Jump to content

Darn Bose 901's dusted by Klipsch.... errrr.. Cornballs!!!


fgarib

Recommended Posts

Toooo Funny!! In my ever growing need to provide our friendly forum members (not the unfriendly ones, mind you!) with entertaining reading, I found myself on audioreview.com looking up reviews on what else but Bose 901's. My search had nearly come up dry, till I found this little doozy!!! It's a little long, but bear with it... The Klipsch comparision is just too funny. And it does have a happy ending!!! Well sort of... He's stil stuck with bose, but at least he's happy.

Man, oh man... this guy has been through some painful times, it seems! 15.gif

Enjoy!!

-F

---------------------------

Summary:

Summary:

TO ALL 901 OWNERS AND 901 HATERS

first of all let me state I am a 901 owner

and have 3 friends who own 901s

one who owns 2 sets (double bose)

I have heard every direct/reflecting

speaker bose ever made from the original

901 to 901V,801,701,601,501,301,201,10.2

series

THE BAD NEWS:

contrary to what all the bose owners have

posted here the speakers do sound like crap

90% of the time you hear them in most rooms

most 901 owners don't have a clue as to

what good sound is or how to achieve it

with their speakers (good sound is possible

as you see later on)

I can tell by their post that they have no

idea what effects the sound quality of 901

more than anything else and its not just

distance from wall

what makes 901 owners seem so deaf when it

comes to good sound and why does anyone buy

this speaker in the first place? is what

most sane people want to know

well deny this if you want to but it's the

hype "compare these speakers to any other

speaker regardless of size or price"

they think hey I only wanted good speakers

but for only $1299 I could have the best

so in other words I could buy a speaker the

size of a refrigerator or costing $30,000

and these would still sound better because

of the technology?

yep you can buy these mid-fi speakers or

supersize to the 901 and have the best

but where can they compare these to the

larger or exotic speakers? certainly not

any store that sells 901 thats for sure

well they have the 701 I'll compare with

them

no they are a step down and I want the best

(note:dealers don't carry 901s cause the

sound good they carry them cause they sell

good,even if they can't figure out why

people buy them,hey as long as they sell we

don't need to carry speakers that sound

better)

NOW ALL YOU 901 OWNERS WHO SAY THEY SOUND

GOOD

did you really ever compare them to any

thing but the junk they sell at stores that

sold you the 901

Hell no you didn't if you had you wouldn't

be the proud owner of 901s and post all

that dumb stuff about your great sound that

you really don't have

if you only knew how stupid you sound to

others who have heard them and gagged

(over the years I have taken my 901's to compare them to other high end speakers one dealer was nice enough to let me bring them to a high end store and compare them to his best speakers,this is what bose says to do, I guess they never really expected anyone to actually do it. the experience was an embarassing one to say the least as this was a golden ear dealer.

well I also compared my 901s to a guy I met there speakers, klipsch cornwalls, he worked at the high end store

i took my 901s over to his house and even

though his were not the greatest speakers

I could tell mine had problems with over

all tonal balance, imaging, detail and they

didn't sound rich and musical but more like

comparing a loud fm radio source to a cd

source in his extremely small room

DAMN 901s DUSTED BY SOME KLIPSCH

er...CORNBALLS

rather than concede they were junk I began

an obsession into trying to get my 901s to

sound like the best, new electronics,new cd

player, weeks then months of trying every

possible placement in various rooms moving

inches closer to the rear wall listening

further from wall listening closer to side

walls further then closer together whew!!!

I even called bose and talked to techs as

to why I could not get my 901s to sound

like the best speakers

one tech who must must have got a kick out

of bewildered bose callers with the same

problem. he just sort of chuckled and said

he never ever thought they were the best.

he though they were good but...then I knew

I had been screwed

YEARS LATER

after moving to a house with brick

exterior walls the strangest thing happen I

hooked my 901s and they sounded good no

great what!!! these junk speakers that I

had tried in every position in other houses

what happened?

What happened is the only way to get great

sound from 901s is the rooms you use them

in has to not let any sound pass through

I'm not talking about a reflective surface

since 901s don't have a speaker box your

room is like a speaker box

it has the rear drivers facing the wall and

if that wall is just drywall it allows to

much of the sound to pass through and

reflects the wrong portions back into the

room resulting in the washed out sound the

901 is famous for with the walls outside

the dry wall being brick you have a tighter

seal and all sound and frequencies are

directed back into the room in equal

portions something that was never achieved

in all my other setups

the resulting sound was very smooth highs

,rich midrange,extended non boomy bass,good

imaging

gone was all the harsh sound usually

associated with 901s

you 901 owners if you don't have yours in a

home with brick walls or in a basement with

Strengths:

it is possible to get very good sound in right

situation this is the reason for some of the positive reveiws, the room must have had the ideal acoustics and size..note no amount of correct placement can make up for the poor room, they will sound horrible no matter where or how you place them in room with thin walls,the room is 90% of the sound of 901's

Weaknesses:

in most cases and rooms good sound is not

possible causing many owners to be in

denial about the sound quality

Similar Products Used:

all bose 901 series I thru V bose 501 current speakers dbx soundfields 1a,infinity,carver,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok. I confess. Before I was exposed to Klipsch and before I used four Speakerlab SK-Horns in a mobile DJ business (75-76), I owned a pair of Bose 901s (Series II, I think).

Now understand that audio memory is extremely unreliable, but the 901s were not bad, not as good as my 84 Cornballs . I mean Cornwalls, but still pretty good.

As you know, 901s are extremely inefficient and very power hungry. The Dynaco ST-400 solved that problem. The 901s were at their best hanging from the beams in a large room. They were approximately 2 from the rear walls, approximately 6 from the side walls and approximately 8 apart. Although Ive never been a real opera fan, the live NPR broadcasts of the Texaco Opera Theater were amazing, as were the Doobie Brothers at high decibels.

I have to agree with the Bose owner/reviewer. Most 901 owners do not know how to place their speakers.

A friend of mine from college recently bought 901s based upon the recommendation of his college age son. He did so without consulting me first, despite the fact that, for thirty+ years, he has been pleased with the Dynaco A-25 speakers that I recommended when his college student budget was tight.

While at his home to watch MSU (football) lose yet another bowl game, I noticed that the 901s were stuffed into a bookcase/entertainment center with the 8 rear drivers firing into a space that was barely large enough to accommodate the enclosure. I suggested that he at least turn them around so that the 8 drivers fired into the room. He tried it for a while, but the next time I was there they had been turned around again and were being played without the obligatory Bose equalizer turned on. He loved the sound so I guess its ok.

You can lead a horse to horn loaded speakers driven by quality gear, but you cant make it drink in the superior sound.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fauzi:

I'm not a Bose hater but if the guy didn't like the sound of his 901s...why did he buy each successive version...hunting the white whale???

I had Bose 301s a LONG time ago and they weren't bad and for the price, they were great (series II I believe with the paddle) but my next set of Klipsch KG2s were better and the Heresys FAR better (Of course they were several times the price too)

Thanks for sharing! :)

Bill

(Fauzi, with your sig at the bottom, I almost thought YOU wrote this...6.gif2.gif3.gif9.gif16.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Below is a repeat of one I posted elsewhere earlier this month. I know Bose-bashing is de rigeur here, and I do share the view that most Bose is grotesquely overpriced for what you get. But I don't know many people (any) who own both Bose 901 VI's AND Klipschorns, so I do think I am uniquely qualified to make the remarks below.)

"The 901 Series VI is a pretty good speaker, probably the best thing Bose makes in terms of value versus price. Their other stuff is grotesquely overpriced (gotta pay for all that marketing).

"I owned a pair of 901 Series III's in the 1970's. Those little drivers running full range "gargled" on difficult program material played loud, e.g., the Zarathrusa "2001" theme. Got transferred, sold those, and in 1988 picked up a pair of 901 Series IV's that I still have and which I believe are still the current version of the 901's. I don't know how Bose did it, but they somehow fixed the "gargle" problem.

"My pair of 2003 Klipschorns replaced the 901's that year. Of course there are differences. Of course the Khorns have their ability to play very loudly with astounding clarity. But the 901's, which I now have in an exercise nook upstairs, still hold their own and sound pretty good.

"Think twice about selling yours. If I were you I would try to keep them and use them in a secondary system in your home."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

----------------

On <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />
4/13/2005
8:15:32 AM DTLongo wrote: <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

"...I don't know how Bose did it, but they somehow fixed the "gargle" problem."

----------------

I suspect that the gargle problem might have been caused by too little power which resulted in clipping and distortion.

The early incarnations of 901s were sealed enclosures and the black drivers had paper/cloth surrounds.
They were terribly inefficient and demanded huge amounts of clean power.
Mine from the Seventies (Series II or III) did not gargle when played loudly with a Dynaco ST-400 SS amp.

The later series were ported enclosures and the blue drivers had foam surrounds (a whole new can of worms).
Those speakers were vastly more efficient and needed less power to play loudly without gargling.

Remember the days when we cranked up the radio in the 63 Impala until the single speaker rattled like crazy.
Intuitively we thought the radio was sooo powerfulll that it was over driving the poor speaker.
In fact, the amplifier section of the radio was so anemic that it could not play that inefficient 6 x 9 paper coned free air speaker at high decibels with clipping and distorting.
My guess is its a similar phenomenon with the 901s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most Boston Acoustic speakers are better than real Bose speakers. I am excluding those cubes and the mid range/bass plastic box they call a sub woofer, cause they cant compete. My brother in-law has that set up, not inexpensive either, while compact, don't think so, for less and the same sound you can do Cambridge sound works. I like BA, not love but won't sell them (college memories) but the old T-830 tops the 901 in many categories and cost a heck of a lot less. The thing I hate about BA's is the tweeter ring at higher volume, but it has a very nice laid back sound at moderate volumes, much better then Bose IMO. Neither touches my Klipsch in sound quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

----------------

On 4/13/2005 10:00:24 AM minn_male42 wrote:

neil,

do you have an obsession with different fonts?

honestly, some of your posts are difficult to read because you feel the need to play around with the fonts all the time.....
----------------

Russ,

On the contrary, I care very little about the font used. I do care about correct spelling, capitalization and punctuation, i.e., posts are typically done first as a Word document and then pasted into the forum.

If you find unexpected fonts difficult to read, you have my permission to skip the post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

----------------

On 4/13/2005 11:14:42 AM DizRotus wrote:

Russ,

On the contrary, I care very little about the font used. I do care about correct spelling, capitalization and punctuation,
i.e.,
posts are typically done first as a Word document and then pasted into the forum.

If you find unexpected fonts difficult to read, you have my permission to skip the post.

----------------

for not caring about the font, you seem to make a conscious effort to select different fonts from one post to the next

so much for just using the default font that comes up in Word

personally - your posts really don't interest me that much..... but it is nice if everyone can read your posts if they so desire

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russ,

The point is I don't select the font. I pay no attention to the font, unless it's illegible. The default font in the Forum form appears to be Normal Tahoma 2, which is fine by me.

The deault font in my Word program is Times New Roman 12, again fine with me. Sometimes in the cutting and pasting process and in editing posts, the fonts seem to change on their own. I've NEVER selected any specific font, because, "... it don't matter to me."

Living in Oakland County, Michigan, and still being a Detroit Lions fan even though they abandoned Oakland County for Wayne County, the only font preference I might have is the Oakland fonts instead of the Wayne Fontes.

As I recall, you were gracious enough some time ago to instruct me as to how to use Rich Text to paste links and photos directly into posts. The random fonts seem to have emerged since then. Perhaps it's all your fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the 901s are relatively efficient - it's the equalizer with its tremendous amount of bass boost that sucks up the power.

I had a student "back in the day" who did quite well for himself selling Bose in upstate New York. The 901s were popular in small discos and clubs - he would mount them flush against the ceiling with the one speaker facing up and eight down. He claimed it created a very distinct sound field - loud on the dance floor yet still soft enough to have conversations around the edges. Evidently Bose noticed this sort of thing and began marketing an industrial version of the 901 that omitted the single driver.

He took me to a Bose dealer in town to demonstrate the 901s to me. We walked into the demo room and he immediately began backpedaling and trying to keep me out. I'd heard enough and asked him "Do you really like the way those sound?" He muttered something about the equalizer and the room, and I think I caught something about the phase of the moon. He never did live his "demo" down, though - at least while I was around...2.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

----------------

On 4/13/2005 11:56:11 AM CaptnBob wrote:

Actually, the 901s are relatively efficient - it's the equalizer with its tremendous amount of bass boost that sucks up the power.

----------------

Agreed. The unequalized nine 4 1/2" drivers are "efficient" if you want the sound of a clock radio on steroids. If you want some highs and lows, then you need the equalizer, which "sucks up the power."

The orginal versions with sealed enclosures and the equalizer in line were very inefficient. If I recall correctly, Bose recommended a minimum of 60 watts RMS per side to drive them properly. The later versions with ported enclosures still require equalization, but they do not suck up as much power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never had a pair of Bose 901 Series I or II's. As I recall from the literature and pictures, they were a sealed very inefficient box even if they looked nice with their unique rather angular, modern squared-off shape. The Series III's and later have a more rounded shape, still very attractive.

I purchased my Series III's through AAFES around 1977 while serving abroad at the U.S. Embassy in Budapest. When they arrived, one of the little drivers was rattling around in the enclosure! I remounted and wired it and both sets of speakers worked fine.

The III's were the first 901 with the complicated molded-plastic ported enclosure. Efficiency was fine, they operated well with modest power. The "gargling" I mentioned before was noticeable on some material with sustained heavy bass and delicate treble at the same time, e.g., "Zarathrusa." But it was unnoticeable on most material.

The 901 III's replaced a couple of classic Large Advents, themselves no slouches particularly in the bass. I still have them in storage as back-up speakers. A nice speaker.

I was truly impressed by the bass capability of those 901 III's. Deep, real and solid, to my ear, reminiscent of AR-2a's and AR-3's I used to lust over in college in the early 1960's but never could afford. After I sold the III's I truly missed them in that respect, which was one reason why I purchased my Series VI's in 1988.

The VI's retained that impressive bass, plus seemed clearer overall without "gargling." I ran them in a large Embassy apartment while I was posted to Ankara, Turkey. In that room with about a 40'long wall, it was a pleasure to walk from corner to corner across the faces of the speakers without any dimunition in the treble and overall sound balance at all, thanks to the reflected-dispersion effect.

Again, I am jaundiced like many of you over the price versus value situation re Bose, e.g., for all their Acoustimass and small-cube systems and their Wave radios. Those are grotesquely overpriced for what you get. But I submit that the 901 VI's, and the much more modest 301 bookshelf speakers (that I have also owned), arguably are an exception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DTLongo-

Your memory is better than mine. My 901s must have been Is or IIs, as they were definitely the straight sided sealed types. That mystrey solved, my guess regarding the "gargling" you experienced must be incorrect; it can't be related to the efficiency differences between the sealed and ported varieties. In any case, I never experienced a similar phenomeon with mine. That Dyna ST-400 would play the 901s loud and clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The early style 901's that I built had very effecient midrange but one had to run 12db of boost in the bass and treble to make it sound balanced. I would imagine though that one could run them unequalized as a pa speaker and not sound too bad for voice with good efficiency. I ran mine with a 200watt/channel Yamaha power amp. The bass could be overdriven though. The small speakers just didn't allow much cone movement for good bass. One will notice my posts on eqing the Khorn replica I have too. Sure, the khorn will blow it away but the idea of the 901 was unique! Bose maketed thei own power amp with 2 pairs of 901's. I bet it sounded pretty good in it's own right! Surround sound in the early 70's! Come to think of it, there was surround sound in the 70's! If one didn't hang them from the ceiling and used the pedestal one might as well have had a cabinet that went to the floor with a subwoofer or woofer built in to help the low end. Oh, and a good tweeter wouldn't hurt either! I finally stuck on a horn piezo tweeter to help the highs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

----------------

On 4/13/2005 9:02:53 PM homemade wrote:

The early style 901's that I built had very effecient midrange but one had to run 12db of boost in the bass and treble to make it sound balanced. I would imagine though that one could run them unequalized as a pa speaker and not sound too bad for voice with good efficiency....

----------------

bose does exactly that.... check out their 802 pro speaker...look familiar?

http://www.fullcompass.com/Products/pages/SKU--17154/

it does a nice job for a pa speaker.... nice small package... it DOES use a controller however

but like most bose speakers.... overpriced for what you get!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...