Bose 901 sound test by TonePub?

A Commonwealth turntable? Sounds like it would work well with Tannoy Kingdom or Churchill speakers.

 

The Micro Seiki TT?! You should have given or even bought her a fridge instead... Not funny, I know, sorry.

 

Quite amusing, all the crazy things people say about Bose 901's. No imaging? Really? Simple answer: they're not set up properly. Read the instructions! No bass? Oh please! The 901's are bass monsters! At least in my room...and for that matter, every other room I've heard them in over the course of the last nearly forty years. No dynamics? Well, let's see...they're relatively efficient (I would guess 90+dB) and have a 450W power rating. Do the math for yourself.

I'm not saying they're perfect. And they are unique, so of course, they sound...unique. But, properly set up and fed, they are amazing speakers for the money. Shoot, they're amazing speakers, period.

The one unifying criticism over the course of this thread seems to be their imaging properties, or lack therof. Granted, they don't image like a conventional speaker. To which I would say, conventional speakers don't sound like live music! Many people apparently prefer what I would characterize as unnaturally hyped detail and imaging. Nothing wrong with that if that's your pleasure, but it has nothing to do with how live music sounds. The typical live music venue is much, much, MUCH bigger than the typical home listening room. And the audience at a typical live concert is much further from the sound sources than we are from our speakers at home. So obviously, at home using directional speakers you are bound to hear an unnaturally high percentage of direct sound. Again, nothing wrong with that if that's what you want. I'm just sayin. And this is what "direct/reflecting" is all about: restoring a natural balance of direct and relected sound to the listening room.

One poster commented that the time relationships (direct sound compared to reflected sound) are not the same as live. Well that's true of course but the subjective effect is still that of a much bigger and more more diffuse sound...more like live music...than we get with directional speakers. Whether that's a good thing or not depends on the individual listener's preference.

I've lately thought it might be better to describe the 901 sound as comparable to an in-wall speaker sound, precisely because so much of the sound is from those eight rear-firing 4.5" drivers. They sit just a few inches from the front wall, bouncing their output off that wall at an angle. So the sound is really as if you had a pair of immense, broad-dispersion in-walls. The ninth 4.5" driver on the front baffle really only contributes a bit of depth and a bit more imaging precision...plus it's one ninth of the total output. Just a thought I'll throw in for free.

Anyway, I've enjoyed reading this thread and look forward to the formal review.

 

Amazing how? Quality of construction? Innovation? Design? Sound quality? Marketing!

It is one thing to have no experience with genuine hi-end speakers and "enjoy" the Bose 901s, but it is an entirely different matter when informed audiophiles get in on the act. I cannot fathom anyone recommending an over $1,000 expenditure on this product, so we'll see what TonePub finds. Honestly, I can't believe we have a single forum member who can accept a design that relies heavily on reflection. Most, if not all, of us want to hear inside of the recording and not inside of our own listening space. Addressing the reflections of a monitoring environment is PRECISELY how one can get closer to hearing what the recording space (large or small) actually sounds like.

 

At the time, it just didn't matter. Leaving the system,, let's just say; made things even.

Today, I'm having more fun, rediscovering vinyl with the Rega. My current wife and I have been married about 25 years. Life has never been better!

Now,,, just waiting for the 901 review.

And, going back to when I purchased my 901 series IV's, I think, I paid around $900. That 120 watt (per channel) Onkyo worked well with them. They did need power. The wall they were in front of was brick.
They were fun! And, I was young and in Love my very first time.

 

While I tend to disparage Bose in general, I actually like the 901's. They're the only Bose speakers I`ve ever heard that I`ll say that about.

The only caveats for me are that they`re quite difficult to place in a room, and they want a ton of power.

 

For those of us old enough to be around when the 901s were introduced they were quite a revelation for their time and compared to most speakers of the day sounded far better than average when supplied with good power. My friend who bought them was an engineer and was fastidious in following the instructions about placement (and powered by McIntosh) and truth be told his system sounded awesome as compared to mine and everyone else I knew.

Maybe the imaging wasn't as precise as what is expected today but truth be told I know no one, including myself, who ever placed their speakers correctly to get the most out of the speakers we had. Rather, we were interested in the music, listening to the music and imaging was secondary. I did have headphones, Koss Pro4As (I believe) and that's when I heard the correct imaging as intended.

We also didn't think about sitting in the sweet spot but more interested in just listening as a group and smokin' some weed.

 

I heard 901's back in the 70s and I thought my Pioneers and my buddy's Cerwin Vega speakers both sounded better.

 

The only Bose speaker I have ever liked the sound of is the ubiquitous Bose 101--the small, PA monitor-looking thing with the single 4 1/2" driver and the composite rubberized plastic cabinet and metal mesh grille. Those actually sound pretty nice for what they are--warm, good vocal reproduction.

 

My dream speaker when I was a kid.... never had the $$$ to pull the trigger back then. Grew up and wound up with B&W. This thread makes me want to buy a pair for the basement

 

+1 - under the right circumstances they are the right man for the job. not the sweet spot in your listening room necessarily.

 

I like reflections
But from a dipole
When placed correctly the rear radiation of a Quad ESL 63 and its front image can sound remarkably like music
The bonus,a fine detailed image.

The 901s gave a broad wash not unlike Linn Isobarriks or the omni Sonabs.
Great for mono.

 

You may have a point there--the 901's could be a good speaker for mono sound reproduction. Maybe even for 5.1, as a diffuse sound field could benefit movie soundtracks. I hope Jeff address one or both of these applications in his review.

 

This might be the only thread I've ever read where the 901s were referred to as bass monsters.

 

Have to agree.

Ive heard them many times over the years, and my overall opinion is that they are not as bad as we say, but not nearly as good as the fans of them think.

They were just rolled off highs, with limited dispersion, and odd imaging, but overall, not horrible response, but a limited low end.

I found them interesting in the way that many older speakers are. Not accurate, but not horrible. They could play fairly loud, but not really deep.

 

I guess it depends on how one measures excellence. In their price range they are competing against Vandersteen 2Ces and Magnepan 1.7s. If one applies audiophile standards the Bose 901s are completely outclassed by the Vandys and the Maggies. As a flagship product of the world's largest speaker manufacturer they are pretty bad.

 

For me, "critical listening" is only for auditioning speakers and even then I only do it for a limited time to weed out speakers I really will not like; and for trying to figure out, say, what brand of instrument is being used or how it's being used in a particular song. Other than those two scenarios, critical listening is a no-no because for me that listening style sucks the enjoyment out of listening to the music itself.

This may make me sound like an audio knuckledragger to some, but I also do not much enjoy the "etched" imaging that many speakers can provide, including my Bostons, because for me it actually detracts from the listening experience. It just doesn't sound......natural. Probably for the reason you (and I, in an earlier post) basically described i.e. in a live setting unless you're seated right up next to the stage you don't hear each instrument and vocalist in a precise left-to-right manner.

This is the same reason I think most speakers - bipolar/monopole/whatever - sound more natural in a larger vs. smaller room: because in the larger room you're usually seated farther away from them plus the indirect sound produced by wall/ceiling/floor bounce has more distance to travel, increasing their delay times and producing a more "reverby" effect.....just like in a live setting. Not to mention the higher frequencies are softened slightly (as long as it's not a room with 100% hard surfaces), adding to the perception of naturalness. ----> Again, this description includes conventional speakers with just a woofer and a tweeter mounted in a conventional enclosure & pointing forward.

Also, after 30+ years of being involved in this hobby, I've come to believe that many speaker manufacturers also believe as I do. This is based on the fact that many speakers, many sold for thousands of dollars and designed by respected engineers, are reported as having substandard imaging. Why would they have substandard imaging, despite all the decades of research and real-world experience they have access to for producing speakers with ultra-sharp imaging? IMO good imaging just isn't that difficult to implement folks, so for a pair of "audiophile" speakers that cost $10K to exhibit only "middling" imaging capability tells me that something is going on besides a bad day at the manufacturing facility............

 

You need to read Dr. Floyd Toole's book:

Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms

A lot of that's explained, and Toole also compares several pairs of speakers together and shows why they sound different and measure differently.

 

"Amazing how"? OK, how about amazing bass, especially for their size and cost? And how about amazing-ly lifesize sound...especially for their size and cost?

"Quality of construction"? I'll grant you, they're not quite up to Magico levels, but then again, they're not quite up to Magico prices, either. I really think the quality is about what is to be expected for the price.

"Innovation" & "Design"? Come on, you have to concede some points on here. Had there ever been anything like the 901 before? And Bose has continued to be innovative; just not in the audiophile realm. They've gone where the market has gone. Good sound, simply and unobtrusively.

"Sound Quality" Well, that seems to be in the ear of the beholder, doesn't it? While granting that Bose does not build studio monitors, I think their limited offerings in the 2-channel category (the 201, 301 and 901) offer good to excellent performance for the money to anyone who just wants to enjoy the music. Not necessarily to disect and analyze it.

"Marketing"? Is it bad to be successful? I wish they would compete more in high performance audio than mass market, but the choice is theirs. "Everybody likes cash, don't they?" They go where the market and the money is. And since I mentioned Magico earlier, I'll mention them again: Superb quality and performance...that does me and most other music lovers absolutely no good in the world because we can in no way ever afford their products.

As for "relying on reflections", sure, 901's are designed to do precisely that. I have no problem with that. Most, if not all home speakers are designed to work best in typical home environments, and in most typical home environments, reflections are a fact of life. Merely pulling your speakers a few feet out from the walls does not "turn off" the room. Down maybe, but not off. So I see no sin in a speaker design that seeks to use room reflections to provide a more lifelike sound rather that seeing reflections as just something to minimize.

All blather aside, it's always going to come down to taste and preference anyway! That's why we have a choice! Horns, dipoles, bipoles, tadpoles, monopoles, omnipoles and maypoles. Something for everyone!!

 

All I can say is come over to my house and judge for yourself!

Tell you what: I'll cue up the old "Stereophile Test CD 2" and post some in-room response numbers. Maybe I'll just go crazy and graph them for everyones pleasure and/or amusement.

 

I guess there had to be one person here who would defend these speakers though I admit I am surprised. I never gave the 901 a second listen (the first listen, a long time ago, was enough for me to pass them by)

I had the same identical experience, I heard the 901s on the same day as a pair of large Cerwin Vegas and the Vega's got my interest that day. I eventually bought JBLs and Infinitys.

 

( I was trying to be diplomatic is all )

We all know they aint great or anything for the price.

 

Whirling Wiccans

Yes! All hail the Maypole!

 

Hm. So why not compare the construction quality to any number of entry level speakers from the genuine boutique speaker manufacturers? The $800-2000 range is very competitive.

We can all play the "it's just your opinion" or "ears of the beholder" card, but that's the equivalent of "winning" a debate with whatever. When we start to focus on INFORMED views, then we are getting somewhere. I'll wager a decent sum my near 20 year old Totems (a very small speaker) will more accurately and musically present bass than the 901s. Of course, you'll also get a great mid-range, a real soundstage and proper imaging.

 

Maypoles are a bit racy
Rember Wicker Man and Britt Eklands **** waggling sequence that Rod The Mod tried to supress....