liked 901s, but personally i never liked them for different issues!
Quote:
________________ Maria: fee reverse cell phone number lookup ecn forex broker forexforex forex trading ecn forex ecn forex account manager ecn ecn platform free reverse cell phone number lookup nikon d3100 nikon d7000 review how to get pregnant penis enlargement ringing in ears free reverse cell phone number lookup Last edited by mariarayan : August 3rd 12 at 10:00 PM |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Happy Anniversary | Pro Audio | |||
| eBay Scammer REALJAZZCAT: Happy Anniversary Tube Devil! | Audio Opinions | |||
| eBay Scammer REALJAZZCAT: Happy Anniversary Tube Devil! | Pro Audio | |||
| eBay Scammer REALJAZZCAT: Happy Anniversary Tube Devil! | Marketplace | |||
| eBay Scammer REALJAZZCAT: Happy Anniversary Tube Devil! | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Linear Mode
