The Bose 901: A trilogy in three parts...

Well, maybe there should be! It would make quite a fine name for a young man...or even a lass.

 

A friend of mine has a pair of these 901's and he put two coats of Elemer's Carpenter's wood glue on the paper cones and dust covers to reduce most of that paper cone sound peakiness in the midrange of the drivers.

These treated paper cones makes these 901's sound amazing now! I still can't believe it! I wonder why Bose didn't sell them this way.

 

I wonder why every manufacturer doesn't immediately implement every modification that hobbyists have done to their products...???

 

Good post!

 

Old Thread ALERT!

But, I just finished reading the whole thing, and I'm intrigued. I have always loved the looks, and concept of the 901. Those 8 rear firing drivers just turns me on! I even dig those groovy retro "George Jetson" stands! My reservations were always based on 3 issues. The first was the need for that EQ box. That just seems like such a turn off? Couldn't that need been resolved with better driver, and or cabinet design? Yuck. Next is the abundance on negative comments. The review, and some other comments in this thread have helped in this regard. The last issue is the other questionable stuff they push with extreme pricing. This is a trust issue.

All that said, Craigslist shows a local set for sale with the stands included, and in my preferred walnut veneer. These are the latest VI models, that look just like the ones pictured in the review. They are supposed to be in excellent shape, and are local for viewing before purchase. They want $450, and perhaps they with discount more? I'm so tempted to go look this morning! What say you?

 

Go for it!

 

Labor cost to add glue/water solution to 18 drivers per speaker pair, problems coating each cone with the same amount of the glue solution. That said, it's a good way to stiffen a paper cone for DIY projects where your labor is free. I did that to a Becker woofer that was installed in a large subwoofer enclosure my dad built me in the mid 80s.

 

Absolutely go for them! Series VI in excellent condition for $450 is a steal. Still, I would enquire about their age. Series VI goes way back to 1987, I believe, so they could be anything from new to twenty-six years old. And inspect the surrounds for rot. I have read that Series VI are immune, but I can't verify.

About the EQ: Just make sure you can accommodate. You need to have a tape-monitor / external processor loop, ideally. A simple tape input/output can be made to work, but you don't want to go there. Lacking a proper tape monitor loop, the next-best option is to put the EQ between pre and power sections. Not the most ideal, as their is a noise penalty at low levels. Some people won't mind and some will.

Ignore the naysayers! Even though the 901's may turn out to not be your cup of tea, you have little if anything to lose for $450. And if you like them, I think you'll like them a lot.

 

If they're foam surrounds and haven't been done, look at another 200 minimum if you have to pay someone competent to do all of them. Unless you can do it yourself...

Having said that, I like 'em!

 

Thanks for the review- and the thread- TONEPUB. It's nice to see Bose actually getting some nice words for a change. I just came upon this thread and enjoyed your unbiased, honest review, as well as most of the posts here. I have to say that the anti-bose sentiment has definitely gotten to me; they certainly deserve a bum rap for their misleading marketing these days and I understand why folks like us that love hi-fi would hate to see such questionable products not only succeed but actually represent an ideal to the uninformed. It's really nice to be reminded that bose started out w/ some solid research and quality products, even if they did end up transforming from a company devoted to craftsmanship into one devoted to marketing and the bottom line. Did they sell out or did they just follow the market forces? They do give people what they want and I think most are happy w/ the simplicity and their ignorant bliss that what they're hearing is good music reproduction. Until they hear the real thing, that is (and with open ears/mind).

But I have had many doubts about how ignorant I might be- seeing that I own a pair of Bose 10.2 II. I have often been embarrassed to tell people (or fill out profiles) what speakers I have, given the over-whelming anti-bose sentiments on audio forums. I have thought about upgrading, but I really enjoy my system- and that's what counts. But sometimes my head tells me that it could be a lot better and hampers my enjoyment. Of course, we all know it could always be better, but where to draw the line? I've searched out reviews of my 10.2's, but no luck. I wish I could get an open-minded review like the one you did. I'm just not sure if a nice set of shelvers all around wouldn't be a big improvement or if I'd need to spend considerably more (which I'm not willing to do) to get a significant upgrade. I'm still kicking myself for not getting 3 pairs of energy rc-10's when they could be had for $300/pair. At least I'd have more of a reference.

I like how you discussed the compromises between depth/size of soundstage and focused imaging. My mains have that "stereo targeting array"- one tweeter pointing straight ahead and another at 45 degrees. It also has something really odd- the mids actually face the middle of the room, firing right at the other speaker's mid. I know little about acoustics, but that would seem like a source for problems; but it sounds really good to my ears. I think I like the fuller sound and the less focused imaging doesn't bother me.

My main concern is actually my center, which I wanted to match my mains, so I got a bose- vc-100 I think- it's got 5 small drivers in a wide array. Audyssey had them crossed over at 100 hz but I raised that to 120- and I never notice any localization of bass. Again, it sounds really good- whether watching movies (which I generally run between -4.5 to -3.5 from reference) or cranking multi-channel powerhouses. But I've wondered if a better center wouldn't be a significant upgrade, even if mismatched- maybe Audyssey could help smooth that out. Anyone have any suggestions for a good, inexpensive center? I've been considering a BIC VK6 LCR, which on paper sounds great (and looks good in pix, w/ a nice piano black finish, FWIW): 2 6.5-inch kevlar woofers, 3-inch midrange, 1-inch liquid-cooled titanium tweeter. But selling for $129 (even if they are listed at $499), how good could the components be? This is another I can find no pro reviews on- and I don't trust amazon reviews...

Back on-topic: your review and the many positive posts here have renewed my confidence in my system. I've always enjoyed it, but now some nagging doubts have been assuaged. Now if I can just find a good, inexpensive center... That would be my next upgrade, but then what... once I get started...

 

I'll give you my idea of a killer 901-based surround rig: Three pairs running three EQ's. A front L/R pair, a rear L/R pair, and then a center, front/rear pair, with the front center possibly turned backwards to provide a tighter central image. Of course, a really large room would be needed, plus maybe some extra creativity when placing the front center. The EQ'ing of the center pair would be compromised by the totally different acoustics they would see, but that might be fixed with the receiver's dsp. ...But then again, I'm crazy.

...So, while I'm obsessing, let's go all the way! How about 6x200W or so, of amplification? And maybe a nice big front projection screen to provide big images to go with the big sound! (That would also allow more flexibility in placement of the center speaker.) And oh yes, I'd definitely suspend the back three 901's from the ceiling...possibly the front two or three, also. Whatever works best!

Wow, that was fun! Now excuse me while I go towell off.

 

I realize this is an old thread, but I applaud the effort in reviewing these speakers. I've never heard a pair of 901s, so I have no skin in this game, and I understand that Bose is in the business of selling plastic clock radios now, but to utterly dismiss a speaker that has sold so many units over so many decades is pretty silly. I've got to admit they've always looked cool to me, and if someone I knew invited me over to their place to hear a 901 based system I'd be thrilled they cared enough about music reproduction to invest in a pair. Are there better speakers out there? No doubt. But to immediately reject them is nonsense. I have to admit I'd love to audition a properly set up pair.

 

I remember a friend having a pair of 901's. He had the receiver, the spatial EQ, the whole Bose enchilada. That's the deal usually with 901 lovers. They say "Yeah, but did you hear them through a Bose system with the EQ"? Unfortunately, I did. My wife and I had spent a couple hours listening to music on his Acoustat 2+2's.
As we were getting ready to leave, my wife asked "What are those strange looking speakers"? She and I both worked in an audio store for years, but she had never heard the infamous 901's customers came in daily looking to buy. My friend Jerry said "Wanna hear em"? She said "Sure". He played her a few tunes and she looked at me and said "That's it"? with a puzzled look on her face. I replied "Yep......kind of a head scratcher, isn't it"? She said "They sound awful". I said "Yea, but just TRY to talk anyone hell bent on buying them out of it"
Tone Pub, why didn't you publish test results on the 901's? Frequency response, Impedance curve, step response, impulse tests, THD measurements?

 

He never does any lab or bench testing.

 

If they sounded "awful", something wasn't right in the system, set-up or expectations. I've never heard a pair, properly set-up that sounded less than very good. Then again, I can understand that if you are used to and/or expecting "monitor" sound, they could be a bit shocking to hear the first time.

If you want to see some test results, I'll share mine. I just moved the sectional in my music room six inches closer to the speakers and did a complete re-tweaking of the Bose EQ and my preamps tone control settings. (Yes, I'm a little O/C) First, a little bit of info: The speakers are on a short wall in a basement room that measures 16' x 18.5' x 8.67'. They are suspended 19" from the ceiling by chains. They are 16.5" from the wall behind them, and 38" from the sidewalls. The room has a concrete floor, of course. The carpet is thin office style, with no pad. Walls and ceiling are textured sheet rock. The system consists of a 200W/channel Adcom GFA5500 amp and a NAD C 165BEE preamp. The source was my NAD C 565BEE CD player. The test CD was the Stereophile Test CD II. I used the 20-20,ooo Hz warble test tones, measuring with my old analog Radio Shack spl meter. 0dB was 70dB @ 1000 Hz. First up, the reponse with the standard bass EQ, mid bass and mid treble controls set to flat, and preamp tones controls bypassed. Standard corrections for known LF deviations from accuracy of the RS meter are factored in from 125 Hz on down.

20Hz ---
25Hz +1dB
31.5 +8
40 +2
50 -6
63 +1.5
80 +2
100 +2.5
125 -.5
160 -2.5
200 -9
250 -11
315 -4.5
400 -4
500 0
630 -2
800 -4
1000 0
1250 -1
1600 -1
2000 -1
2500 -2.5
3150 -4
4000 -3.5
5000 -2.5
6300 -3.5
8000 -9.5
10000 -8
12500 -10
16000 ---

 

...That was where I started. The next list is where I ended up after much testing. For it, the alternate bass EQ was used, which inserts a 6dB cut at 35Hz. Also, the mid-bass was boosted 4dB and the mid treble boosted 6dB. The preamps 50Hz bass control was boosted 3dB, while the treble control was left flat.

20Hz ---
25 -7dB
31.5 +3
40 -1
50 -7.5 (room related)
63 +1.5
80 +3
100 +4
125 -.5
160 0
200 -6
250 -8
315 -2
400 -2
500 +2
630 -1
800 -3
1000 0
1250 0
1600 +1
2000 +1
2500 0
3150 0
4000 +1
5000 +3
6300 +3
8000 -1
10000 +1
12500 -1
16000 -12
20000 ---

This is the flattest measured response I've gotten, so far. It's a tough room. It sounds a little bright to me and the bass sounds a bit heavy, so when all the measuring is done, I will still season to taste. But I do like to start as neutral as possible and work from that.