Happy Anniversary Bose 901

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"

Re: Happy Anniversary Bose 901

erigby@batelnet.bs 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 enjoyed this post. I picked up 2 pair of 901's (series II) with
equalizers, Mac MC2105, Mac MX115, several turntables, tape decks,
receivers -- enough stuff that it took two trips in a van to get it all
home. Some hate the Boses, I have loved the way they sound for twenty
years now. I have listened to many other speakers, my test CD is a
Telarc release (Bach Pasacaglia and Fugue in C Minor played by Michael
Murray on the Great Organ at Methuen). No speaker system without a
subwoofer added does it like the 901.

In case anybody is wondering, I paid $800 dollars for the lot.

--
Mike McGinn
"more kidneys than eyes"
Registered Linux User 377849

Re: Happy Anniversary Bose 901

erigby@batelnet.bs <erigby@batelnet.bs> 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?

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

Re: Happy Anniversary Bose 901

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 16:22:55 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article <fm144v024r1@news3.newsguy,com >):

> erigby@batelnet.bs <erigby@batelnet.bs> 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?

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

Re: Happy Anniversary Bose 901

"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
news:fm3qsc02hat@news3.newsguy,com

> 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.

Re: Happy Anniversary Bose 901

Sonnova wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 16:22:55 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
> (in article <fm144v024r1@news3.newsguy,com >):
<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

Re: Happy Anniversary Bose 901

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:34:39 -0800, Mike McGinn wrote
(in article <fm8uef0145f@news3.newsguy,com >):

> Sonnova wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 16:22:55 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
>> (in article <fm144v024r1@news3.newsguy,com >):
> <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.

Re: Happy Anniversary Bose 901

Sonnova wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:34:39 -0800, Mike McGinn wrote
> (in article <fm8uef0145f@news3.newsguy,com >):
>
>> 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

Re: Happy Anniversary Bose 901

"Mike McGinn" <mikemcginn@mcginnweb,net > wrote in message
news:fmb7ph01sgv@news1.newsguy,com ...
> Sonnova wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:34:39 -0800, Mike McGinn wrote
>> (in article <fm8uef0145f@news3.newsguy,com >):
>>
>>> 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.

Re: Happy Anniversary Bose 901

"Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix,com > wrote in message
news:fm144v024r1@news3.newsguy,com ...
> erigby@batelnet.bs <erigby@batelnet.bs> 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).

Re: Happy Anniversary Bose 901

On Jan 7, 6:52 pm, "eri...@batelnet.bs" <eri...@batelnet.bs> 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

Re: Happy Anniversary Bose 901

codifus <codifus@optonline,net > 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

Re: 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.

Re: Happy Anniversary Bose 901

c. leeds <cleeds@bestweb,net > 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

Re: Happy Anniversary Bose 901

"Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix,com > wrote in message
news:fmgsns0ess@news1.newsguy,com ...
> c. leeds <cleeds@bestweb,net > 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.