motzi@ecn-aa.UUCP (Jon Motzi) (10/08/85)
I would be interested in hearing both good & bad comments
concerning the BOSE 901 (I think that's what they are still
called) speakers. Has anyone augmented the bass using a
subwoofer with these speakers? What about the high frequency sound ?
PLEASE, Let's limit the discussion to those people who have
ACTUAL LISTENING EXPERIENCE with these speakers.
Thanks.
{ihnp4|decvax|icalqa|purdue|uiucdcs|cbosgd|harpo}!pur-ee!motziknf@druxo.UUCP (FricklasK) (10/08/85)
I lived in a house for a couple of years with a roommate who had Bose 901's,
series IV I think. My stereo had Polk 10A's, which I picked up for about $450.
The Polks had more <deep> bass, a "sweeter" high end, and a $500 lower price
tag. The Bose's were set up exactly as shown in the manual (as far as distances
to back wall, hang from ceiling, side walls, etc.). Both sets of speakers were
in the living room, and they were quite easy to compare. The Bose 901's have
*VERY* good imaging when set up this way, but they seemed to lack the "oomph"
and power of the Polks. I think its the old Ohm F tradeoff- inaccuracy and
dynamics vs. imaging. I'd say, as far as buying new speakers, you can almost
certainly do better for the money. If you already have a pair, be sure to set
them up exactly as per instructions, and you'll figure out what the direct/
reflecting concept is all about. Good speakers- yes, but not the world class
speakers Bose wishes they were (and advertises them as).
'`'`'
Ken
'`'``rdp@teddy.UUCP (10/09/85)
In article <72@ecn-aa.UUCP> motzi@pur-ee.UUCP (John Motzi) writes: > > > > I would be interested in hearing both good & bad comments >concerning the BOSE 901 (I think that's what they are still >called) speakers. Has anyone augmented the bass using a >subwoofer with these speakers? What about the high frequency sound ? >PLEASE, Let's limit the discussion to those people who have >ACTUAL LISTENING EXPERIENCE with these speakers. > >Thanks. > In my long and only occasionally glorious past in the audio business, the Bose loudspeakers have come to occupy a warm spot in my heart as the all-time worst audio product ever conceived. Given my strong feelings against it (it being one of the few products that I really get emotional about), I must resist the temptation to lash out at Dr. Amar and his Framingham gang of thieves. So, I think I must pass on this. NAAH! Let's deal with some facts, here, boys and girls. For the greater part of its life, the Bose 901 was constructed out of some of the cheapest and worst drivers available anywhere. The theory (marketing theory, not physical theory) is that the variations between drivers would tend to cancel themselves out. Well, that is so much bullshit, because one thing can be said about Bose's supplier of drivers, and that is that even though they are truly wretched, they are very consistantly truly wretched. All those anomolies such as cone breakup and rim resonances all happen with a few percent of a given frequency, and response plots and listening tests confirm that. There is so much wrong with those speakers that to discuss the objective measurements would require a book. Try some experiments (I have). Take the Bose 901 and another pair of loudspeakers. Have a friend make a decent recording of himself saying the numbers 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, etc, with a pause between each one. Then play the tape back, having him stand between the loudspeakers, and have him say that even numbers while the tape is playing back. Which pair of loudspeakers sounds more like your friend? Now, try this. Get a piece of cardboard mailing tube about 3 inches in diameter and a couple of feet long (a piece of PVC drain pipe works too). Have hime now say the even numbers through the tube in response to the tape. Now which pair sounds more like your friend? Try the same thing with a cardboard box, a small kitchen garbage can, whatever. Please realize here I am being perfectly serious! The Bose presents such a bizarre aural image as to, initially, defy identification. Many people, some of whom are perfectly reasonable, intelligent, honest people, are taken in by the absolutely unique (I mean, there is NO other sound like it anywhere! even in the real world) that they are willing to plunk money down on the spot without any critical and skeptical evaluation. In most cases, I have found they live to regret their decision, but are totally unwilling to admit it. "What about the great reviews". When I was consulting to JBL, I happened across one of the advertising reps for a major Hi-Fi monthly journal that Reviews Stereo equipment, and another that is involved in the Audio business, as well. It was the stated editorial policy that "favorable reviews are a function the commitment of the manufacturer to an advertising contract". Period. No pretenses, no hidden costs, no under the table dealings. You commit to 2 years of inside front cover advertising and we will say your speakers are better than sliced white bread followed by multiple orgasms. This is fact folks, and one of the things that irritated me most about the audio business. Flame me, Bosofiles, if you please, but the flame cannnot hide the facts. If you want to deal with facts, fine. The Bose 901 does not, did not and probably never will, give anything even remotely approaching an identifiable analog of the things some of us use our stereos to listen to, MUSIC. An anecdote: In my early days in the business (at a long defunct store called SoundScope in Boston), an 18 year old male type college student came in to spout eloquently on the virtues of the Bose. He stated that the Bose was the only speaker that satisfied his desires in musical experience. He would not (could not?) listen to any of our arguments. He then proceeded to demonstrate what he meant. He took the pair of Bose 901's from the display area, placed them back to back about a 18 inches apart on either side of his head, and proceeded to listen to them while clipping the beejebers off a Phase Linear 700 power amp listening to Pink Floydd's "Dark Side of the Moon". After a minute of this torture (we could not even stay in the showroom, but had to observe from behind a hastily constructed lead and concrete barrier!) we note that blood (yes!) was beginning to slowly drip from his ears. The boy was nearly totally deaf from but a few months of Bose-listening! We later were able to confirm a continuous sound pressure level at the ears approaching 140 db!!!! (let's see a pipe organ do that, Mr. Grantges :-)) It was rumored that the only alarm clock that would get this guy going consisted of a Radio Shack timer connected to a small tactical thermonuclear warhead. Dick (sorry that someone finally had to bring this subject up) Pierce
jt@nrcvax.UUCP (Jerry Toporek) (10/15/85)
Thanks for the stories from the twilight zone of the audio world Dick!
In my dormitory days, the 901 was the torture implement of choice by the
macho types who got off on placing them against the cinder block walls of
their 9 x 12 foot rooms and making the rest of the world pay for their
pleasure.
I have a friend now who thinks the ultimate in audio experience is hauling
out his quad (not Quad) system with 901's in four corners and blasting away.
My friend can't hear too well which may explain this aberration.
Let's face it, like lot's of other stuff we talk about, the 901 isn't for
everyone, but for a few it seems to fill a real need.
--
Jerry Toporek Network Research Corp.
ihnp4!nrcvax!jt 1620 Federal Ave. Suite #2
ucbvax!calma!nrcvax!jt LA, CA, 90025, USA
{sdcsvax,hplabs}!sdcrdcf!psivax!nrcvax!jt (213) 479-6436rdp@teddy.UUCP (10/18/85)
In article <339@nrcvax.UUCP> jt@nrcvax.UUCP (Jerry Toporek) writes: > > Keywords: bose hose blose > ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^ > Actually, the expression really is "Bose knows bose blows".
rentsch@unc.UUCP (Tim Rentsch) (10/21/85)
Bose 901's did have a gimmick, but even that isn't necessary for a terrible speaker to be commercially successful -- look at the DCM time windows (which sound even worse than the 901's, by the way). What gets me is how much this speaker was adopted by the commercial community for "Muzak" (or any piped in music) in restaraunts, bars, etc. I imagine the selling tactic was the "superior sound" at a moderate price (which it was at first), plus the small size which allows the speakers to be installed unobtrusively (physically, not sonically) in the bar or whatever. But I have to admit I was taken by surprise when I saw a set mounted backwards(!), so that most of the drivers pointed away from the listener, at one place. It was then that I understood that the people putting in muzak systems really don't care about the sound but only install them so that more money will be spent. (This is true, of course -- ask any supermarket marketing person.) For what it's worth, I think the Bose 901's have a good idea (direct/reflecting sound) but a terrible implementation. They sound bad to mediocre. But then, nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the american public. cheers, Tim
rfg@hound.UUCP (R.GRANTGES) (10/22/85)
[]] Tim, your article is typical of most of the anti-901 articles I read. Quote (sort of) ...I even saw one installed backwards with most of the drivers facing away from the listeners...end quote. THAT is the CORRECT way. The way they were designed to be used. You guys insist on listening to them backwards! Small wonder. Wow! The PA version has all the drivers aimed out the front, The 901, all but one aimed out the back. The two versions are intended to function quite differently. THey share a similar speaker design. I repeat for posterity. I don't own or particularly like Bose. I do have a bose PA catalog and recommend them for certain applications. I don't sell anything, let alone Bose speakers. I just hate uninformed bad mouthing. I acn remember no one (well hardly ) liked vilchurs rotten little absurd speaker. hound!rfg -- "It's the thought, if any, that counts!" Dick Grantges hound!rfg
rentsch@unc.UUCP (Tim Rentsch) (10/24/85)
In article <1434@hound.UUCP> rfg@hound.UUCP (R.GRANTGES) writes: >The PA version has all the drivers aimed out the front, The 901, all but >one aimed out the back. The two versions are intended to function >quite differently. THey share a similar speaker design. Probably my memory is failing me -- it's been so long since I looked at Bose literature that it might very well be that most of the drivers are in the back (as opposed to how I remembered it, most in the front). For the case in question, I did not (obviously) take the speaker apart to see where the drivers were. What I did do was to observe that the speaker enclosure was pointed backwards. (At least, most audio places have them set up with the flat side forward; whereas this place had the pointy side forward.) Whether pointing forwards or backwards, they still sound bad.