Bose 901 VI

[Erik Mandaville]

The Bose-bashing-bunch will doubtless not hesitate to also pounce on this....but that's okay, some love to rain on parades and picnics[li]

I listened to a pair of 901s at a Bose outlet store nearby, and have to say I was actually pretty impressed. The active EQ was maybe a little too hot on top for my taste, but I was surprised by the tight and very quick response of this speaker -- the same quality I enjoy so much in our Heresies and Klipschorns. At volumes much louder than I normally listen, the 901s remained clear and free of any congestion or other sonic yuk. I think the aspect that was particularly appealing to me though, and one related to why I probably have come to prefer good surround sound to stereo-only listening (although we still listen to two channel very frequently), is the sense of space and envelopment; which to me and my experience is more what live music sounds like. In other words, there is something of a compromise in terms of choosing a sort of spatial emphasis over image specificity. The way the speaker loaded the room was very horn-like in respects, but with less need to be in a specific sweet spot for satisfactory sound (if one happens to be listening critically rather than just for background music).

I've no intention of selling the Klipschorns, but I went into this with no pre-existing notions about the 'Bose sound' or anything else. I've listened to some very expensive speakers in the past, and am a proud owner of Klipsch Heritage speakers, but I will say that in the right room, with the right amplification and other system requisites, the 901s are good enough for me to use as long-term speakers. They don't use passive crossover networks, which I like less and less, and they have been accused of being 'cheaply made' because of the employment of small, paper-cone drivers; but I have some other paper-based drivers, Lowther PM2As, that are very, very fast because of that (and for some other reasons). The Lowthers even use whizzer cones (ulp!).

Bose doesn't list specs the way many companies do, but specs in my experience are often only a part of the story; and in many cases, a very small part of the story. The 901s are likely fairly efficient, but seem to me, as very limited as my time was hearing them, to be the kind of loudspeaker that would benefit from some wattage, even though they would probably do pretty well with something like a.....umh..... stock Dyna ST-70, perhaps.

No Bose bashing from me tonight, and time for school work!

Erik

[dp1954]

Naughty!! Naughty!!

Actually my past includes some bose 501's and 301's. Ok in the progression, but there is a reason I don't have them anymore...

dave

[Piranha]

I had a pair of, I want to say series II in the late 70's when I was in the Air Force (Torrejon AB, Spain) and liked them. What can I say, I was 18 years old. [] I sold the 901's and bought Cornwalls a year and a half later after hearing them in someone's dorm room. I also owned a pair of series VI a few years ago and sold them to my neighbor along with a Carver TFM-35x and C-5 preamp. That lucky SOB, my neighbor, also bought my long lost Scott 299D. In a nutshell, 901's are very power hungry, and the 250W Carver barely supplied enough. In summary I am somewhat disppointed that I got rid of the series VI. They can actually sound decent given certain situations. Besides, I only paid $400 for them.

Flame away boys [:^)]

[Audible Nectar]

The 901s can be a very good sounding set of speakers in the right room and with proper (read LOTS of) power. That's one speaker that I will give Bose credit for....in the right rooms, they DO work well. Which is to say, "A stopped clock is right twice a day".

[Cut-Throat]

I have a pair of 901's in my back room. I keep them there in case anyone comes over and tells me that they are 'awesome'. I let them listen to my Khorn/Altec combination and then let them listen to the 901s - They are free to decide.

[Erik Mandaville]

"They are free to decide."

And that's as it should be. Too often people are 'told' what they should or shouldn't like. In any event, I also have Klipschorns, and still found room to appreciate what I heard with the 901s. I'm sure room characteristics are a critical part of this equation; maybe more so than loudspeakers that radiate sound from the front, only. In our house, the 901s might be terrible. The most powerful amp I have is also just 35 watts/side. For Heresies or Klipschorns that's been more than enough, but might not be for the Bose.

As I said, I'll never sell the Klipschorns or our very vintage and incredible Heresies. I was just surprised at the clarity, strong impact, and bass response of the 901s.

Erik

[Duke Spinner]

The 901s are likely fairly efficient,

Eficcient ..???

Bwaaaaaaahahhhahah .....

why did Blos ... make 1000 watt amps ..??

[Guest " "]

Erik Mandaville

Not worried about the bose bashers since I have some Khorns, LaScala's, three sets of Hersey's, etc.

I have a set of bose 901's VI, and I have to agree, they sound awesome.

I ran them with my Mcintosh MC-2000, MC-2102, as well as my Onkyo TX-NR1000. All put out over 100 watts per channel.

I find the 901's to sound amazingly detailed and they produce volume levels and dynamic range effortlessly.

There are always some on ebay for sale, so you can pick up a set at least half the normal price.

[Spongeworthy]

My problem with Bose is not necessarily their speakers although I'm not a big fan. The 901 can sound good with certain types of music in a near perfect room. A fairly dynamic speaker with a handy EQ to make up for the poor design. I always wondered why people didn't copy this design after the patent ran out if it was such a great speaker.

My problem is more with their business practices - no specs on their products and shady business practices. They might as well be selling their products out of a white van.

[Erik Mandaville]

"Not worried about the bose bashers since I have some Khorns, LaScala's, three sets of Hersey's, etc.

I have a set of bose 901's VI, and I have to agree, they sound awesome.

I ran them with my Mcintosh MC-2000, MC-2102, as well as my Onkyo TX-NR1000. All put out over 100 watts per channel.

I find the 901's to sound amazingly detailed and they produce volume levels and dynamic range effortlessly.

There are always some on ebay for sale, so you can pick up a set at least half the normal price."

Agreed, that effortless quality was something I also noticed.

Erik

[Erik Mandaville]

"A fairly dynamic speaker with a handy EQ to make up for the poor design. I always wondered why people didn't copy this design after the patent ran out if it was such a great speaker"

Whether a design is poor or incredible is subjective, and I don't know that the active EQ was used as a bandaid to compensate for an otherwise bad product. The two were designed to work together.

I understand what you're saying about the lack of specs, which would be helpful in a general sense. I agree with that, although I know enough about this to realize that specs alone CAN be grossly misleading in terms of the qualitative aspects of listening to music. I liked what I heard, and the name of the company, it's business practices, the lack of common specs, etc., or anything else wouldn't change that. I was responding to only the sound.

Erik

[DizRotus]

In the 70s, I powered a pair of 901 IIs with a Dynaco ST-400 (200WPC) and they sounded good hanging from the low ceiling of a large room. The series IIs were one of the last of the non-ported versions and they were very power hungry. The later plastic enclosure ported versions are more efficient.

I sold the 901s to buy 2 pair of Speakerlab SKhorns used in a mobile DJ business. The 901s would have been easier to move around and would have produced plenty of decibels but they would not have had the visual impact of the four black SKhorns and they would not have started me down the horn loaded path.

A friend of mine has a pair of the plastic ported 901s stuffed into the bookcase entertainment center in which his TV is located. The fronts with the single driver are facing into the room amd the backs with eight drivers are inches away from the rear wall of the bookcase, with less than two inches of clearance on either side, Needless to say they sound dreadful. Twice I've turned them around so that at least the side with eight drivers is facing into the room, but each time someone turned them back around. This is a speaker that requires proper placement to work well.

[Spongeworthy]

"A fairly dynamic speaker with a handy EQ to make up for the poor design. I always wondered why people didn't copy this design after the patent ran out if it was such a great speaker"

Whether a design is poor or incredible is subjective, and I don't know that the active EQ was used as a bandaid to compensate for an otherwise bad product. The two were designed to work together.

I understand what you're saying about the lack of specs, which would be helpful in a general sense. I agree with that, although I know enough about this to realize that specs alone CAN be grossly misleading in terms of the qualitative aspects of listening to music. I liked what I heard, and the name of the company, it's business practices, the lack of common specs, etc., or anything else wouldn't change that. I was responding to only the sound.

Erik

Actually, In some ways I agree with you regarding the specs in general and having heard 901s sound good before. My opinion is of the earlier versions that sounded good with rock music but lacked much of the detail I have come to appreciate. I have not heard the latest version. I am not technical but I can't understand why they would use an EQ except to compensate for some type of limitation in the speaker. I very well may be missing something.

However, I can certainly appreciate that you are responding to what your ears are telling you. I would like to hear your opinion outside of the listening room and see if you would have the same opinion. I am not bashing the 901 but more the way Bose does business - misleading people that generally don't know any better, but I suppose it is irrelevant to your original post.

Enjoy.

[Erik Mandaville]

" I am not bashing the 901 but more the way Bose does business - misleading people that generally don't know any better."

I don't have too much time right now, but briefly: I suppose I think there are occasions where those you described as "people that generally don't know any better" use listed specifications as a determining factor, where what really matters is how well the component, whatever it is, integrates with the rest of the system (which includes the room and the listener). In other words, it's those technical specifications that can sometimes possible be even more misleading than the lack of them. For example, distortion figures for low-powered single ended amplifiers are generally nothing to boast about, but many still use and very much enjoy them.

Bose does indicate such things as best placement, power requirements, and some other general recommendations for best sound, and that's what most people who don't know any better need in order to enjoy some music without getting bogged down in technical specs that for many are not very meaningful.

What you are saying is not irrelevant, and it's important to look at all aspects of this. Moreover, I didn't get the impression you were bashing the 901s, and whatever you did say, compared to some *discussions* that have taken place here over the years, all of this was very light-hearted. The bashing of anything related to this is sort of an elementary way of approaching audio, IMO, and often is a reflection of some other factors.

Erik

[maxg]

For over a decade the best sound system in any bar in Athens was using Bose 901's hanging from the ceiling. In there they were brilliant - they may even still be there (I dont get out much these days). I seem to recall they were being driven by massive pro-amps of something like 1000 wpc. There never seemed to be a limit on how much power you could put into those speakers.

As it happens I dont really know anyone that runs them in their main system anymore. I know a lot of people that used to - I dont know if that says anything or not, but from what I understand imaging was not their strong suit.

Sonically I think it is generally accepted that this was Anwar's best ever product. I might try to find a pair to listen to - just to revive old memories.

[Frzninvt]

I have to agree with some of the others, many years ago while stationed at Holloman AFB, NM I heard 4 of them all hanging at equal heights and spaced from the wall in four corners of a rectangular room. They were running off a Bose receiver with the built in EQ, I can still vividly remember the video on MTV (remember those) it wsa Huey Lewis "Bad is Bad" and let me tell you it DID sound incredible, the spaciousness of the sound and the incredible soundstage blew me away. I heard them a few times after and a couple of times at the Ramstein AB, GE BX with the big Carver amps like the 1.5t and they did not sound as good. I do wonder what 5 of them would sound like in an HT environment though, how would you EQ the center one though.

I did own 301 II's for awhile as well and liked them, but for what you pay and the quality of components used it is a big rip off. They had wire the thickness of a single strand of telephone wire, it was not even copper. They had no crossover network just a cap and resistor and the tweeters were hooked in series so if you blew one they both stopped working. All this for $400/pr. Amar Bose is no idiot, better sound through agressive marketing!

[Mallette]

I think it has all been said:

1. By far the best product from Bose.

2. Incredibly inefficient (as to be expected to get bass/volume from 9 small drivers).

3. Short on detail (as to be expected to get bass/volume from 9 small drivers).

4. Innovative electronics to make the above happen (sort of like all the props required to make the Harrier fly).

5. Sounds great with perfect placement in the perfect room (no problem there, just build around them).

No bash, just the facts.

Dave

[Guest " "]

And then there's the 802's which sound awesome with that 12 foot sub-woofer tube.

[George Roland]

I have had quite a number of speakers as I suspect many on this forum have had: Sears and Roebuck "stereo",  EPI 100s, B&O S-60s, Bose 901 IV, Cornwalls, KEF 104aBs, PSB Stratus Golds, Magnepan MG 1.6QR, my present K-horns, etc.

I think the 901s can be very pleasant and seductive sounding with certain kinds of music because of their rediation pattern. By spreading sound out, bouncing it off the rear wall, they create a very open, spacious, unboxy sound. With musical ensembles, bands, orchestras, this can be enjoyable. I truly came to grief with them, however, playing music by soloists, especially a single singer. I will never forget the first time I listened to a Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau LP of Schubert Lieder over them. Fischer-Dieskau's voice sounded as huge as the rear wall of my listening room--vast, bloated, impossible. I simply couldn't stand this kind of reproduction. Of course, for someone who never listens to this kind of music, this will seem a silly reaction, but after I heard that, I moved along in my search for what was, to me, a more realistic reproducer.

I was happy to be rid of them, but I am certain someone was just as happy to get my mint pair, used, at a good price. To each his or her own!

George

[Roc Rinaldi]

The Bose-bashing-bunch will doubtless not hesitate to also pounce on this....but that's okay, some love to rain on parades and picnics[li]

I listened to a pair of 901s at a Bose outlet store nearby, and have to say I was actually pretty impressed. The active EQ was maybe a little too hot on top for my taste, but I was surprised by the tight and very quick response of this speaker -- the same quality I enjoy so much in our Heresies and Klipschorns. At volumes much louder than I normally listen, the 901s remained clear and free of any congestion or other sonic yuk. I think the aspect that was particularly appealing to me though, and one related to why I probably have come to prefer good surround sound to stereo-only listening (although we still listen to two channel very frequently), is the sense of space and envelopment; which to me and my experience is more what live music sounds like. In other words, there is something of a compromise in terms of choosing a sort of spatial emphasis over image specificity. The way the speaker loaded the room was very horn-like in respects, but with less need to be in a specific sweet spot for satisfactory sound (if one happens to be listening critically rather than just for background music).

I've no intention of selling the Klipschorns, but I went into this with no pre-existing notions about the 'Bose sound' or anything else. I've listened to some very expensive speakers in the past, and am a proud owner of Klipsch Heritage speakers, but I will say that in the right room, with the right amplification and other system requisites, the 901s are good enough for me to use as long-term speakers. They don't use passive crossover networks, which I like less and less, and they have been accused of being 'cheaply made' because of the employment of small, paper-cone drivers; but I have some other paper-based drivers, Lowther PM2As, that are very, very fast because of that (and for some other reasons). The Lowthers even use whizzer cones (ulp!).

Bose doesn't list specs the way many companies do, but specs in my experience are often only a part of the story; and in many cases, a very small part of the story. The 901s are likely fairly efficient, but seem to me, as very limited as my time was hearing them, to be the kind of loudspeaker that would benefit from some wattage, even though they would probably do pretty well with something like a.....umh..... stock Dyna ST-70, perhaps.

No Bose bashing from me tonight, and time for school work!

Erik

Be careful, Erik, of what you ask for.