According to Bose literature, the sound from the front driver reaches the
ear
first, helping to sharpen localization.

So they are attempting to remanufacture the direct to diffuse ratio of the
original recording by superimposing the (more than likely awful) ambience of
the living room on top of what the recordists put on tape. Very bad idea.

My guess is that the design proceded
from these two bases (mostly reflected sound, plus a front radiator for better
imaging) and the 8:1 ratio was fudged by choosing the "correct" concert-hall
measurements.

Overlooking the simple fact that every seating location in any given concert
hall will have a different direct to diffuse ratio than any other seats.

Ultimately I think the real genius of Dr Bose was in coming up with totally
idiotic cockamamey theories well before there were tests that could
demonstrably debunk them, as well as a well established body of knowledge to
successfully counter them, both in practice as well as in the realm of ideas.




Scott Fraser

Ultimately I think the real genius of Dr Bose was in coming up with totally
idiotic cockamamey theories well before there were tests that could
demonstrably debunk them, as well as a well established body of knowledge
to successfully counter them, both in practice as well as in the realm of
ideas.

I have to disagree. The 901 was completely debunkable when it was introduced.
You don't need "demonstrable tests" to explain why the design is both
philosophically and practically wrong.

Only one reviewer debunked the 901 -- and he didn't go as far as he should.

I have to disagree. The 901 was completely debunkable when it was introduced.
You don't need "demonstrable tests" to explain why the design is both
philosophically and practically wrong.


Well, one could use common sense to illustrate the flawed concepts behind Bose,
but I don't think the audiophile world would find much pleasure in arguing on
that level.


Scott Fraser