Bose 901 VI

[Erik Mandaville]

"Everybody knowledgeable knows that the only thing below Bose in the Great World of Audio is a KR tube."

Sorry, I don't agree with you there. I enjoy the KR as much as the RCA and other vintage 2A3s I have. The KRs tend to have a little more high-end extension, but I haven't heard anything remotely like the fashionable "transistor in a bottle" cliche'.

What you've done is simply more clearly illustrate my point.

Erik

[Deang]

"...just might not be the same for someone else; and based on that will immediately write-off or deem ignorant any view or taste in sound that does not happen to gel with their own."

Sure, if it doesn't sound like what I like it's pretty much crap.

[Erik Mandaville]

I understand the humor in that, Dean, but I guess what I was really referring to wasn't the sound but the subsequent personal attack. Here's another example: "So, you think that just because your G.I. Joe has the new 'Kung Fu Grip' it's better than the one I have with the fuzzy hair!?" and the response: "Yeah!" ...to which the guy with the fuzzy-hair-toy-soldier replies, "Well, you suck!"

Whether with audio or with toys, it's the same nonsense. edit: For some. Others are capable of enjoying the hobby without losing control, although I know that's why some seem to get bored here when insults aren't being flung at one another.

Max: I'm interested in what you find with this event on Sunday.

Erik

[Painful Reality]

Since you're mentionning it...

The Kung Fu Grip was for sissies.

[Erik Mandaville]

"The Kung Fu Grip was for sissies."

Really, than I guess that's good, because mine had the fuzzy hair.

[russ69]

I had to jump in. I owned a pair of 901's way back in the early 70's. I liked them when I had them. They were power hungry, I had a Phase Linear 400 and a lot of guys ran Super Bose (2 pair of 901's) with the Phase 700. I also heard the factory demo at an audio show in LA (dark side of the moon, at 120db!). Anyway, they provide an "interesting" presentation. They are strongest with classical music but also play rock fairly well. The biggest drawback is the wide sound stage, single voices are spread across the whole back wall. It's also true that they are weak at the frequency extremes. Having said all that, I still liked them. They are very forgiving of the source material, but to be honest, they are not hi-fi. That is not to say that you can't enjoy the music that comes from a well driven pair, but they have their limits. I'd buy another pair but they would be my 2nd or 3rd system, on the other hand if you just have 900 bucks and an arc welder of an amp hanging around........... rock on, dude and enjoy the ride!

Thanx, Russ

[DrWho]

it seems that it is inherently difficult for some to comprehend the idea that what they

prefer in terms of all of those factors just might not be the same for someone else; and based

on that will immediately write-off or deem ignorant any view or taste

in sound that does not happen to gel with their own.

It has absolutely nothing to do with taste and flavor and preferences! It has to do with accurate reproduction. Why this obsession with trying to justify mediocre performance?

[oldtimer]

"Oh wait, maybe attending Jerry Falwell's funeral wearing a Tinky Winky outfit might also cause an equivalent stir."

Not a big Tinky Winky fan here, always preferred LaLa, but that is hilarious! I wish I had thought of it, and maybe even been able to do it..lol.

It's even better when you think of all the Brits who dropped acid and watched teletubbies, it was quite the rage.

[Painful Reality]

It has absolutely nothing to do with taste and flavor and preferences! It has to do with accurate reproduction. Why this obsession with trying to justify mediocre performance?

Another gem from Sci-Fi Boy.

Considering we've yet to find a system that gives you this elusive "accurate reproduction" it has everything to do with flavor and preference (except when it comes to Bose and KR tubes of course).

Now go rent Battle Star Galactica Season XYZ, have a Dr Pepper and let the grown up play between themselve.

[maxg]

Erik,

Ask and ye shall receive. In the end we could not re-arrange the meeting so it went ahead on Friday as originally planned. Since then I needed some time to decide how to interpret what I heard and some time to listen to an audiophile system (based on Zingali's) that were the basis of last night's ACA meeting.

Anyway - what to make of the 901?

Damn hard question to answer really - too many really weird things that I would think do not apply to any other speaker.

I guess I am almost relieved to report that it is not the speaker for me (how shallow is that? Happy I am not upsetting my fellow audiophile's sensitivity - pathetic really). It is, however, most definitely the speaker for Tony and I imagine he will be buying a pair very shortly.

I too heard the series 6. We heard it with a tube amp and the 500 wpc yammy. The tube amp was quite high power too - 120 wpc I think.

First shock - when you change the amp there is a short period of adjusting the sliders on the equalizer and then there is seemingly no difference soncially between amps. What I mean is - we listened with the tubes and we listened with the Yamaha - and there was no way to tell which was being used other than by looking. The equalizer seems to mask what amp you are using totally. I guess this means - go for the least expensive decent 200 wpc + unit you can find and never think about it again. (You can certainly get away with less - but 200 is just about enough to really rock out should you need to).

Second shock - the sound:

Certain things play better than on any other speaker in the world. Now if that doesnt bring the house down nothing will but there you have it - just IMHO (and Tony's of course). We listened to Wish You Were here from the album of the same name. The guitar was SO REAL it was scarey - just like it physically materialized in front of you.

At the same time however - when the voice came in - it sucked - big time. We got it a bit better with the high level slider - but it was not as good as it is on my Promedia 2.0 speakers - not nearly as good.

Jazz - as far as I can tell, and largely verified by Tony - was uniformly fabulous - and it did feel like it would be the basis of sonics on the Holo deck of the starship Enterprise. Really reall good.

Classical - sadly - was not good. I had deliberately taken a Concerto with me (due the varying focus required of the system throughout the playback - from solo to full orchestra and most things in between). The one chosen was Brahms Violin Concerto number 1.

Certain elements - at certain moments - were utterly fantastic - massed violins for example - came across as good as I have ever heard - but milliseconds later the soaring solo violin went off like a damp squib. Notable that sudden switches of string from the lead instrument caused quite dramatic movement in the sound stage - so that at times the fret on the violin appeared to have about 5 feet between neighbouring strings.

The image height the system can generate is amazing - after a bit of playing with location we got a full wall of sound. The old speakers disappearing line applies more to 901's than anything else in my experience - but, this is entirely an artifact of the design. There are times when the overall soundstage appears to be much as you would expect it to be in reality - but then it will suddenly disappear in a cloud and you cannot tell quite where anything is only to reappear momentarily later - in a totally different arrangement - the 901 is the LSD of speakers. Well that's not fair but how to describe it is totally defeating me at the moment.

I suppose I could liken the experience to being at a live Jazz club where you are not really that interested in the music- so you are eating a large meal, drinking wine and not concentrating - whilst a live performance is going on. Its quite live - but not focussed I guess.

If I had 2 systems I would have this speaker in a shot - it is SO DIFFERENT from anything else it is worth it just for that. I would never have it as my only speaker - because of the music I listen to - but for Rock and Jazz I would seriously consider it - if I listened to them.

I am very glad Anwar went and built this - it is more than merely an attempt to do something different - it is something that is different in a very worthwhile way that really has contributed to the overall sound choices one can make in this world. It does seem that this latest incarnation represents a huge leap forwards from some of the earlier models (although I have never heard any of them Tony owned version 1's or 2's for years in Canada).

I should also point out on other thing that I think we overlook. Comparing this speaker to KHorn's is ridiculous. Cost wise, used and new, it appears similar to the Heresy 2 or 3. Size wise it is slightly smaller than the Heresy. That is does what is does from this tiny unit is remarkable.

conclusions:

1. It is the most wonderfully flawed design I have ever come across.

2. It has both the best and just about the worst sound I have ever come across in the space of a 5 second gap - or less.

3. It is the smallest huge speaker available today.

4. It is bloody cheap for the sonic experience it provides and with careful selection of music can compete with anything.

5. You cannot be non-commital over this thing - you love it or you hate it, however, whilst I love it - I just dont want it (subject to second system).

6. Cheaper than hallinogenic drugs supply with similar effect on soundstage for complex passages.

7. Set up a group of 5 of these in a home theatre - playback music in Prologic 2 and charge for admission. Would have to be about the wildest experience on the planet.

8. Has more bass that reported - but it is a bit odd. Phasing issues abound I think - it would take a coven of physics professors to work out what is really going on in a typcial listening room. Probably best not to even ask.

Summary,

Erik - if this is for a 2nd or 3rd system and you have the funds then get them - dont even think twice. If it is for the main system to replace the KHorns then go back to listen to them with a large number of recordings you like - as varied as possible and take your time evaluating the performance. One piece is no guide to how the next will play. Also - playback in the shop is no guide to how they will play at your house.

Of course the latter is true for any speaker - it is just more true for this one than any other (except possible the KHorn).

I guess this was too confused a review to be helpful in any way - sorry about that - I cannot quite get my head around this speaker yet.

[oldtimer]

" the 901 is the LSD of speakers. Well that's not fair but how to describe it is totally defeating me at the moment."

Like i was saying re:teletubbies. Acid and Bose belong in the same thread it's as simple as that.

[Painful Reality]

Max

Reading your review makes me realize the Bose 901 might be the perfect speaker for Pat Metheny "whining whales" style of pseudo jazz.

[oldbuckster]

" the 901 is the LSD of speakers. Well that's not fair but how to describe it is totally defeating me at the moment."

Like i was saying re:teletubbies. Acid and Bose belong in the same thread it's as simple as that.

I think they call that,"A bad trip"............bummer !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Def Leper]

Max, why can't we get reviewers like you writing for these audio magazines instead of the relentless stream of techno-babble and fantasy we usually get? Of course, you went to a lot of trouble to simply confirm what I've already said, although I certainly think the way you said it was a lot more fun to read. Your experience with the later model 901's is that same as mine with the earlier model. Why are the 901's the longest-lived loudspeaker line next to Klipsch Heritage? I own Klipsch Heritage, yet bought a pair or 901's and spent twice as much as my venerable Cornwalls cost after their rebuild? I've already said it-- like Klipsch, they are icons of mid-20th Century loudspeaker design. In other words, I bought the appearance, not the performance. My Cornwalls are just the opposite-- They are Stonehenge. Big, hulking ugly boxes that are exceeded in their ugliness only by rear-projection TV sets.

The 901's great downfall is that they are harmonic nightmares-- The multiple small speakers in a small box, heavy electronic equalization, and the direct-reflected sound path produces massive amounts of harmonic distortion and spectral reinforcement/cancellation that results in the schizophrenic sound reproduction you mention. 901's as primary speakers tell you all you want to know about the owners-- That they have absolutely no ability to listen critically to their collection of Perry Como and Ink Spots LP's. 901's are simply the upscale replacement for that cheesy RCA console stereo with the red velvet grill cloth and molded plastic colonial trim.

That said, will I get rid of my 901's out of a sense of the simple shame of putting them next to a pair of Cornwalls? Not until I go blind and can't see them anymore. By the way, my monolithic Cornwalls have a Philco Predicta TV on one of them and an Edison Home cylinder phonograph on the other one, a couple more icons of design from earlier generations.

[Erik Mandaville]

"It has to do with accurate reproduction." What's that, and when do you know you've got it? When it sounds good? Accurate reproduction of what, the original recording event? What was that like, and were we even there? You must know that EVERY SINGLE COMPONENT in the chain influences the signal in some way, so when is the decision made that we have in fact obtained an accurate as possible representation? Should we invite others over to decide for us? What if the recording engineer came over to listen and found that while the overall sound was very good, the result wasn't even close to what he/she heard in the recording studio. A few EQ adjustments are made here and there, and the engineer nods in approval. Much better -- to him. The engineer leaves, and you sit down, frowning, to listen to the now much more 'accurate' sound. To use a term some seem to have a better understanding of -- Pure Crap. (as opposed to what? the diluted version?)

Max: Thanks for the time to explain all of that. Your comment about the design being a 'wonderful flaw' is as interesting in its implications as what another contributor said about Bose achieving what he described as spectacular sound from common and/or inexpensive parts. I was particularly interested in what you would think of classical and jazz reproduction, and while another former owner above (thanks, by the way..) believed the 901s to be well-suited to that kind of music, you were less impressed.

I think you responded very much the way I did, but I just didn't have the time to listen critically with music I'm familiar with. Too, what I heard in the store is probably really different from what we would find at home, which is obviously an important consideration. People have also said that they were hugely over-priced, but being somewhat familiar with build quality and speaker design in a general sense, I did not think they were so far out there in that respect. New, they are priced in line with Heresies, which seems about right from what I saw and heard.

There was really never intention to replace our main Klipschorn/Heresy system, but it's something I might consider sometime for our downstairs setup. It's mainly used for background music, although the Heresies we have now also sound great for more serious or critical listening. It's my thought that 901s might be good for filling a larger space with 'good' (if that happens to be accurate too, fine..) sound, meaning one can be out and away from an otherwise pretty narrow 'sweet spot' and still have a stronger 'impression' of the recording than one might get with a more narrowly defined and comparatively directional horn.

I do very much appreciate the time you took to share this, Max!

Erik

[Erik Mandaville]

Speakerfritz:

"to be fair...and I think I can be since I own the 901's, Khorns, LaScala's, 3 pairs of Heresy's, and had some cornwalls...I, like most other Heritage product owners have re-capped, replaced standard xovers with univesals, replaced universals with extreme slope, changed my mid drivers, changed my tweeters, changed my woofers, etc.....however, I have never had to do anything to my 901's....If I have been busy...99% of that busy time has been with the Heritage products."

I didn't disregard this or your other very positive comments about the 901s. Thanks for contributing!

Erik

[Erik Mandaville]

"The multiple small speakers in a small box, heavy electronic equalization, and the direct-reflected sound path produces massive amounts of harmonic distortion and spectral reinforcement/cancellation that results in the schizophrenic sound reproduction you mention. "

What happens to the air vibrations produced by the many different instruments of an orchestra?

Erik

[oldtimer]

Erik, when you speak of accuracy in regards to others comments about accuracy, you have hit the nail on the head to a certain extent. As a percussionist, I have a better ear for what the snare sounds like, or cymbals, or tambourine, etc. I also know what violins and other instruments sound like but only from my perspective as a player for the most part. Yeah, we have all been in different places in the auditorium as a listener but most of the experience for me comes from where I was most of the time in my musical journey...which was in the percussion section. Others have been somewhere else most of the time in their own journeys. So accuracy does depend on where you sit most of the time. That's what makes music more subjective than scientific. To give an example, when playing my drum set, what I hear from the throne is a ringing, reverberating tom-tom sound as I hit the drum, but out in the audience, it comes across as a "thunk". This is by design on my part, but still demonstrates that what I hear versus what the audience hears is different due to the acoustics of listener placement. In the studio, you have to reproduce the thunk much more immediately, and from the players point of hearing, you hear it as a thunk. Why? Because people have heard it in the audience as a thunk and would not appreciate the other sound as much, due to pre-conceived notions. Those who record actually hear things differently from those who play.

[DizRotus]

As Erik points out, some have praised 901s as being good for classical and jazz while others have said the opposite. Naturally, differing opinions can both be correct because they are just those . . . opinions.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

My own experience with 901 IIs in the mid-70s is consistent with both opinions. The large sound stage suits some recordings better than others.

Part of the dilemma results from the definitions of classical and jazz. A live recording of Beethovens Ninth is classical music that, IMO, would be spectacular (theres that word again Erik) and enjoyable on properly set up 901s. On the other hand, also IMO, a Yo-Yo Ma solo cello performancealso classicalwould not be as well suited to 901s. Similarly, a Duke Ellington big band recording and a recording of an Ella Fitzgerald solo performance fit most peoples definitions of jazz, but would present vastly different challenges to any speakers, including 901s.

Its interesting to note that many of the subjective strengths and weaknesses attributed to 901s have also been leveled at Klipsch Heritage. Most high end audio retailers would put both 901s and Klipsch in the same category as not being worthy of their audiophool clients time or money.

Perhaps one reason is that whatever success Klipsch and Bose 901s achieve is attained for a much lower expenditure than that necessary to achieve comparable results from new high end, high price and high margin gear. It would be a naïve and foolish retailer who told his/her customers not to spend thousands of dollars for [insert high end brands du jour here], but to buy a used pair of Klipsch Heritage or Bose 901s.

As has been pointed out in a prior post, the Klipschorn and Bose 901 have been around longer than most other speakers. Somebody must like them, despite their respective compromises and their many critics.

[Erik Mandaville]

Oldtimer: "So accuracy does depend on where you sit most of the time. That's what makes music more subjective than scientific." That describes my own experience very well. I've spent some time behind drums, too, and know what you are talking about.

Great information from first-hand experience. I also totally agree about music being more subjective than scientific, which isn't to say that an understanding of acoustics and measurement methodology isn't important, because both absolutely are. Ultimately, or I should say, ultimately for me, it's not graphs, response plots, specs, and other related information that matters, but rather the sensation or feeling of involvement in both the music itself and the quality of how it's reproduced in our house with what we own to carry out the reproduction.

In light of that, the term 'accuracy' for me becomes virtually meaningless. It's my own response to what I'm listening to that MUST be the only measuring stick for what constitutes good or not good sound. If I don't like what I'm hearing, whether it's accurate or not, which as I said for me is both difficult to determine and not my objective, is irrelevant.

What caught my attention about the 901s was totally unscientific. It was entirely subjective, unexpected, and completely unconnected to any knowledge I have about loudspeaker design or fashionable Bose bashing = trite.

Neil: What you say about Yo Yo Ma and solo cello music is not unlike what Max indicated about strings. That's an important thing to consider, too, because I have many of his recordings. Right now, the Heresies and Klipschorns do a wonderful job with strings, particularly with these low power amplifiers I use. What a strange contrast it would really be to suddenly be sitting in front of 901s with a giant transistor amp in front of them. If that's what's needed to get the sound I heard, amplifier topology or output device used will be tossed into that box of other scientific data. It doesn't matter to me.

Erik