maxg Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 " Maxg, Isn't an amphitheater, Greek or otherwise, a horn of sorts? If so, acoustical horns are ancient. " Yes - just not a folded one!!! If you ever do get to an ancient Greek threatre with your significant other it is quite fun for one of you to go down to the stage and the other to go to the highest row. When the one on the stage speaks - in a normal voice - the other hears it. Quite amazing it is too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Mandaville Posted May 14, 2007 Author Share Posted May 14, 2007 Gary: Okay, all of that is helpful, thanks for taking the time to share that. It is true about the acoustical properties of Greek theaters, which technically weren't amphitheaters. I don't think Greeks actually ever built amphitheaters (meaning double-theater), but the Romans did, as in the case of the one mentioned above, as well as the famous Colosseum. An insignificant detail in terms of this thread, but thought I'd add it for the sake of historical correctness. It really is pretty amazing. What some of these very old civilazations were able to accomplish is mind boggling to me. Erik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldbuckster Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 Have seen 901's with stands and equalizer for $500. around here........I know they are not brand new, but that is a pretty good price...People who own them, like them alot............Me, I'll keep my comments to myself................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Mandaville Posted May 14, 2007 Author Share Posted May 14, 2007 Thanks for letting me know. I'm not really about to go out and buy a pair, but was just impressed with that brief time listening to them. "Me, I'll keep my comments to myself................ " Why? It's an open field, and all impressions, good (or not) are valid. Break over, I need to get back to work.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Def Leper Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 I have a set of mint series II's (with the Walnut filler panels) that I use for ambient fill in the back of the room with my Cornwall-I's in the front. I have, on a number of occasions, moved them to the front next to the Cornwalls to be able to compare them A-B. Absolutely no contest folks. The Series II's are lifeless and dull next to the Cornwalls and can't compete with them in any way-- dynamic punch, detail in any part of the bandwidth, or the bandwidth itself. My good spouse was having trouble understanding what I meant by being able to hear "micro detail" in music reproduced by the Cornwalls, but could clearly hear instruments and dynamics with the Cornwalls that were buried with the Bose speakers. That notwithstanding, I do sometimes enjoy listening to the Bose as primary speakers, but only for relatively simple music and at lower volumes. If I only had room for two speakers though, the Bose would depart without hesitation on my part. I suspect that the original poster would not be as impressed with the 901's if they were fairly compared to his Klipshorns in his own listening room using the same music. I've visited Bose factory stores (we have two Bose outlets nearby) and I didn't hear anything in the store that I considered to be worth even a fraction of the price they were asking. If anything, Bose seems to prey on ignorant consumers that don't have the technical knowledge to understand why so many of the company's advertising claims are ludicrous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 Def, Interesting input - couple of quick questions: Do you have the equalizer to go with the 901's - I have heard some people run them without but that there is no comparison between the 2.What amplification did you run with the 901's? Since Erik asked this question originally I have started to research the 901 a bit. It seems you can indeed pick them up for very little over here but some of the comments from previous owners have been quite funny. One owner commented - you can put unlimited amounts of power into these speakers - however big your amp is you want more - they can probably take 10,000 wpc and not blow. Thinking of Erik this made me laugh out loud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Mandaville Posted May 15, 2007 Author Share Posted May 15, 2007 Max: "Thinking of Erik this made me laugh out loud." It's really the truth! I've laughed about it in disbelief, as well. But, I at least try to have an open mind and am willing to try something regardless of how much has been said against or in favor of it. I can't know for myself unless I try for myself. Def: Thanks for the input. Klipschorns are hard to beat, that's true, although I have read many references elswhere where people who heard the big horns thought they were painfully revealing, colored, and so forth. Many different tastes and preferences out there, it would seem... Erik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DizRotus Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 Def Leper-<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> Having owned and used 901 IIs, and <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Cornwalls, Khorns, Las Scalas and Heresies, I agree with your relative assessment of the 901s vs. Cornwalls. Maxg asked you to confirm that you are using the Bose EQ; again as a former owner, I strongly suspect that you are. Without the EQ, the 901s live up to that joke, No highs, no lows, must be Bose. Not being a Bozophile, Im not certain at which series the 901s went from sealed MDF enclosures to ported plastic enclosures. Its my recollection that they switched at the same time from black 4.5 cloth surround full range drivers with four mounting holes to blue 4.5 foam surround full range drivers with three mounting holes. The foam surrounds are notoriously prone to deterioration. Bose is expert at using cheap components to produce spectacular (not necessarily accurate) sound. Klipsch fanciers should be careful throwing stones at Bose for getting the most from the least regarding the quality of components. PWK was even better at using pedestrian components (such as the K55/Atlas PA compression driver) to produce better results from his superior designs than speakers costing many times as much. He was fond of saying, Not a dimes worth of difference when asked about such production shortcuts as mounting the horns to the rear of the motorboards rather than flush mounting to the front, or mounting the 15 woofers with only 4 screws, leaving four mounting holes empty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 I put this another way early in this thread, but the 901 strikes me as a "Frankenspeaker." It violates a good many of PWK's 12 Cardinal Rules by 180 degrees. I have always suspected that the design aims were at something patentable and marketable in an area where the best ideas for use of dynamic motors in loudspeakers had already been patented or were free to all. That the result works under ideal conditions doesn't make it a good idea...a bit like the MV-22B Osprey which is a similar example in that, after spending enough money to pay for a Mars base (something I'd have preferred) it has been made to work, but still not a good idea. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DizRotus Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 Dave, It seems that Erik is stating the same thing that Edward Kennedy Ellington stated in the quote in your signature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 Indeed, and I consider Erik's opinion to be one of the most reliable in the forum. Never yet gotten a bum steer from him, and note he did not suggest everyone run out and get a pair. Like him, I've heard 901's sound good under optimum and limited conditions...but far more often I've heard them sounding awful when one of their conditions was not met. The point was that if you throw enough money and technology at something, you can make it do almost anything...but it may not be the BEST way. In the case of motor-driven speakers, which is pretty much all we have to work with at the moment (though look out for Elwood Norris...and paradigm shift may be headed our way), I think PWK pretty much covered it in the 12 Cardinal Rules. To the extent that a speaker design deviates from these, I usually find a flaw of about the scale as the deviation. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DizRotus Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 Dave, I agree with your interesting analysis regarding Bose's apparent desire to make an innovative patentable product. I'd never thought of it that way before. Nonetheless, just because something is new or different, it is not necessarily better. I've heard 901s sound great and I've heard them sound miserable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdm56 Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 Wow. I just slogged all the way through this thread from beginning to end. Interesting for sure, but probably beaten to death by now. My conclusions? Well... Erik seems to be a model of reasonability...plus he writes good. All the vitriolic Bose bashing is really tiresome, especially from people who aren't even familiar with the speaker at all. A crossoverless design is a worthy goal. A crossoverless esign without EQ is even more worthy. Every speaker's sound is inextricably linked to it's environment for better or for worse (till ebay they doth part). -and one more thing... I too, have heard Bose 901's sound great and I've heard'em suck big time. But I can say the same thing about almost every Klipsch speaker I've heard too! (although I don't recall ever hearing a Cornwall sound bad.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldbuckster Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Wrong speakers, wrong room, wrong power source, = Terrible sound...........That goes for any speaker, Klipsch included......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roc Rinaldi Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Wow. I just slogged all the way through this thread from beginning to end. Interesting for sure, but probably beaten to death by now. My conclusions? Well... Erik seems to be a model of reasonability...plus he writes good. All the vitriolic Bose bashing is really tiresome, especially from people who aren't even familiar with the speaker at all. A crossoverless design is a worthy goal. A crossoverless esign without EQ is even more worthy. Every speaker's sound is inextricably linked to it's environment for better or for worse (till ebay they doth part). -and one more thing... I too, have heard Bose 901's sound great and I've heard'em suck big time. But I can say the same thing about almost every Klipsch speaker I've heard too! (although I don't recall ever hearing a Cornwall sound bad.) I've never heard a Forte II sound bad. Never. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Funny you should say that - neither have I. I have heard forte's in 3 systems and they all sounded great with quite different rooms and electronics to boot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdm56 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 No argument on the Forte. I don't recall ever hearing a pair myself, though. There is a lot to be said for any speaker that has enough flexibility to sound good in many different environments. The Bose 901 and the Klipschorn are probably two of the most set-up dependent speakers out there. Hence such strong opinions both pro and con. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roc Rinaldi Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 I love my Forte IIs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Def Leper Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Def, Interesting input - couple of quick questions: Do you have the equalizer to go with the 901's - I have heard some people run them without but that there is no comparison between the 2. What amplification did you run with the 901's? Since Erik asked this question originally I have started to research the 901 a bit. It seems you can indeed pick them up for very little over here but some of the comments from previous owners have been quite funny. One owner commented - you can put unlimited amounts of power into these speakers - however big your amp is you want more - they can probably take 10,000 wpc and not blow. Thinking of Erik this made me laugh out loud Hi Maxg, Yes, I actually have two of correct factory equalizers, and the one I use has been rebuilt, and definitely sounds better than the unrebuilt one. I can switch in either of two amps, both of which I also run with my Cornwalls-- either the Adcom GFA-5500 or the Scott tube amp that was rebuilt by Craig. The Scott doesn't really have the power to drive the 901's for anything but easy listening as primary speakers, but it works well when I'm using them in ambient mode. The Cornwalls sound great with either amp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Well what the heck. Tomorrow evening I am going to listen to a pair of series 6's with the equalizer. I will take the 500 wpc yammy and the tube pre-amp with me. If it dont play with that it dont play!!! Should be interesting - the current owner is selling them for a song too..... Erik - what have you done to me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts