Forum Jump:
6Likes
Thread Tools
Old 09-06-2009, 03:26 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie

infoman7's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 10
re: Bose 901 Speakers

There are just too many incorrect statements about Bose 901 or 901s. The Bose 901 Speakers are fantastic speakers. True there are many other good speakers too. Yes, the Bose 901s do require a special EQ. The EQ is not hard to hook up but does require a Pre-In/Out or a Tape Monitor. Most older recerivers have these but many newer ones do not. The best newer ones do and you can find newer receivers that have them.

All models of the Bose 901s are good but MY personal preference is the 901 Series II or the 901 Series I (Series 2 or Series 1). These speakers do not require maintenance because they have cloth surrounds instead of foam.

There is a hugh Myth about the power needed for Bose 901s. You do need power but the amount of power needed is not as much as many claim. I have run my Series 1 and 2s (which require the MOSt power) ... I have run them using a Marantz 2285 2285b or 70 Kenwood 85 wpc receivers and they will flat out crank. Yes the more power the better but with my Marantz 2285 I can get them to Scream loud enought to shake the walls and feel the music. Near deafining sound volume. They sound great. Even a 75 wpc receiver can make them sound good but at 85 wpc they will scream. Yes, if you go over 120 WPC you can really get them loud. As for the highs and lows, they sound just great for most music. I also use them for TV and Movies and you really don't need sound sound if you are using the BOSE 901s. You if you want to get is exact to movie theatre then you need 7.1 etc... But my two Bose 901 make moovies sounds GREAT and really don't want all those little speakers of wall speakers you can't take when you move. The new FOOL your EARS systems are cool but you can't feel the music like you can with the 901s. So I hope this has answered some questions. There are always Bose bashers out there and they are those that say you MUSt have 250 wpc of power But I have found they sound great with a vintage 85 wpc receiver and will cause you to need a hearing aid if you go to a 185 wpc receiver. As for a receiver to go with the 901s ... Harmon kardon makes one with tape monitor ... the new BIG receivers usually have pre-out/in. For Vintage Marantz, Kenwood, Poineer ... is FINE.

ENJOY
infoman7 is offline
Sponsored Links
Advertisement

Old 09-06-2009, 08:59 PM
Advanced Member

notoriousmatty's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 710
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
i wouldnt listen to bose with your ears.
notoriousmatty is offline
Old 09-06-2009, 09:10 PM
Advanced Member

malovich's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: NWPA
Posts: 525
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
looks like you only have 3 posts, when you reach about 500 posts you'll come around.....
iThor likes this.

XBL Krimzen Rage
malovich is offline

Old 09-06-2009, 09:17 PM
online-shashki Forum Special Member

Pete7874's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Illinoistan
Posts: 1,604
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by malovich View Post

looks like you only have 3 posts,

And each of those is an exact copy of this one, posted in other Bose-related threads. Smells like a troll... looks like a troll...
Dom Di Stroia likes this.

"The problem with quotes on the Internet is that you never know if they're real." - Abraham Lincoln

Pete7874 is offline
Old 09-06-2009, 09:18 PM
online-shashki Forum Special Member

Gizmologist's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,623
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 31
We also have a lot of clients with 901s and they love them. I have used them many times and as I mentioned in a previous post the first time I heard them was in a system using a 4 channel HK system.

We had 2 Bose EQs (obviously)and we were using a Nakamichi 1000 cassette deck (fantastic piece of engineering) playing some intensely bright trumpet classics such as In The Mood, all the way to Wurlitzer organ masterpieces.

If you do not need the gut thumping artificially enhanced LFE but just want to enjoy the full range of accurately recorded music, there is nothing wrong with Bose IMO and that of many owners.

Bose must be doing something right as I don't see any other manufacturer advertising in so many high life magazines and no one else can afford so much air time on TV.

I have never had to recone Bose drivers unless they were mistreated dramatically. The cabinets are aesthetically pleasing and the do fill a room nicely without truckloads of cabinets and nests of cabling.

Sometimes simpler is MUCH better.
Gizmologist is offline
Old 09-06-2009, 09:27 PM
Senior Member

david-me's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Scottsdale/North Phoenix
Posts: 469
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I always like THIS...

He who dies with the most toys wins.
Just make sure your toys are over 18.


System 1: Harman Kardon AVR-745, AV123 X-Statik, X-Voce, X-LS, MFW-15
david-me is offline
Old 09-06-2009, 09:53 PM
online-shashki Forum Special Member

Gizmologist's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,623
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 31
For many years, the recording control room /studio monitors of choice were not the 2,3,4 or 5k ripoffs people get sales-suckered into buying. The speaker of choice was the simple Yamaha NS10-150.00 each RETAIL. A simple, 2 section crossover-equipped speaker. I had a set in my Dodge Van.

Since the LFE reproduction has no basis in reality as far as music reproduction is concerned, the Bose 901s as well as many other supposedly low end speakers fill the bill rather nicely for many folks.

I too like to see spec of 20-20 for bragging rights, but as most human beings cannot hear that full range past the age of 16 approx (according to most auditory testing labs and hearing aid specialists).

Since no instrument produces those frequencies except in harmonics, there isn't much practicality in insisting that a system reproduce sound to those extremes as the only way to accurately gauge it and demonstrate it is with a sweep generator, freq counter DB meter, and scope.

That leaves enhanced sound effects. This is NOT realistic sound.

One interesting comment we have heard here from the police in LA is that most people have no idea what a gunshot really sounds like as all they hear is the studio version that resembles a cannon shot, not a handgun.

Personally I grew out of the gut shaking sound requirement when I graduated high school in '71.

Just my opinion of course. Each to his own.
Gizmologist is offline
Old 09-07-2009, 10:53 AM
Member

Viper359's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 162
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Is this just a joke? Seriously, it sounds like one.... Just in case its not, my die hard Bose friend and I have done a same room, near side by side comparison of his Bose system to mine. Lets just say, he is not die hard anymore.

get your ears checked if you think Bose sounds good in a living room.
Viper359 is offline
Old 09-07-2009, 11:46 AM
online-shashki Forum Special Member

Espo77's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Delmarva Peninsula, Maryland
Posts: 2,518
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 183 Post(s)
Liked: 86
I own a pair of 901 VI. They are the rare "Concerto's", with multiple layers of Piano black paint, not the current black ash,(I believe they only made 5000 pairs). They are a pleasent site, wheather mounted on the matching stands or hanging from chains. They have been retired back into their cloth bag that comes along with the purchase and sealed back into their boxes. I did this when I left two channel a few years back for my journey into surround. I enjoy the sound, but I do remember moving them around a lot, searching for the correct position. They do a good job at recreating the Paino. They are a great rock speaker as well. When hanging from the ceiling, (not me, the spkr.), I made the rear chains just a bit longer, which angled the spkr in a downward position. This worked out very nice. The Bose 901 may not be the most detailed speaker around, and it might not have the smoothest frequency response, But it's still around after how many years.........40 or more. I've seen them knock loose the light weight drop ceiling panels at loud volumes. I've also seen them plugged directly into a wall receptacle for a 60HZ hum...maybe for two seconds, (sales rep demo, long time ago). I never did find out if other speakers could handle that kind of abuse. Would be nice to know. I've thought about selling them, but I'm thinking about another two channel system.

Espo77's living room equipment: RECEIVER: Yamaha RX-A3030- SPEAKERS: Boston Acoustics M350, M25 center, surrounds, and front heights-
BLU-RAY: Oppo BDP103D- SUBWOOFER: HSU VTF-15H MK2- dedicated circuits for A/V- TV: Vizio P55C-1
Auralex Acoustics LENRD - Auralex Acoustics Roominator
Espo77 is offline
Old 09-07-2009, 11:57 AM
online-shashki Forum Special Member

Gizmologist's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,623
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Viper I get my ears checked every 2 years. At age 55 I have surprisingly sensitive hearing that is quite flat from about 30to 17K. According to the audiologists, that is rather exceptional. Perhaps because I do not assault my ears with earschplittenloudenboomer soundtracks. I keep music at reasonable levels and do not use LFE enhancing settings.

I value my hearing MUCH more than shaking my guts and splitting the sheetrock seams in my home. Most of my clients are in the same mindset.

I outgrew the "my speakers can play louder than your speakers" syndrome many, many moons ago. My goal is entertainment from my media, not testing my auditory endurance.

Another frequent issue with Bose speakers is that owners do not use the Bose EQ which is tuned for the speakers. W/O that EQ I agree they have some rather pronounced flat spots but with it they are quite acceptable IMO.
Gizmologist is offline
Old 09-07-2009, 01:25 PM
online-shashki Forum Special Member

Tom Bley's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: IL. USA
Posts: 3,164
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 727 Post(s)
Liked: 661
LMAO, I love this sentence.

infoman7
"Even a 75 wpc receiver can make them sound good but at 85 wpc they will scream."
Tom Bley is online now
Old 09-07-2009, 01:35 PM
Member

Max Mike's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 81
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gizmologist View Post

For many years, the recording control room /studio monitors of choice were not the 2,3,4 or 5k ripoffs people get sales-suckered into buying. The speaker of choice was the simple Yamaha NS10-150.00 each RETAIL. A simple, 2 section crossover-equipped speaker. I had a set in my Dodge Van.

Since the LFE reproduction has no basis in reality as far as music reproduction is concerned, the Bose 901s as well as many other supposedly low end speakers fill the bill rather nicely for many folks.

I too like to see spec of 20-20 for bragging rights, but as most human beings cannot hear that full range past the age of 16 approx (according to most auditory testing labs and hearing aid specialists).

Since no instrument produces those frequencies except in harmonics, there isn't much practicality in insisting that a system reproduce sound to those extremes as the only way to accurately gauge it and demonstrate it is with a sweep generator, freq counter DB meter, and scope.

That leaves enhanced sound effects. This is NOT realistic sound.

One interesting comment we have heard here from the police in LA is that most people have no idea what a gunshot really sounds like as all they hear is the studio version that resembles a cannon shot, not a handgun.

Personally I grew out of the gut shaking sound requirement when I graduated high school in '71.

Just my opinion of course. Each to his own.

How about the part of the equation where Bose speakers are vastly overpriced for what they are. We agree Bose are low end speakers but they are priced three to five times what other equivalent low end speakers speakers are.
Max Mike is offline
Old 09-07-2009, 01:59 PM
online-shashki Forum Special Member

Denophile's Avatar

Join Date: May 2005
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 2,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
ive pumped 750wpc to 1000 through my dads 901's and they have never fussed. sure they are not masters of the frequency extremes but they do give a lovely soundstage and a "live" kind of sound for what they produce. if you like a euphonic kind of a sound with virtually no limit on output spl or input wattage they are a great speaker. and the eq is definitely requisite!

anyone have any real data on these--fr plots, other specs?
Denophile is offline
Old 09-07-2009, 02:05 PM
online-shashki Forum Special Member

Gizmologist's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,623
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Bose cabinets hold up nicely, there are attractive, they sound pretty nice and since some folks will pay 7,000.00 for a piece of wire, I see no problem in the cost for the system. After all, a lot of research went into them and they sold quite rapidly.

People will spend 50,000 -100,00.00 on a system with cables priced as though should be made of solid gold, all to play a 10.00 CD. Go figure.
Gizmologist is offline
Old 09-07-2009, 02:18 PM
online-shashki Forum Club Gold

craig john's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 10,942
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 611 Post(s)
Liked: 865
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denophile View Post

ive pumped 750wpc to 1000 through my dads 901's and they have never fussed. sure they are not masters of the frequency extremes but they do give a lovely soundstage and a "live" kind of sound for what they produce. if you like a euphonic kind of a sound with virtually no limit on output spl or input wattage they are a great speaker. and the eq is definitely requisite!

anyone have any real data on these--fr plots, other specs?

Curious, what amps did you use to pump 750 to 1000 watts?

I owned a set of 901's way back when, (mid-70's). They were great party speakers, but not so great for seriously listening to music. They throw up a big soundstage, but imaging is non-existent. Human voices sound like they're as wide as the room. Stereo should provide a stable central image, and they did *none* of that.

The EQ added so much bass boost that it ate up my Marantz receiver, 70 wpc, which was a fair amount of power at the time. I replaced it with a Phase Linear 400, (200 wpc), and solved that problem, but soon tired of the non-specific imaging and sold them.

Craig

Lombardi said it:
"Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."

My System
craig john is offline
Old 09-07-2009, 02:49 PM
online-shashki Forum Special Member

MLKstudios's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hollywood, CA
Posts: 1,986
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thye're a good midrange speaker. Not in price, but no real bass and no real high end. Lots of emphasis on the middle frequencies.

Well positioned in the room, and used for certain types of music (ex. songs EQ-ed for AM play on auto speakers), they do a pretty good job.

But of course, if you want full range, uncolored music with real dynamics, try another brand.
MLKstudios is offline
Old 09-07-2009, 03:42 PM
online-shashki Forum Special Member

Gizmologist's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,623
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Unfortunately we cannot escape that little sticking point. May of our customers who have the 901s on stands or hanging enjoy full orchestral reproduction and the spatial L/C/R imaging(location) is not accentuated as it is not in a concert hall. Granted they are not TOTL for reproducing dynamic extremes, but for what they were intended for they fill the bill for many thousands of folks.

I would posit that the vast majority of the music listening public could not and would not try to justify the expense that many audiophiles incur to create a system that bears little resemblance to the acoustic properties of the original performance.

Remember the old days of stereo recording when ping/ponging and phase inversion were popular? They were only done to play with the technical capabilities of the engineer and the equipment. They did not represent an accurate recording of the performance.

I have heard many high end systems that sounded about the same as the old Advent 201s yet were several hundred times more expensive. I have also done several tests using a spectrum analyzer and calibrated mics with lab grade SPL measurement systems. In side by side comparisons between some high dollar systems and some off the shelf Best Buy types, there has been very little difference in response during sweep tests and dynamic sampling.

Same amps, same cables, same room, same source material.

But it all comes back to the subjective factor.
tonygeno likes this.
Gizmologist is offline
Old 09-07-2009, 04:36 PM
online-shashki Forum Special Member

Bruins29's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,082
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Giz, I think it's you that is missing the crucial sticking point. While satisfaction is great for people, "satisfaction" has nothing to do with quality, or in this case value. There are plenty of people who are very satisifed with White Van Speakers, McDonalds hamburgers and Kia Cars. What you are saying is that because these folks are satisifed that it makes it ok. The point here would be that the Kia, the White Van Speaker and the burger were a lot more expensive than products that were equal to (or better) them in performance or quality. That is Bose. Its a Kia, which is satisfactory for many but not at $50K which is the problem..

The crux here is that the people buying the Kia or whatever in no way beleive that they are buying the best available. Unfortunately the main problem with Bose (besides it being terrible) is that people BELIEVE that it is superior product. Of course none of the people with the Bose ever do direct comparisons so how would they know if there is not something out there better for less money. They wouldn't. They know BOSE is the bes therefore their mind is made up. Just like anything in AV there is so much placebo it wouldnt matter what was in the speaker as long as the name brand was right....

MLK and Craig make very astute obsevations regarding the 901 and those observations are shared by most of the posters here. The 901 is not a very good speaker, nor is it well designed and it represents a terrible value if one is looking for great SQ. What I always love about Bose threads is that its the same tired discussion over and over. On one side you have the supporters of Bose who always use the "people are satisfied" and "they sell a lot of product so they must be doing something right"

On the other end is posters like MLK and Craig and many others who offer a counterpoint with technical info, reasons why the performance is sub par, and in many cases listening tests.

So ask yourself this. Which is more credible?

A. The guys who talk about Bose's sucess and how happy the Bose owners are (mostly 3rd person testimony) OR
B. The guys who are serious about this hobby, know what to listen for a why, know what consitutes accurate sound, and can show and explain why Bose products are such a poor choice. Why is it that the audio industry thinks Bose is a joke? Why is it that they don't publish specs? Why are Bose products in seperate areas of stores?

Selling a lot of something and having people rave about something (who havent a clue or a reference point) means nothing especially here, a forum that happens to stand for everything Bose isn't.
Bruins29 is offline
Old 09-07-2009, 04:47 PM
online-shashki Forum Special Member

Denophile's Avatar

Join Date: May 2005
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 2,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

Curious, what amps did you use to pump 750 to 1000 watts?

I owned a set of 901's way back when, (mid-70's). They were great party speakers, but not so great for seriously listening to music. They throw up a big soundstage, but imaging is non-existent. Human voices sound like they're as wide as the room. Stereo should provide a stable central image, and they did *none* of that.

The EQ added so much bass boost that it ate up my Marantz receiver, 70 wpc, which was a fair amount of power at the time. I replaced it with a Phase Linear 400, (200 wpc), and solved that problem, but soon tired of the non-specific imaging and sold them.

Craig

no argument with your commentary--agree wholeheartedly. the amplification was a la bob carver. imaging is problematic. then again given the driver location array with most coming via ports on the back reflected off the wall how could it be otherwise? I dont think they were going for a lot of specific "audiophile" properties during design --i think as with most bose products they are going for what they perceive is the type of sound people "want to hear" i.e big soundstage (albeit nonspecific) with a euphonic midrange and highs. add a sub and a ton of amplification and youve got a concert in your house--right? well, other than the technical stuff more discerning listeners want it seems like they have a market cornered. im not saying its good or bad but they do have a certain kind of sound that many DO seem to like. maybe not you or me and maybe they arent great technically from a spec perspective but being able to keep up with 110dB at steady state is something my 8500 focal be's cant do...(but the imaging is FANTASTIC!!)
Denophile is offline
Old 09-07-2009, 04:58 PM

AvGeek07's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: NorCal
Posts: 625
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
WoW,really? i agree he needs his ears check! Come on lol
AvGeek07 is offline
Old 09-07-2009, 05:10 PM
Member

gtommers's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 64
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
How about we take the car analogy one step further. Imagine the Geo Metro was still being produced but they added a racing stripe and huge spoiler, gave it a $100,000 MSRP, and then marketed the hell out of it. That's Bose.

I went into a Bose store about a month ago and got a demo of a ~$2500 lifestyle system that sounded significantly worse than my $300 Denon minisystem that's about 8 years old. I'm not exaggerating here. If the top of the line Bose product sounds that bad in a controlled showroom I can't even imagine how bad the low end speakers sound.
gtommers is offline
Old 09-07-2009, 05:11 PM
online-shashki Forum Club Gold

craig john's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 10,942
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 611 Post(s)
Liked: 865
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gizmologist View Post

Unfortunately we cannot escape that little sticking point. May of our customers who have the 901s on stands or hanging enjoy full orchestral reproduction and the spatial L/C/R imaging(location) is not accentuated as it is not in a concert hall. Granted they are not TOTL for reproducing dynamic extremes, but for what they were intended for they fill the bill for many thousands of folks.

I would posit that the vast majority of the music listening public could not and would not try to justify the expense that many audiophiles incur to create a system that bears little resemblance to the acoustic properties of the original performance.

Remember the old days of stereo recording when ping/ponging and phase inversion were popular? They were only done to play with the technical capabilities of the engineer and the equipment. They did not represent an accurate recording of the performance.

I have heard many high end systems that sounded about the same as the old Advent 201s yet were several hundred times more expensive. I have also done several tests using a spectrum analyzer and calibrated mics with lab grade SPL measurement systems. In side by side comparisons between some high dollar systems and some off the shelf Best Buy types, there has been very little difference in response during sweep tests and dynamic sampling.

Same amps, same cables, same room, same source material.

But it all comes back to the subjective factor.

Subjectively, the *only* thing the 901's do well is throw up, (and I don't mean "puke"), a big spacious soundstage. For orchestral music, this can work pretty well... until the soloist takes over and the violin sounds 20 ft. wide.

But even for orchestral music, things like kettle drums, standup bass, etc, have deep bass fundamentals that the 901's can't come close to, even with that silly EQ.

On the high end, cymbals and other percussion sounds are localizable, even in a large venue. The 901's completely mask this localization with the overemphasis on reflected sound.

Objectively, they're impossible to measure in any of the standard ways. For example, if you want to measure their sensitivity, where do you place the mic? Sensitivity is supposed to be measured in "half space". If you place the mic in front of the speaker, and there is no wall behind or beside the speaker, you will lose all the reflected sound and measure a very low sensitivity. If you place walls around them, you're no longer doing the standard measurement.

The same can be said of measuring their frequency response. You can't really measure their "on-axis" response... they don't have an "on-axis". Everything is "off-axis", so where do you measure?

Bottom line, if you just like a large, diffuse soundstage, with no deep bass and no extended highs and no imaging of any kind, the 901's will get you there.

Craig

Lombardi said it:
"Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."

My System
craig john is offline
Old 09-07-2009, 05:34 PM
online-shashki Forum Special Member

Espo77's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Delmarva Peninsula, Maryland
Posts: 2,518
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 183 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Bley View Post

LMAO, I love this sentence.

infoman7
"Even a 75 wpc receiver can make them sound good but at 85 wpc they will scream."

Yeah, the 10 more watts per channel result in what...........?

Espo77's living room equipment: RECEIVER: Yamaha RX-A3030- SPEAKERS: Boston Acoustics M350, M25 center, surrounds, and front heights-
BLU-RAY: Oppo BDP103D- SUBWOOFER: HSU VTF-15H MK2- dedicated circuits for A/V- TV: Vizio P55C-1
Auralex Acoustics LENRD - Auralex Acoustics Roominator
Espo77 is offline
Old 09-07-2009, 05:55 PM

AvGeek07's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: NorCal
Posts: 625
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
and this is why will u know what i mean,sorry had to put another 10 cents of words. bose owner youtube video (not my video fyi)
AvGeek07 is offline
Old 09-07-2009, 06:01 PM
online-shashki Forum Special Member

Gizmologist's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,623
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 31
I never said or intimated that the 901s were the be all/end all. I said that for the vast majority of the music appreciating public who have listened to other systems- more and less expensive- the 901s provided a wide soundstage and not the specific localization of individual instruments which is NOT a realistic reproduction anyway.

I personally do not care for earsplitting, glass cracking high frequencies and excessive sibilance that are strictly a function of post production enhancements. Neither do I care for severely enhanced LFEs. For me and most of my clients, that "thrill" was achieved with Sensurround 30 years ago. Now we enjoy the more realistic reproduction of music that more accurately approximates a concert hall.

Are there more accurate full range systems than the 901s? Certainly.
Can the 901s reproduce a more consistent concert hall sound? IMO in most cases yes.
Can greater dynamics be created by a separate frequency driver enclosure? yes.
Does that indicate that Bose is junk? no

As I said and many have agreed, for what the 901 was created for, it achieves rather nicely.

I have heard many soundtracks replayed through the 901s that were almost indistinguishable from the live performance. One large one I participated in several years ago was a concert in Washington DC by the full Marine concert band and Army Chorus. This event was recorded by Greene and Crowe, one of the premier sound reinforcement and broadcast engineering companies. We played back the concert on 4 901s using the cadillac of Mac equipment of that time. The room was a rehearsal hall at Constitution Hall in DC. There were about 75 people in attendance along with members of the band.

This was an experiment to see if a combination of a recording of the band and the live band could be combined in a performance convincingly for an upcoming international meeting's opening session and welcome ceremony.

The overwhelming sense from the participants was that the recording and playback so closely matched the real thing the differentiation was quite difficult.

During the performance, 16 901s were used given the size of the venue.

Granted that event alone is not the lone benchmark but it does go a long way to confirm the quality of the system for the purpose it was intended and designed.

We did add 4 JBL subs to the setup on a separate amp to give some extra oomph to the bass field drum solo.
Gizmologist is offline
Old 09-07-2009, 07:20 PM
online-shashki Forum Special Member

Denophile's Avatar

Join Date: May 2005
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 2,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
exactly. everyone here agrees but it doesnt thwart an argument
Denophile is offline
Old 10-05-2009, 04:25 PM
Member

mrevo's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 51
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
wow, so many different opinions.

So from what I heard, some knowaledgeable people accept that the 901's are good for some types of listening.
while Some purist insist that they do not reproduce what audiophiles want.
In my opinion, I like the way they sound, even though is difficult to position them in the correct position, and given the bad reputation bose has now, with material quality, no wonder no one likes Bose any more.
Too much controversy. But as we do agree on the newer stuff overprice, I still think the old 901 were built right.

So if you use the 901, you could complement them with a second set of quality speakers for the high end sound.

just my 2 cents.

I'm eager to make things better, sound better and perform better.
If it sounds good, listen to it.
mrevo is offline
Old 10-05-2009, 05:34 PM
online-shashki Forum Special Member

cdy2179's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: central Louisiana
Posts: 3,252
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 807 Post(s)
Liked: 512
The 901s are $1400, do you know what you can get for that? My Rocket 850 were less than $1000, Salk song towers, Aperion 6ts..The list goes on and on. These are real audiophile speakers for the same price or less.. the build quality and finish will make you throw rocks at the cheap looking Bose.

People bash Bose because they rip people off.. they're advertising giants and some where way down the line speaker designing comes into play. You can get so much more for the same money.
The cube systems are a joke for the price, and people ignorantly smile while they pay 3x more than they should.
Sure the 901 sounds Ok until you put them against some $1400 competition, They'd be fine in the $400 price range and people would probably say "not too bad for the price".

Bose makes good headphones and car systems, beyond that they're all hype. People in this forum get out and audition, they listen and critique, They let the speaker not the company do the selling.... to hear and see a cheaply made and sounding speaker that cost 3x what it should won't get a second look around hear.
cdy2179 is offline
Old 10-05-2009, 06:07 PM
Senior Member

519audiofan's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Woodstock, ON
Posts: 480
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 39
I remember listening to some 901s powered by an NAD 2400 back in 1990 and being disappointed by the sound quality. The other speakers the guys in my residence had were Paradigm, Klipsch, and B&W and all were head and shoulders above the 901. On the other hand a buddy had a pair of 301s back in the 80's and they sounded pretty decent
519audiofan is offline
Old 10-05-2009, 10:39 PM
Member

Haelphadreous's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Seattle WA
Posts: 146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
cdy2179 I wouldn't be so quick to call Bose Headphones decent, they are shody poorly built and vastly overpriced. They used to have a display for a $200ish set of Triports at one of the local stores where you could hook up your own music to test them, I took several friends there and had them compare back to back with a $40 pair of Sennheiser PX-100's the first headphones I had done research before buying, Not one person preferred the sound of the Bose.

As far as their Car Audio goes, it's not terrible I have been looking long and hard at an Infiniti G37, and one of my biggest sticking points with the car is a sinking worry that a bunch of Bose "magic" is happening in the sound system, and it might be hard to rip out all the junk that is processing the heck out of the sound. The bright side is that the car has 10" speaker mounts in the doors and if I don't have to rip out the head unit to purge all the over equalization it could be fun. As things stand the "Studio on wheels" sounds slightly better than average, and it's worse than most other premium audio systems in various cars I have heard.


If you want to know the history of Bose headphones.


http://intellexual.net/bose.html

A few years back, the United States Air Force signed Bose onto a multi-million-dollar contract to design noise cancellation headsets for Air Force flight crews. Bose won the contract over two other companies simply because of their "more established name" (brand recognition). The concept of a noise cancellation headset is to actively monitor the noise frequencies emitted from a jet engine and the turbulent wind, and reproduce the exact signal 180 degrees out of phase, thus theoretically canceling it out completely. Many reputable manufacturers have successful done so as well. Bose produced a model that cost approximately $1000 per unit, which failed to cancel out a significant amount of noise. The company used the contract as an opportunity to unload obsolete parts from years back. Bose pawned off thousands of outdated interface connectors for which there were no longer commercially available mating jacks, and incorporated them into the headsets. The Air Force, proud as it was, didn't scrap the project, but instead spent countless millions more replacing the consoles in a number of aircraft to make them compatible with the said headsets. In the end though, the Air Force did terminate the contract when test crews found that the headsets were ineffective and non-durable. This whole mess was created over a brand name's alleged reputation and prestige. Bose is now selling a downgraded version of these headsets to commercial airlines and to the consumer public. They now work to a minor degree, but are not surprisingly still easily outperformed by their competitors. These consumer market headsets are also very, very poorly crafted. I browse many online audio forums and have heard stories about these very expensive headsets falling apart prematurely.

And of course the reason you can always read a good reviews about Bose products.

Few magazines are now willing to give honest reviews of Bose products due to a Consumer Reports review a few years back that gave the AM-15 embarrassingly bad ratings (score of 62 out of 100). Consumer Reports allegedly used a double-blind comparison test, which is in fact the ideal way to compare speakers. That particular review ended up in a lawsuit over "unscientific testing methods". Thankfully, Bose lost that lawsuit, but since then, Consumer Reports and various other magazines give neutral-to-rave reviews that tip-toe around the actual sound quality and focus more on ergonomics and style. More prestigious publications like Fi and What HiFi? ignore Bose products completely.
Haelphadreous is offline
Sponsored Links
Advertisement



Tags
Bose
Thread Tools


Forum Jump:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off