Bose 901 VI

[Erik Mandaville]

Thanks for some good reading, and helping by sharing some of your own experiences. It seems there are others who respond to the 901s the same way I did the other day. Regarding the room placement issue, there's another speaker that pops up pretty often here with equally specific requirements: Klipschorn.

I can't say the Bose sound better than our K-horns, but that's not really what this was about. Out of curiosity I asked the sales rep if I could listen to them, and she was helpful with what she knew. I wish I could say what equipment was in front of them, but I just sort of forgot to ask, or didn't care (or something). I was busy listening.

As I said, I have never been very interested in the sort of politics or 'taking-sides' of audio, because it's just too subjective. I've also heard some smaller Bose systems that sounded just fine for many kinds of listening, but the 901s were different.

I admit I'm curious to try them at home, but it's something that would require changes elsewhere. Our Klipschorns and two pair of Heresies have supplied great listening, and so this isn't an urgent thing in the least. I was impressed, and the sound I heard has made what seems to be a longer-than-anticpated lasting impression. I will say I didn't find the top-end rolled off in the least, and for me that's an important element. Once I replaced the stock K-77M with Bob's new tweeters, the original Klipsch tweeter has become dreadfully dull-sounding. I didn't respond to it that way until I installed Bob's about this time last year. The 901s had considerable sparkle, punch, and surprisingly good bass reaponse, and all of that sort of caught me by surprise.

So. 'Bose blose' ; 'Bose isn't 'real' high-end' ; 'Bose is a ripoff'

The 901s still sounded remarkable to me, and I see that I'm not alone in that respect.

Erik

[Erik Mandaville]

Dave:

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

Good grief. Count the number of audio components that don't require some kind of innovative electronics to make things sound right. Recording equipment requires innovative electronics, as do play back components. Practically everything I read about in monthly audio publications has some aspect that has to do with innovative electronics. The same could be said for hugely efficient, very powerful digital amplifiers that seem to weigh less than a bag of dried figs (don't ask me where that comparison came from; I have no idea!).

What matters to me, Dave, honestly, is not what innovation, active or passive, is needed to make things work, but what the end result is. I don't care about amp or preamp topology or output device (although tube equipment can be really fun to work on!), and I use our Teacs as often as I use our SET amps or latest addition: a marvelous Dyna 70, stock. One SS amp I didn't care for much with the Klipschorns, is one some others have in fact liked -- from Monarchy. Noise floor was very high, and it seemed to lack depth and volume to me. More like a cardboard cutout of a musical presentation compared to what we were hearing at the time from the Moondogs. Subjective, and nothing more than my opinion. Kind of like comparing a very expensive cut of filet mig..... Nah, I won't go there!

Erik

[mas]

mas

"Yup, 3 inch drivers produce prodigious amounts of very accurate bass."

The 901 system has nine 4.5 inch drivers.

Yup, 4.5" inch drivers produce prodigious amounts of very accurate bass.

It really doesn't matter, as the lower octaves are synthesized.

[Erik Mandaville]

"It really doesn't matter, as the lower octaves are synthesized."

It really doesn't matter that the lower octaves are synthesized. It sounded good to me.

Simple enough?

Erik

[Erik Mandaville]

Dee:

I think some of the smaller Bose systems have sounded good, too.

Erik

[Roc Rinaldi]

Dee:

I think some of the smaller Bose systems have sounded good, too.

Erik

Yikes Erik, when will it stop?

[tigerwoodKhorns]

Dee:

I think some of the smaller Bose systems have sounded good, too.

Erik

A single full range driver can sound great. That is why so many people went crazy over the Tektons with single Foztex drivers that Mark recommended. (Mine should be here today).

I always liked the 901's when I heard them but have never had a chance to sit down and listen critically. It was always in a store. I grew up listening to 601's and when I bought JBL L60's, I realized what imaging was and how bad the Bose "Direct Reflecting" theory was (at least in the 601's).

In any event, the 901's always had a nice mellow sound and sounded worlds above the others on display when switched to them. Erik, have you listened to them critically? I am really curious about the imaging and detail. I always figured (but do not have personal experience) that they were good for filling a room with nice warm sound (like a game room where you do not sit down to listen but rather walk around and many people are listening).

[Deang]

I heard a 701 set up once that I thought sounded pretty good, but it sure wasn't anything that made me want to give up my DQ-10's. Heck, I'd take old Advents or AR's over any of their other stuff. As for 901's, they're a fun experience, but after you get used to the enhanced spatial effect you begin to notice the lack of detail and how inaccurate they really are -- which eventually serves as a constant distraction in listening.

[Deang]

http://www.stereophile.com/historical/425/index.html

[Cut-Throat]

As for 901's, they're a fun experience, but after you get used to the enhanced spatial effect you begin to notice the lack of detail and how inaccurate they really are -- which eventually serves as a constant distraction in listening.

This is my exact impression of them. - You can Wow people with volume with them also.

[Mallette]

Dave:

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

Good grief. Count the number of audio components that don't require some kind of innovative electronics to make things sound right. Recording equipment requires innovative electronics, as do play back components. Practically everything I read about in monthly audio publications has some aspect that has to do with innovative electronics. The same could be said for hugely efficient, very powerful digital amplifiers that seem to weigh less than a bag of dried figs (don't ask me where that comparison came from; I have no idea!).

What matters to me, Dave, honestly, is not what innovation, active or passive, is needed to make things work, but what the end result is. I don't care about amp or preamp topology or output device (although tube equipment can be really fun to work on!), and I use our Teacs as often as I use our SET amps or latest addition: a marvelous Dyna 70, stock. One SS amp I didn't care for much with the Klipschorns, is one some others have in fact liked -- from Monarchy. Noise floor was very high, and it seemed to lack depth and volume to me. More like a cardboard cutout of a musical presentation compared to what we were hearing at the time from the Moondogs. Subjective, and nothing more than my opinion. Kind of like comparing a very expensive cut of filet mig..... Nah, I won't go there!

Erik

Erik:

You actually should have MY signature as you are a walking advertisement for it. You are probably the least biased person on the Forum. It was mainly due to your experiences that I purchased a Class D amp, which is now my main amp 90% of the time.

It just seems Dr. Bose said "I am going to invent a patentable speaker. Hmm...fold a horn and put it in a corner...dang, been done. Let's see, seal up a box air tight and match a driver and...rats, that too. OK, modified Helmholtz resonator, yes, good, and s**t... OK, bet nobodies forced 4.5" drivers into unnatural acts with huge amps and and active EQ." And he did it, and it works, at least for some. I've heard some truly musical synthetic organs, but gimme a tracker any day. Same for my Klipschorns, and Fraziers, too.

Dave

[Roc Rinaldi]

As a public service I would like to announce that the "BOSE" insignias are removable from their speaker cabinets.

[garyrc]

It seems to me that the choice (and the tradeoff) is often between:

A speaker that makes a greater number of recordings sound good ("musical"), albeit with a little veiling, even if they are not recorded too well. This category would include the Bose 901 series (with big amps and well-suited rooms), and many speakers of the "sweet and gentle school" that audiophile magazines tend to like. As I said in a former email, the Bose 901s in Alphonso's Mercantile, with their 1,000 wt amps, don't seem to veil, but all others I've heard seem to.

Or

A speaker that makes a lesser number of recordings sound great, exhilarating, overwhelming, but will ruthlessly expose problems in recording (Small amounts of mic preamp overload? The subtle onset of microphone diaphragm crashing? Failing to achieve **** Magic in microphone placement?). Speakers in this category would include Klipschorns (in well-suited rooms), some other Klipsch speakers, some of the best JBLs, etc.

When I have had other speakers in the same room, I have sometimes heard an anomaly through the Klipschorns, but not through the other speakers -- until I played the passage over (sometimes over and over) through the other speakers, turned their volume up, messed with EQ, then I would hear the anomaly in the recording -- just not as noticeable as with the Khorns. The classic was a very subtle rattling of a necklace worn by a singer in a video. I was listening with the picture off. When I finally got the other speakers to reproduce the rattle, I turned on the video, and saw that it correlated precisely with the necklace moving around.

[Guest " "]

"As a public service I would like to announce that the "BOSE" insignias are removable from their speaker cabinets. "

Hey, no cheating....putting a Bose emblem on your Heritage products won't qualify as owning a set of Bose speakers.

[Erik Mandaville]

"Erik, have you listened to them critically? I am really curious about the imaging and detail. I always figured (but do not have personal experience) that they were good for filling a room with nice warm sound"

This whole thing was an uexpected but enjoyable way to spend some time waiting for awards night to happen at school. After an insanely priced latte' at Sparducks, I was walking around a mall and happened to find a Bose outlet store. So I walked around inside, and found the 901s tucked neatly into a back area with a wall at the rear and foreshortened corners flanking either side. I asked if I could listen, and listened to about 15 minutes-worth of mostly 'pop-techno' oriented stuff. Unfortunately no classical or jazz on hand.

So I would say that I listened to them as critically as I could in that amount of time, which I admit isn't very much. What struck me was a very strong sense of presence and immediacy, and I would say the last word I would use to describe them was rounded-off, polite, or warm. They actually had pretty startling dynamic presence, which I'm sure had something to do with how the EQ was adjusted.

And some of you have brought up your new single driver designs (Tektonic, I think?). Remember, I've been listening to single-driver, crossover-less rear-loaded horns much longer than I've been listening to Klipsch Heritage. I'm very familiar with them. In my mind's ear (as opposed to eye), I was mentally trying to compare the 901s to both the Lowthers, Heresies, and Klipschorns, which in that amount of time and under those circumstances was not a very scientific way of doing it. However, on the other hand, I've heard speakers in stores that struck me unfavorably just as quickly. The 901s, adjusted as they were, powered by the equipment they had on hand (which like a numbskull I didn't ask about), grabbed and held my attention.

Moreover, many of you know when I first started experimenting with the center channel/minibox, and how from there we went to full surround sound after Shawn loaned me one of his Lexicons. So, let me again clarify where I stand with this: Music sounds more natural and real to me when I have speakers dedicated to both center channel information and ambient/reflecting effects. Our downstairs Heresie/Dynaco system provides great listening, but the larger, multi-channel system upstairs sounds much more like LIVE music to me, which IMO has a greater spatial emphasis than image delineation. In other words, I, out of a personal preference, have developed a taste for music that seems to arrive at the listening positions from more than just two speakers placed in front and to either side of me. And yes, the 901s loaded that listening space very well, and notes were distinct and percussion clean and sharp -- realistic (for me).

By the way, our Lowthers horns are now being powered by a direct-coupled Moth 2A3 amp. There are no interstage coupling capacitors and no related crossover insertions losses. Very direct, and very clear. I listen to LOTS of classical guitar and Baroque, and this setup provides and incredibly believable illusion of the real thing, but recordings have to be extremely good. It's a combination that reveals weaknesses in both downstream equipment AND the quality of recordings.

The 901 was very much a gut-level rather than intellectual experience, and I sometimes wonder that the former of those two, when experiencing art of any kind, might just be the one I should listen to more carefully.

Erik

[Erik Mandaville]

Win:

"It all depends on your taste, your own hearing curve and the music you are listening to. Though I am a die hard Heritage fan, we all ARE entitled to our own opinion... no rain, just my own opinion"

Good post; I agree, and am also a Heritage fan.

Erik

[maxg]

"Erik, have you listened to them critically? I am really curious about the imaging and detail. I always figured (but do not have personal experience) that they were good for filling a room with nice warm sound"

This whole thing was an uexpected but enjoyable way to spend some time waiting for awards night to happen at school. After an insanely priced latte' at Sparducks, I was walking around a mall and happened to find a Bose outlet store. So I walked around inside, and found the 901s tucked neatly into a back area with a wall at the rear and foreshortened corners flanking either side. I asked if I could listen, and listened to about 15 minutes-worth of mostly 'pop-techno' oriented stuff. Unfortunately no classical or jazz on hand.

So I would say that I listened to them as critically as I could in that amount of time, which I admit isn't very much. What struck me was a very strong sense of presence and immediacy, and I would say the last word I would use to describe them was rounded-off, polite, or warm. They actually had pretty startling dynamic presence, which I'm sure had something to do with how the EQ was adjusted.

And some of you have brought up your new single driver designs (Tektonic, I think?). Remember, I've been listening to single-driver, crossover-less rear-loaded horns much longer than I've been listening to Klipsch Heritage. I'm very familiar with them. In my mind's ear (as opposed to eye), I was mentally trying to compare the 901s to both the Lowthers, Heresies, and Klipschorns, which in that amount of time and under those circumstances was not a very scientific way of doing it. However, on the other hand, I've heard speakers in stores that struck me unfavorably just as quickly. The 901s, adjusted as they were, powered by the equipment they had on hand (which like a numbskull I didn't ask about), grabbed and held my attention.

Moreover, many of you know when I first started experimenting with the center channel/minibox, and how from there we went to full surround sound after Shawn loaned me one of his Lexicons. So, let me again clarify where I stand with this: Music sounds more natural and real to me when I have speakers dedicated to both center channel information and ambient/reflecting effects. Our downstairs Heresie/Dynaco system provides great listening, but the larger, multi-channel system upstairs sounds much more like LIVE music to me, which IMO has a greater spatial emphasis than image delineation. In other words, I, out of a personal preference, have developed a taste for music that seems to arrive at the listening positions from more than just two speakers placed in front and to either side of me. And yes, the 901s loaded that listening space very well, and notes were distinct and percussion clean and sharp -- realistic (for me).

By the way, our Lowthers horns are now being powered by a direct-coupled Moth 2A3 amp. There are no interstage coupling capacitors and no related crossover insertions losses. Very direct, and very clear. I listen to LOTS of classical guitar and Baroque, and this setup provides and incredibly believable illusion of the real thing, but recordings have to be extremely good. It's a combination that reveals weaknesses in both downstream equipment AND the quality of recordings.

The 901 was very much a gut-level rather than intellectual experience, and I sometimes wonder that the former of those two, when experiencing art of any kind, might just be the one I should listen to more carefully.

Erik

Very good post Erik,

To paraphrase it a little - the 901's produce a different kind of sound from other speakers (including Heritage and single driver units). They also require different things of the room and the amplification. In an ideal world for those of us that like this audiophile stuff there would be room in our homes (and our budgets) for multiple systems. Obviously you are lucky enough to already have several systems to choose from and from what I understand from your posts each of these systems has that certain something over the others for different types or music or possibly even different types of listening.

Were I in your position - with multiple systems to hand - I might well consider having one of those systems based upon the 901. As it is - with the limits I have - I can only really have one "good" system in the house. Accepting that I do not think I could go for a 901. My limited experience of it is that it does do some things extra-ordinarily well and some things not so brilliantly. True of all systems of course - so it is merely a matter of adding up the compromises you are prepared to live with and choosing on that basis.

From what you have written you value the immersion in the sonic field (paraphrased) higher than the specificity of the image. That is probably the reverse of my own case - although I do not feel my soundstaging and imaging are weak points of my system.

I guess all of this adds up to - this is why there are so many listening choices (both in terms of music and system) that people make. It also effectively buries the myth that we can get to "reality" - we can merely get to what appears to our ears and brain to be a semblence of reality - which is entirely subjective to the listener.

Aside from that there would be something quite entertaining about the idea that you specifically (with all those low, low powered amps) could end up with a pair (or more) of 901's and a thousand watts to drive them.

As someone else commented earlier in this thread - you are definitely THE most open minded individual on this forum when it comes to sound.

[Duke Spinner]

My...God, Man

we are talkin' Speakers that are Hugely ... EQ'd

this .... from people that frown on ...... Tone Controls ....[*-)]

[mike stehr]

Try listening to them without the EQ box......

[Duke Spinner]

Try listening to them without the EQ box......

[+o(]

doesn't Anyone ...

have something to say .. about the

+ 50dB eq on the bass ....?????????????

thass why they need 1kw