Jump to content

Bose 901


dtximages

Recommended Posts

Guest srobak

Why did his BOSE system sound so much better than the other (maybe 7 or 8) BOSE 901 installations I've listened to carefully, for prolonged periods?

Did you notice any EQs around at all? Including the Bose EQ that was packaged with the 901s? The only way I have ever been able to get 901's to sound remotely decent in any room is to spin them around, ditch their eq, and put even a cheap-o 7 band or more eq in the loop. Did the same thing at one of the gigs where I had to use the 802s. This club in Michigan was under some sort of exclusivity contract to use only the Bose system (consisting of 16 802's and 4 802 BP's, as well as their processors). No matter what I did with the processors, I could not get the sound I wanted out of the mains, and finally told them that I would bring in my eq rack from the truck and bypass the Bose procs. I was met with quite a bit of resistance, and I went so far as to tell them to be happy I wasn't bringing in all my JBL cabs instead, or even canceling the gig entirely for both myself and the band. Once presented with those 3 choices and talking to the facility manager on a personal level - he agreed to at least take a listen with my eq rack in the loop. Night and day difference... he was rather shocked, and even got some model numbers from the Alesis eqs I had :). The 802 BPs were pretty decent... but it was good that it was not a larger venue, as I do not think they could keep up without multiplying a lot, and perhaps even having a few scattered around to bring the low end into the crowd.

Best speakers I have ever heard? 10 years ago in Ovation Audio in NE Indy... Martin Logan reQuest hooked up to a full rack of Krell hardware. No idea the models... all I know is that it was the purest and most transparent sound I had ever heard. I came back the following day with a selection of my own music - everything from orchestral to opera to rock to acoustic guitar to funk to jazz, and could not get enough. I was in the store from open to close, auditioning every last note I could. I know it is a discontinued line - but some day - I will have those speakers and either some Krell or Mark Levinson power to go with them. I have listened to a lot of insanely priced systems - and those speakers are the only ones I would ever pay more than 1500 a cabinet for. Nothing else is worth the $... from anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Maybe Groomslakearea51 will chime in. He went acquired a pair of 901 series 1 a while back and tested them up against everything he had in the Klipsch lineup. I believe his comments were that if you had a room full of people milling around, the 901's were kinda ok, but couldn't touch any in the klipsch lineup.

Chiming in... [A] I took some time to think about this in the context of the thread, so it's just my opinion...

First, and to be clear: IMO, the Klipsch Heritage series are the best speakers ever made. I cannot testify to Palladiums or Jubilees (yet), but based on the Klipsch "track record", I would not have any worries on that evaluation... I've had a boatload of speakers (probably more than Colter over the last 36 years!!) many of which which were very good (AR's, pairs of Altecs, etc.), but hands down when you compare everything (including how easy they are to maintain, tweak, etc.), they are simply the best. Some would argue some of the esoteric, >$20k types, and that's understandable, but $ for $, you just cannot beat a Klipsch.

The "901" point I would make, or throw out there for some thought is basically, and without the usual "let's just bash Bose", if someone want's to consider the Bose 901's, it's going to be the application. Notwithstanding the room environment, and how they are driven, the 901's have a particular application parameters, and unless they are used within those, they will not sound good, at all..... .

Some background... Back in the day.... I had 901's (2 pairs, stacked...) and bought them new in 1971 in the PX (got'em cheap because they were the demos with the scratched tops, etc.) when I was making the really big bucks on active duty. I drove them with Sansui AU-999's, and sold them in 1975 when I got all sophisticated and bought JBL 4311's and 4312's. I kept those and in 1979 got really upscale and bought my first pair of Klipschorns (KC-BB's). Had those, a pair of 78' Heresy's and assorted JBL's until 2004. Finally sold the JBL's (to some folks who lived in Taiwan as I recall) because I could not get replacement drivers from JBL anymore, and ever since "collected" Heritage series.

Meanwhile, for no reason other than just having the opportunity, last month I picked up a pair of the original 1968 Bose 901 Type-I's for $300. Oiled walnut, surrounds were the original fabric, and still in pretty much mint condition. The equalizer worked pefectly, etc. So.... and having had Bose 901's, and knowing that placement, amps, and in particular knowing that the equalizer has to be set correctly..... I did some experiments with them in the "man cave" as the "centers". I use the same amplifier types as the K-horns, LS's, Forte's, Heresy's, etc. and started fiddling around. Now once I "dialed in" the distance between them, the height off the floor, and the equalizer setting, they sounded just fine. But.... in that specific application.

Maybe I should say something about that now. I like sweet spot listening and do it often; but sometimes I just like the "concert hall - wall of voodoo", and for that effect, I use multiple amps and multiple speakers. It's a "heresy", I know, but it works for me (key thing here is "works for me"... ). I've had a number of guests (forum members) who have listened to the wall of voodoo, and they generally agree that for what I'm doing, the volume levels, etc., it works.

So in my case, or from my perspective, it's the application.... As an example, in the master bedroom (old wall of voodoo - but now the "wall of boudoir"...), the LaScala's (in the center), along with a pair of K'horns in the corners and an Onkyo AVR do the HT thing for my wife. She loves it; they look nice and pretty, and sure sound great. The Belles? When I get finished, they will be the bottom "centers" with a pair of Heresys up top side on the HT set-up in the living room. Unfortunately, there is no place for K-horns in that room, absolutely no "free" corners. Now to be sure, I tested the 901's in the "living room from hell" (no corners, vaulted ceiling, half height open center wall, etc) and while I can get them to work, would require a major re-alignment of the room's furniture, etc. It does not matter if they are Bose 901's, Klipschorns, etc., that room's solution is restricted by the geometry of the walls, etc. I'm stuck with Belles or Cornwalls or Heresys in that room's configuration, and then only on one side of the room. My son's room, however has corners, and the original "KC-BB black beasts" I bought in 1979. He's happy and while the room is small & "cramped", they work, and work well. So, as one can see, it's an "application" driven hobby for me. Right tool for the job analogy....

How do the 901's compare to Heritage? It's like, to me anyways, like trying to compare the steak to the salad on the dinner table. On a "one on one" they cannot do what Klipschorns, LaScalas or Belles will do. The 901 design is just not for that. And that's the key to the 901's....

I read (and re-read) again... the 19 January 1968 instruction manual (16 pages!), and the original Hirsch-Houck Labs (Julian Hirsch) reports from 1968, and the E&E Lab reports that are with the original documentation. The "clue" so to speak, is in those reports. To paraphrase Mr. Hirsch, the 901 is really good, but it's designed for a wide dispersion sound stage effect, or in other words to create an auditorium effect, and generally within the room to mimic the sound that is about mid-audience area. Hirsch was honest in his evaluation and basically inferred that by design, they do not have the generally desired "sweet spot" effect (like Klipschorns and the others...). He (and the others) noted that proper equalizer settings are absolutely critical to make the 901's work. They do not have that bass response of any of the horn loaded bins, in particular at very low volumes. But what the 901 does do (and that's what they were designed for...) is give a very good compromise at moderate volumes, and this was an important factor: With a relatively small "footprint.

So.... What good are they? Well.... It's arguable and subjective. What am I going to do with the 901's? Well.... Where they will work well is in that center space (with the exit door in the middle) between the Klipschorns & Forte's. I also found that (like referenced in this thread), that by having them only 12" from the walls works better; height? 24". Stands? No. Don't laugh, but in the man cave, they will be on the tops of a heavily modified pair of Heresy's (K-28's, D250X's, CT-125's and an E/4500 crossover) - Reason, while that center area in the wall of voodoo benefits from the direct/reflecting 901, I still like having that highly directional effect that the Heresys do so well as centers.

Again it is the application and what you are doing with them!! But that being said, all speakers require require proper placement, good amps, etc. And with one exception, most speakers seem to sound "better" with certain types of music, or at different volumes, and in certain room layouts. I would like to say straight away that the exception for me is the Klipschorn. Other than that pesky "corner" thing, it sounds really good all the time, regardless of the source music type, and regardless of the volume. Even at the lowest possible volume on the amplifier, with the mute switch, and while it sounds like it's 2 miles away, it's is still perfectly clear and "balanced". The Klipschorn just simply does it's job, quiet or loud. For that, it is the ultimate "universal" speaker. When I get up in the morning at 0:dark-thirty, and put on NPR and roust the kids, it's the Klipschorns in the man cave that get turned on and I can clearly listen to them throughout the house. Same thing for working in the home office/man cave. If I could convince the boss that I need to put a pair of Klipschorns in my office I would do it....

Would I buy a pair brand new for $1400 plus tax? Nope, not a chance. When I get ready to plop down $1400+ bucks for a new pair of speakers, it'll be H-III's for sure on that one. My theory is that for the same price, the H-III can hold it's own, sound is more "clear" (cannot beat those horns!!!), you can move them around, they don't really have to be critically placed, and you don't have to screw around with an equalizer, etc.

Would I recommend the 901's to anyone. Probably not. Two reasons really, one is mechanical, and the other is because I truly believe that within the Heritage series there is a choice for everyone that can do the overall job and pretty much do it better. The mechanical reason? Several actually: The 901's need that equalizer to work. It requires you to "route" all of your input through the equalizer by way of a tape deck circuit (tape-in - tape-out), and you can only run the 901's off that amp or receiver. You cannot run the 901's and let's say, surrounds, sub, etc off an AVR because the Bose EQ will make them sound awful strange... You can hook another pair of whatevers up, but you have to turn off the 901's and defeat the EQ. That's a pain. What it means is that if you use 901's, then you are going to be restricted to 901's (unless you have multiple amps, and the source is "upstream" from all of them).

The other issue is that the design uses a full range, 35 watt (x 9 of them) long excursion (which is what killed the older foam surrounds...) driver. Until the volume gets up a bit, the reflective technology does not overcome the dampening effects of the walls and the room acoustics. That's probably the reason so many folks say they suck or sound "muddy" at low volumes. Even the EQ cannot compensate across the board for that problem at low volumes. For consistently low volumes, you have to set the EQ just right. Then if you turn them up, you will have to re-adjust the EQ and turn on the 40hz filter, and change the HF level. Now that's a pain. The other issue, and Hirsch pointed it out, is that driving all of those 18 x 35 watt drivers takes a good amp. Back in 1968, he recommended at least 60 watts RMS, and suggested that 200 watts would be more the ideal. By nature of it's design, the 901 is not an "efficient" speaker in the sense of the Klipsch horn loaded designs. You could, I suppose, run them with a 10 watt tube amp, but..... what's the point?... because you could never get them loud enough to appreciate the intended "effect" for which they were designed.

When Dr. Bose was an engineering grad student at MIT, his whole focus was on developing the reflective part of the technology to create the large space "auditorium" effect, much more so than concentrating on a pair of speakers that relied upon the location of the listener as the classical designs generally required. To that end, yes, the 901 is a successful design, but it has it's limitations, and that's where the "let's compare" problem lies. I also think that one of the problems that Bose has with the 901's is their marketing approach. For so long they have touted the 901 as the "finest", the "best", etc., but without emphasizing why they were designed and what the buyer is going to do with them. They (or their dealers) also hurt themselves by generally only demonstrating them in carefully constructed and treated rooms with specific source material, etc. Buyer gets them home, expects a duplication of the precise set-up they saw at the showroom, and of course they "suck". An analogy would be to "forget" or failure to make sure a Klipschorn buyer fully understands that yah gotta' have them in them thar corners....

If someone tells me they are going to buy a pair, after the usual "why not Klipsch?" discussion, I will certainly ask them to describe what they are going to do with them. What type of sound are they looking for? etc. Again,, it's the application. Even if someone has a line on a really nice used pair and their heart is set on them, I'd always tell them to stay away from Series II through early Series VI. Reason, as pointed out in the thread, the surrounds rot out. Bose knows it and about 2-3 years ago, they went to a completely different type of driver construction. They were getting really bad press because of it and they were embarassed. They now use a type of surround material that will not deteriorate. The 901 is their "flagship", and they are very sensitive to bad press or bad opinions about the 901's.

In substance, one could conclude that the 901 has a specific type of application, and other than using them in that environment for which they were designed, they will have "issues". When I mentioned to fenderbender that they are intened for a room full of people, or let's say a room where you and everyone else are moving around alot, or a room in which the music is more of a background (or maybe better described as supplemental) rather than the focal point of the gathering, then ok, that's the application for which they are intended. Unfortunately, for Bose...., is that you can do the same thing with respect to having a system that you would use for that "supplemental" music, but get the better resolution from a pair of Klipschorns, LaScala's, Cornwalls, etc. for the main event which is, when all is said and done, just sitting down and listening to music.

Hope that is of some interest. Again, only my opinion based on my experience with the 901's and being able to compare them with Heritage speakers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Groomlake,

Next time I won't offer you up to slaughter [6]

Actually that was one of the most clear, concise, posts that I have ever had the pleasure to read on any forum, and me being new to this found it very helpfull........You should do a Dr's thesis on the subject.

So what do you think of the Lifestyle system [6][6][6][6][6][6][6][6][6]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the 70's PWK reported on distortion measurements taken with a spectrum analyzer on a loudspeaker described as "a loudspeaker designed so that a number of drivers in the rear of the cabinet reflected sound off of walls and surrounding objects". Modulation distortion was many times higher than results from a Heresy played at the same SPL.

This was around the same time the famous yellow BULL**** button appeared.

Nine lousy speakers placed in the same cabinet aren't going to sound better somehow. Just nine times lousier.

Every Bose product I have ever heard could only be described as a crime against sound reproduction. The 901 is the worst.

Don

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest srobak

Groom> awesome write-up, and has a lot of valid points in it. Good stuff.

Got a couple of questions... near the end you say "intended for background/supplemental" music - but earlier mention they have to be cranked a bit to be effective in their job (also agreed)... isn't that a bit contradictory in nature? :) What is the true solution in that situation?

Also - the 802's... "pro" models of the 901's... do not have the single driver on the "front" and are spun around to have 8 drivers facing the listening audience. Yes - that set also comes with a processor, and I am sure because of the fact they are not rear-firing like the 901s - the processor has completely different job to do vs. the home model. Just seems strange to me that the King of Reflected Sound as it were would do a complete 180 shift (literaly) on the same basic design simply based upon the application. Taking that kind of approach - you would think that we could all spin our Klipsch cabs around, point them at the wall at an angle, re-eq them and come up with something that remotely resembles "quality sound". I don't exactly buy that :) I dunno - just seems like using the same cabinet design for two radically different setups and applications yet claiming it to be the flagship of each is a bit funny, no?

Again - thanks for the awesome write up... probably the best I have ever seen for the 901's in 20some years of reading about them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Ray Garrison: Great poem / lyric!
user_IsOffline.gifTo srobak:
There was no separate graphic or parametric equalization in Alphonso's Bose 901 system -- nothing with sliders or multiple knobs. His first pre-amp, a Marantz (c 1970-72?), had 4 (I think) sliders, but they were in the middle (flat?) position. Later preamps were always set "flat."
I THINK the little EQ Bose supplied with the 901 was in the signal path --- was it a rather small nondescript box?
I'm growing to believe that his powerful amplification, high SPL, closeness to the wall of the 901s, the nearby room corner, and his selection of recordings somehow added up to the unusually good sound.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. glake52 did a heckuva job on that!

I zoomed on a single line that was the critical point to me, which was that Bose was "trying to recreate an auditorium effect." I could ask a lot of questions about that, like "just WHICH auditorium?" and such, but my position is simple.

That's the recording engineers job...not to "create" any effect, but to record the space that is there and the event that is taking place within it in as perfect a context as possible.

It's the loudpspeakers job to reproduce that precisely. Anything more is editorializing, anything less is, well, less.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I zoomed on a single line that was the critical point to me, which was that Bose was "trying to recreate an auditorium effect." I could ask a lot of questions about that, like "just WHICH auditorium?"

Good question. Hirsch said two things which warrant a quote; "Depending upon one's viewpoint, the Bose 901 speaker system might be considered a revolutionary approach to sound reproduction, or simply a workable combination of well established (and sometimes deprecated) techniques". (Hirsch, J.; Tech Talk; Equipment Test Reports; Hi-Fi Stereo Review; Nov 68). As we know,... Bose marketing certainly claims the former; but the latter seems to be the actual case for how it works in the practical sense. Second thing he said which agains points to the "application" intention was, (referring to the 1 front and 8 ear drivers) "This arrangement is intended to achieve approximately the same ratio of direct to reflected sound that exists in the concert hall" (Hirsch, op.cit.). That's probably why they don't sound very good unless the volume is just sufficient to begin to achieve the designed effect.

Srobak has a good point also in that "..near the end you say "intended for background/supplemental" music - but earlier mention they have to be cranked a bit to be effective in their job (also agreed)... isn't that a bit contradictory in nature? :) What is the true solution in that situation?" It's my belief that the good Dr Bose's intention was the "concert hall", but because of the design, it effectively tends to limit the listener to a mid-far field listening "experience". By consequence, I suppose, that unless it's "cranked up loud", the 901's unintentional result was/is that "supplemental" effect, with all of the "bad" subjective results.

As we know, the Klipsch vs Bose debate at the basic level is comparing two totally different approaches to sound reproduction. One (Klipsch) does it by making sure the reproduction is faithfully accurate (or fatally... dependent upon the source material and the amp quality, etc...), and the other (Bose), is by compromise, and in particular by specifying and designing for a particular listening environment. In that context, the 901, using a simple "tools" analogy, is a really great flat head screwdriver... Perfect for what it's designed for, but in the end, it's still a flat head screwdriver. Klipsch, by the same token, is a "multi-tool", and thus infinitely more useful....

Now what I thought was funny, was that Hirsch also commented in an earlier article (Aug 68) as to the difficulty of describing speaker performance in purely objective terms, and cited the 901 as the perfect example of that problem. I pretty much concluded that Hirsch was saying, in substance, that the 901 should "suck", but for some subjective reason, could sound pretty good. He was being kind and in a very classy way. On that note, the E&E (Elementary Electronics) report was way too "glowing" for my liking, but many reviewers tended (and still do) to be overly nice to the "freebies" they get to test...

After the 901 was introduced in late 67 (as the 1968 first model), the stereo folks and "audiophiles" pretty much divided themselves into the two "warring camps" that exist to this day. Unfortunately there are some "extremist" viewpoints in the two opposing sides. I'm of the opinion that speakers other than Klipsch should not simply be classified as garbage out of hand because they are made by any particular company. They may very well be "garbage" in terms of comparing them to the Klipsch, but... you never know until you plug something in and listen to it - then throw it away!![;)]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TO srobak:

Yeah, he had the earlier kind of BOSE provided EQ box. His 901s were purchased in 1972 after a store fire burned his big Wharfdales (sp?) ... may have been sand filled, but burned anyway... .

The 901's sounded better, but had new (1972) Marantz preamp and Phase Linear amp to go with them.

TO Groomlakearea51, and everyone:

I wonder how many of today's Hi End super expensive speakers for the self proclaimed Golden Ears are realy designed to make average (i.e., not very good) recordings sound tolerable and "pretty?" One of the severl reasons I'm saying this is that when we used to make tapes of live performers while monitoring on horns, it wasn't too hard -- in fact, pretty easy -- to get pretty realistic reproduction from those original generation tapes when monitoriing on horns by Altec, JBL, and Klipsch (yes, with solid state equipment), but these same horn speakers, being "unforgiving" and not gilding the lilly, made some bad commercial recordings (about 1/3 of all recordings) sound like crap. Those in our group who had "forgiving" speakers at home (Bozak, in those days) could tolerate those bad commercial recordings. So, when today's reviewers talk about highly "musical" speakers, I wonder if they mean "forgiving."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absoulutely superb, GLA51. I finally understand what Bose is all about. Knowing this crowd, many will read more into that than there is. What it is is real understanding.

Thanks for your truly in depth and extraordinary insight.

Regards,
Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how many of today's Hi End super expensive speakers for the self proclaimed Golden Ears are realy designed to make average (i.e., not very good) recordings sound tolerable and "pretty?" ..... So, when today's reviewers talk about highly "musical" speakers, I wonder if they mean "forgiving."

That's a good point, and quite possible. Case in point: I live about 40 miles away from the NPR station. Some days for whatever reason, the signal is shall we say "less than musical". Coming through the Klipschorns - drives me crazy.... So, I turn them off, and switch amps to an old pair of Heresys (old caps, back not sealed, etc.). Becomes bearable first thing in the morning at a low volume because I want to listen to "Morning Edition" news etc.

I too am also curious about "musical" speakers for the masses.... If.[6]... I were to design a speaker to make money (key words: make money = stay in business, live a life of luxury, trips to the Bahamas, the usual decadence...), I would (a) use the least expensive components that would last through the warranty period, (B) keep the warranty down to one year, © design the crossover to match my target audience (lotsa' bass, strong but pleasantly muddy mids, flat sounding tweets), and (d) test it on some of my target audience (audience = those with the likely amount of money I want to charge, and likely listen to a certain type of music wherein loud is better and "fidelity" is not really an issue...)

I can see the review now: "Area-51 Sound Design's - ASD-2 is a very "musical" speaker. Great room filling bass at a great price! The perfect hard rock speaker system for kids on a tight budget. We were most impressed with the ASD's handling of some less than well recorded CD's. Highly recommended"....

But then someone on the Forum would buy a pair and I would be up "Sh*t Creek"!! LOL[;)]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I wonder how many of today's Hi End super expensive speakers for the self proclaimed Golden Ears are realy designed to make average (i.e., not very good) recordings sound tolerable and "pretty?" .....  So, when today's reviewers talk about highly "musical" speakers, I wonder if they mean "forgiving." 

That's a good point, and quite possible. Case in point: I live about 40 miles away from the NPR station. Some days for whatever reason, the signal is shall we say "less than musical". Coming through the Klipschorns - drives me crazy.... So, I turn them off, and switch amps to an old pair of Heresys (old caps, back not sealed, etc.). Becomes bearable first thing in the morning at a low volume because I want to listen to "Morning Edition" news etc.

I too am also curious about "musical" speakers for the masses.... If.Devil... I were to design a speaker to make money (key words: make money = stay in business, live a life of luxury, trips to the Bahamas, the usual decadence...), I would (a) use the least expensive components that would last through the warranty period, (B) keep the warranty down to one year, © design the crossover to match my target audience (lotsa' bass, strong but pleasantly muddy mids, flat sounding tweets), and (d) test it on some of my target audience (audience = those with the likely amount of money I want to charge, and likely listen to a certain type of music wherein loud is better and "fidelity" is not really an issue...)

I can see the review now: "Area-51 Sound Design's - ASD-2 is a very "musical" speaker. Great room filling bass at a great price! The perfect hard rock speaker system for kids on a tight budget. We were most impressed with the ASD's handling of some less than well recorded CD's. Highly recommended"....

But then someone on the Forum would buy a pair and I would be up "Sh*t Creek"!! LOLWink

We Have to do it!!!!

Lets start posting up reviews of the fictitious ADS-2......not just here but on agon, akarma, stevehoff, etc, ad nauseam.

We'll start treads like "what sounds better Paradigm or ADS-2"

It'll drive folks nuts and create an instant market for the "Area51" company....we'll keep it under wraps and say only an exclusive first production run was released, and we are taking deposits for the next limited release !!!!!

OK I just got myself banned from 5 forums at once and maybe arrested on tuesday .

P.S. I apologize to BOSE for disclosing your marketing strategies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We Have to do it!!!! Lets start posting up reviews of the fictitious ADS-2......not just here but on agon, akarma, stevehoff, etc, ad nauseam. We'll start treads like "what sounds better Paradigm or ADS-2" It'll drive folks nuts and create an instant market for the "Area51" company....we'll keep it under wraps and say only an exclusive first production run was released, and we are taking deposits for the next limited release !!!!! OK I just got myself banned from 5 forums at once and maybe arrested on tuesday . P.S. I apologize to BOSE for disclosing your marketing strategies.

We're gonna' get in trouble!!!! First I must release the ASD-1 with 2 x 12" woofers and a mid/tweet combo, nicely packaged in a "rhino-lining" covered plywood enclosure, and with the optional aluminum corners, carrying handle, and the wire mesh driver covers (ASD-1 "Industrial").... Perfect for trailer park parties and the mesh to keep the beer bottles from taking them out of action....[:P]

I love my marketing strategy.... Just wear a nice shirt and tie, thick glasses have a great power point presentation, and no-one will suspect that my goal is the party barge yacht in the Bahamas fully outfitted with Klipsch weather resistant (and beer proof) speakers.[H][6]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the ADS 3. Can you make it the size of a khorn. The top can have 4 six inch peavy drivers. The bottom of one can be a cooler, the other a fridge for a half barrel with a tap sticking out of the side. And if you want to get retro and do 3 channel the center vertical Cornwall type can hide a weber BBQ

I think water proof is a must with optional poontoon floats so they can be towed behind a jet ski.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen people on message boards make up fictitious sports players before. They would give these players wonderful stats like 40 yard dash times, bench press etc.. You would be amazed how fast that stuff would make it to other boards and I've even heard sports commentators on the radio talk about these made up players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Groom,

Very interesting and well considered review of the 901 - thanks.

Just one point - I noticed your references to the first version. Have you ever tried playing with the V6? i think they are a rather different animal - being ported and with different surrounds for the speakers.

As it happens I have a friend with a lovely looking pair of 901 version 6's in piano black he is in the process of perfecting in his room. Thus far I think he has made a lot of progress and the changes in the sound are sufficient to say that I think he has not surpassed the sound he had in that room with Khorns.

O course - it is an odd room - but that is the fun of the challenge. I have an open invitation to take his speakers at some point to try them out in my room. I will take him up on that one day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny that Max would mention that.....

I've read (and researched if one could call it that) what's going on lately with the Series VI..... The greatest complaint that seems to be noted by 901-VI owners is the bass is too "boomy", and the criticality of placement (and by consequence, that little "application" issue again...)

On the bass, whether that's from poor placement, or not understanding how the EQ actually works (the likely issue), it's hard to tell. But even the originals were cited as posing a potential problem with using the <40hz bass switch without having sufficient amp power to drive those frequencies. Even the well respected Julian Hirsch specifically cited that issue back in 1968. He said that by turning that switch to the "defeat position pretty much eliminated the problem (related to the considerable amount of measurable distortion 7% at 20hz, 12% at 30hz and 10% at 50Hz).

Here's a good example of what one owner said. Note: He's certainly not a "Klipsch basher", and obviously has some high end experience. Read between the lines, and in particular, note the last paragraph.... I have underlined some interesting comments.

Purchased Series III in 1977 and was happy with them until surrounds disintegrated in 1999 - Bose swapped them for a Series VI. At that time I spent a year listening to other speakers and components and finally settled on some PMC FB1s (which have since been upgraded with the 1+ tweeter and accompanying crossovers and insulation). I gave the VIs to my sister and helped her set them up in her family room. I love my FB1s but I did love the old 901s, too. Completely different sound, of course, but completely different philosophy and target market, too. I'm now hooked on the sound of the monitor-base FB1s, which I've integrated into a nice little PMC/Arcam home theatre setup. I do still enjoy listening to the VIs when I'm visiting my sister but only after checking any hi-fi snobbery at the door. I would actually recommend the speakers for the "listening experience" (stress "when properly placed/set up"). Yeah, maybe they don't compare well to a pair of Revels or Wilsons or Thiels or PMCs from a critical aspect, but my PMC FB1s may not compare well to a lot of competitors, either. If I get too hung up on comparisons it won't be possible to enjoy anything because there's always going to be something bigger, something "better" ("better" in quotes because so much of listening is subjective). The question you need to answer is, "Do you enjoy listening to them?" Listen and make your own decision. Ignore what so-called audiophiles tell you. "Beauty is in the ear of the beholder(?)" There is no product hype associated with this product. In fact, there's a huge negative hype perpetuated by hi-fi snob wannabes. With all that bad press, there's a reason these are still big sellers, despite almost total lack of product advertising - People enjoy listening to them. I love a good red wine but that doesn't mean I can't like beer as well. I love my current wife even though she isn't the best cook, doesn't have the biggest br**sts, and isn't in line for a big inheritance.

Strengths:
I think somebody else described their sound as "natural" - Maybe not from a critical aspect, but I would agree with the overall effect/sound as being very natural and "spacious".
Impressive volume and power-handling capabilities, if that's your bag in this price range.

Weaknesses:
Forget about Home Theatre
Needs very specific placement/setup
Linear response? Hah - LInear, shminear...

Similar Products Used:
JBL L100, EPI 200, PSB Stratus Gold, Paradigm Reference Studio 100, Allison 10, Klipschorns (friends' systems)
PMC FB1+

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here's another one that points to "what" appears to be the problem with them:

Summary:
These are not audiophile grade speakers. What they have is a super- midrange that reflects everywhere- not good for imaging or soundstage. Perhaps they are good for home theater, where sound effects are more important than two channel realism. Don't get me wrong- I loved these speakers for many years. As my hearing became more experienced and my equipment of a better quality I moved on to budget audiophile: Vandersteen (good choice to retain the "openness" of 901's while still getting a good soundstage & image) and ACI Saphire speakers (more neutral and excellent imaging- nice soundstage but very directional - tiny sweet spot) for the same money.
I believe you should get what sounds good to you. -It's just not a good idea to try to impress peers that you are knowledgable by argueing for bose 901's making the audiophile grade for sound transmission! But if thats the sound you like- do it!

Strengths:
Very open and in many ways "natural" sounding. Look very cool.

Weaknesses:
Power hungry. Unrealistic soundstange and imaging..., colored or distorted at frequency extreems. Difficult to place in the room.

Similar Products Used:
Vandersteen, ACI, B&W, Snell, KEF

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...