Interesting.  glake52 did a heckuva job on that!

I zoomed on a single line that was the critical point to me, which was that Bose was "trying to recreate an auditorium effect."   I could ask a lot of questions about that, like "just WHICH auditorium?" and such, but my position is simple.

That's the recording engineers job...not to "create" any effect, but to record the space that is there and the event that is taking place within it in as perfect a context as possible. 

It's the loudpspeakers job to reproduce that precisely.  Anything more is editorializing, anything less is, well, less. 

Dave 

series 1 and 2 eq's looked like this:

http://www.oaktreeent.com/web_photos/Stereo_Signal_Proc/Bose_901-E_II_2_collage.jpg

later editions looked like this - may have been woodgrain, black, or brushed like this one:

http://www.oaktreeent.com/web_photos/Stereo_Signal_Proc/Bose_901_Series-V_Active_Equalizer_collage.jpg

 

Mallette:

I zoomed on a single line that was the critical point to me, which was that Bose was "trying to recreate an auditorium effect."   I could ask a lot of questions about that, like "just WHICH auditorium?" 

Good question. Hirsch said two things which warrant a quote;  "Depending upon one's viewpoint, the Bose 901 speaker system might be considered a revolutionary approach to sound reproduction, or simply a workable combination of well established (and sometimes deprecated) techniques". (Hirsch, J.; Tech Talk; Equipment Test Reports; Hi-Fi Stereo Review; Nov 68). As we know,... Bose marketing certainly claims the former; but the latter seems to be the actual case for how it works in the practical sense. Second thing he said which agains points to the "application" intention was, (referring to the 1 front and 8 ear drivers) "This arrangement is intended to achieve approximately the same ratio of direct to reflected sound that exists in the concert hall" (Hirsch, op.cit.). That's probably why they don't sound very good unless the volume is just sufficient to begin to achieve the designed effect.

Srobak has a good point also in that "..near the end you say "intended for background/supplemental" music - but earlier mention they have to be cranked a bit to be effective in their job (also agreed)... isn't that a bit contradictory in nature?  :)   What is the true solution in that situation?"  It's my belief that the good Dr Bose's intention was the "concert hall", but because of the design, it effectively tends to limit the listener to a mid-far field listening "experience". By consequence, I suppose, that unless it's "cranked up loud", the 901's unintentional result was/is that "supplemental" effect, with all of the "bad" subjective results.

As we know, the Klipsch vs Bose debate at the basic level is comparing two totally different approaches to sound reproduction. One (Klipsch) does it by making sure the reproduction is faithfully accurate (or fatally... dependent upon the source material and the amp quality, etc...), and the other (Bose), is by compromise, and in particular by specifying and designing for a particular listening environment. In that context, the 901, using a simple "tools" analogy, is a really great flat head screwdriver... Perfect for what it's designed for, but in the end, it's still a flat head screwdriver. Klipsch, by the same token, is a "multi-tool", and thus infinitely more useful....

Now what I thought was funny, was that Hirsch also commented in an earlier article (Aug 68) as to the difficulty of describing speaker performance in purely objective terms, and cited the 901 as the perfect example of that problem. I pretty much concluded that Hirsch was saying, in substance, that the 901 should "suck", but for some subjective reason, could sound pretty good.  He was being kind and in a very classy way. On that note, the E&E (Elementary Electronics) report was way too "glowing" for my liking, but many reviewers tended (and still do) to be overly nice to the "freebies" they get to test...

After the 901 was introduced in late 67 (as the 1968 first model), the stereo folks and "audiophiles" pretty much divided themselves into the two "warring camps" that exist to this day. Unfortunately there are some "extremist" viewpoints in the two opposing sides. I'm of the opinion that speakers other than Klipsch should not simply be classified as garbage out of hand because they are made by any particular company. They may very well be "garbage" in terms of comparing them to the Klipsch, but... you never know until you plug something in and listen to it - then throw it away!!

TO srobak:

 Yeah, he had the earlier kind of BOSE provided EQ box.  His 901s were purchased in 1972 after a store fire burned his big Wharfdales (sp?) ... may have been sand filled, but burned anyway... .

The 901's  sounded better, but had new (1972) Marantz preamp and Phase Linear amp to go with them.

TO Groomlakearea51, and everyone:

 I wonder how many of today's Hi End super expensive speakers for the self proclaimed Golden Ears are realy designed to make average (i.e., not very good) recordings sound tolerable and "pretty?"  One of the severl reasons I'm saying this is that when we used to make tapes of live performers while monitoring on horns, it wasn't too hard -- in fact, pretty easy -- to get pretty realistic reproduction from those original generation tapes when monitoriing on horns by Altec, JBL, and Klipsch (yes, with solid state equipment), but these same horn speakers, being "unforgiving" and not gilding the lilly, made some bad commercial recordings (about 1/3 of all recordings) sound like crap.  Those in our group who had "forgiving" speakers at home (Bozak, in those days) could tolerate those bad commercial recordings.  So, when today's reviewers talk about highly "musical" speakers, I wonder if they mean "forgiving." 

 Absoulutely superb, GLA51.  I finally understand what Bose is all about.  Knowing this crowd, many will read more into that than there is.  What it is is real understanding.  

Thanks for your truly in depth and extraordinary insight.  

Regards,
Dave

Garyrc:

 I wonder how many of today's Hi End super expensive speakers for the self proclaimed Golden Ears are realy designed to make average (i.e., not very good) recordings sound tolerable and "pretty?" .....  So, when today's reviewers talk about highly "musical" speakers, I wonder if they mean "forgiving." 

That's a good point, and quite possible. Case in point: I live about 40 miles away from the NPR station. Some days for whatever reason, the signal is shall we say "less than musical". Coming through the Klipschorns - drives me crazy.... So, I turn them off, and switch amps to an old pair of Heresys (old caps, back not sealed, etc.). Becomes bearable first thing in the morning at a low volume because I want to listen to "Morning Edition" news etc.

I too am also curious about "musical" speakers for the masses.... If.... I were to design a speaker to make money (key words: make money = stay in business, live a life of luxury, trips to the Bahamas, the usual decadence...), I would (a) use the least expensive components that would last through the warranty period, (b) keep the warranty down to one year, (c) design the crossover to match my target audience (lotsa' bass, strong but pleasantly muddy mids, flat sounding tweets), and (d) test it on some of my target audience (audience = those with the likely amount of money I want to charge, and likely listen to a certain type of music wherein loud is better and "fidelity" is not really an issue...)

I can see the review now: "Area-51 Sound Design's - ASD-2 is a very "musical" speaker. Great room filling bass at a great price! The perfect hard rock speaker system for kids on a tight budget. We were most impressed with the ASD's handling of some less than well recorded CD's. Highly recommended"....

But then someone on the Forum would buy a pair and I would be up "Sh*t Creek"!! LOL

Groomlakearea51:

Garyrc:

 I wonder how many of today's Hi End super expensive speakers for the self proclaimed Golden Ears are realy designed to make average (i.e., not very good) recordings sound tolerable and "pretty?" .....  So, when today's reviewers talk about highly "musical" speakers, I wonder if they mean "forgiving." 

That's a good point, and quite possible. Case in point: I live about 40 miles away from the NPR station. Some days for whatever reason, the signal is shall we say "less than musical". Coming through the Klipschorns - drives me crazy.... So, I turn them off, and switch amps to an old pair of Heresys (old caps, back not sealed, etc.). Becomes bearable first thing in the morning at a low volume because I want to listen to "Morning Edition" news etc.

I too am also curious about "musical" speakers for the masses.... If.... I were to design a speaker to make money (key words: make money = stay in business, live a life of luxury, trips to the Bahamas, the usual decadence...), I would (a) use the least expensive components that would last through the warranty period, (b) keep the warranty down to one year, (c) design the crossover to match my target audience (lotsa' bass, strong but pleasantly muddy mids, flat sounding tweets), and (d) test it on some of my target audience (audience = those with the likely amount of money I want to charge, and likely listen to a certain type of music wherein loud is better and "fidelity" is not really an issue...)

I can see the review now: "Area-51 Sound Design's - ASD-2 is a very "musical" speaker. Great room filling bass at a great price! The perfect hard rock speaker system for kids on a tight budget. We were most impressed with the ASD's handling of some less than well recorded CD's. Highly recommended"....

But then someone on the Forum would buy a pair and I would be up "Sh*t Creek"!! LOL

We Have to do it!!!! Lets start posting up reviews of the fictitious ADS-2......not just here but on agon, akarma, stevehoff, etc, ad nauseam. We'll start treads like "what sounds better Paradigm or ADS-2" It'll drive folks nuts and create an instant market for the "Area51" company....we'll keep it under wraps and say only an exclusive first production run was released, and we are taking deposits for the next limited release !!!!! OK I just got myself banned from 5 forums at once and maybe arrested on tuesday . P.S. I apologize to BOSE for disclosing your marketing strategies.

fenderbender:

We Have to do it!!!! Lets start posting up reviews of the fictitious ADS-2......not just here but on agon, akarma, stevehoff, etc, ad nauseam. We'll start treads like "what sounds better Paradigm or ADS-2" It'll drive folks nuts and create an instant market for the "Area51" company....we'll keep it under wraps and say only an exclusive first production run was released, and we are taking deposits for the next limited release !!!!! OK I just got myself banned from 5 forums at once and maybe arrested on tuesday . P.S. I apologize to BOSE for disclosing your marketing strategies.

We're gonna' get in trouble!!!! First I must release the ASD-1 with 2 x 12" woofers and a mid/tweet combo, nicely packaged in a "rhino-lining" covered plywood enclosure, and with the optional aluminum corners, carrying handle, and the wire mesh driver covers (ASD-1 "Industrial").... Perfect for trailer park parties and the mesh to keep the beer bottles from taking them out of action....

I love my marketing strategy.... Just wear a nice shirt and tie, thick glasses have a great power point presentation, and no-one will suspect that my goal is the party barge yacht in the Bahamas fully outfitted with Klipsch weather resistant (and beer proof) speakers.

For the ADS 3. Can you make it the size of a khorn. The top can have 4 six inch peavy drivers. The bottom of one can be a cooler, the other a fridge for a half barrel with a tap sticking out of the side. And if you want to get retro and do 3 channel the center vertical Cornwall type can hide a weber BBQ I think water proof is a must with optional poontoon floats so they can be towed behind a jet ski.

I've seen people on message boards make up fictitious sports players before.  They would give these players wonderful stats like 40 yard dash times, bench press etc.. You would be amazed how fast that stuff would make it to other boards and I've even heard sports commentators on the radio talk about these made up players.

Groom,

Very interesting and well considered review of the 901 - thanks.

Just one point - I noticed your references to the first version. Have you ever tried playing with the V6? i think they are a rather different animal - being ported and with different surrounds for the speakers.

As it happens I have a friend with a lovely looking pair of 901 version 6's in piano black he is in the process of perfecting in his room. Thus far I think he has made a lot of progress and the changes in the sound are sufficient to say that I think he has not surpassed the sound he had in that room with Khorns.

O course - it is an odd room - but that is the fun of the challenge. I have an open invitation to take his speakers at some point to try them out in my room. I will take him up on that one day.

Max, you have a PM and an email via the Klipsch "system".

Funny that Max would mention that.....

I've read (and researched if one could call it that) what's going on lately with the Series VI..... The greatest complaint that seems to be noted by 901-VI owners is the bass is too "boomy", and the criticality of placement (and by consequence, that little "application" issue again...)

On the bass, whether that's from poor placement, or not understanding how the EQ actually works (the likely issue), it's hard to tell. But even the originals were cited as posing a potential problem with using the <40hz bass switch without having sufficient amp power to drive those frequencies. Even the well respected Julian Hirsch specifically cited that issue back in 1968. He said that by turning that switch to the "defeat position pretty much eliminated the problem (related to the considerable amount of measurable distortion 7% at 20hz, 12% at 30hz and 10% at 50Hz).

Here's a good example of what one owner said. Note: He's certainly not a "Klipsch basher", and obviously has some high end experience. Read between the lines, and in particular, note the last paragraph.... I have underlined some interesting comments.

Purchased Series III in 1977 and was happy with them until surrounds disintegrated in 1999 - Bose swapped them for a Series VI. At that time I spent a year listening to other speakers and components and finally settled on some PMC FB1s (which have since been upgraded with the 1+ tweeter and accompanying crossovers and insulation). I gave the VIs to my sister and helped her set them up in her family room. I love my FB1s but I did love the old 901s, too. Completely different sound, of course, but completely different philosophy and target market, too. I'm now hooked on the sound of the monitor-base FB1s, which I've integrated into a nice little PMC/Arcam home theatre setup. I do still enjoy listening to the VIs when I'm visiting my sister but only after checking any hi-fi snobbery at the door. I would actually recommend the speakers for the "listening experience" (stress "when properly placed/set up"). Yeah, maybe they don't compare well to a pair of Revels or Wilsons or Thiels or PMCs from a critical aspect, but my PMC FB1s may not compare well to a lot of competitors, either. If I get too hung up on comparisons it won't be possible to enjoy anything because there's always going to be something bigger, something "better" ("better" in quotes because so much of listening is subjective). The question you need to answer is, "Do you enjoy listening to them?" Listen and make your own decision. Ignore what so-called audiophiles tell you. "Beauty is in the ear of the beholder(?)" There is no product hype associated with this product. In fact, there's a huge negative hype perpetuated by hi-fi snob wannabes. With all that bad press, there's a reason these are still big sellers, despite almost total lack of product advertising - People enjoy listening to them. I love a good red wine but that doesn't mean I can't like beer as well. I love my current wife even though she isn't the best cook, doesn't have the biggest br**sts, and isn't in line for a big inheritance.

Strengths:
I think somebody else described their sound as "natural" - Maybe not from a critical aspect, but I would agree with the overall effect/sound as being very natural and "spacious".
Impressive volume and power-handling capabilities, if that's your bag in this price range.

Weaknesses:
Forget about Home Theatre
Needs very specific placement/setup
Linear response? Hah - LInear, shminear...

Similar Products Used:
JBL L100, EPI 200, PSB Stratus Gold, Paradigm Reference Studio 100, Allison 10, Klipschorns (friends' systems)
PMC FB1+

 

And here's another one that points to "what" appears to be the problem with them:

Summary:
These are not audiophile grade speakers. What they have is a super- midrange that reflects everywhere- not good for imaging or soundstage. Perhaps they are good for home theater, where sound effects are more important than two channel realism. Don't get me wrong- I loved these speakers for many years. As my hearing became more experienced and my equipment of a better quality I moved on to budget audiophile: Vandersteen (good choice to retain the "openness" of 901's while still getting a good soundstage & image) and ACI Saphire speakers (more neutral and excellent imaging- nice soundstage but very directional - tiny sweet spot) for the same money.
I believe you should get what sounds good to you. -It's just not a good idea to try to impress peers that you are knowledgable by argueing for bose 901's making the audiophile grade for sound transmission! But if thats the sound you like- do it!

Strengths:
Very open and in many ways "natural" sounding. Look very cool.

Weaknesses:
Power hungry. Unrealistic soundstange and imaging..., colored or distorted at frequency extreems. Difficult to place in the room.

Similar Products Used:
Vandersteen, ACI, B&W, Snell, KEF