The Ohm Walsh, Bose 901 and other multidirectional speakers

I did some tweaks to my new Bose 901's that made them MUCH BETTER !!

I took off the front and back grills off my 901's because they just COLORED the SOUND TOO MUCH. :thumbsdn:

With the grills OFF these speakers sound cleaner and much more open and more realistic too.

Another tweak I done on these speakers was putting some self-adhesive foam insulation around the front speaker driver. Everything now sounds SOOO SPOOKY REAL now !!

These speakers don't sound anything like they used to sound, it's a night and day difference !! I think these 901's would get a lot more love if they heard how good these speakers can really sound like this !!

I now love these speakers with most of the speaker drivers facing the front wall now.

 

[MOD: Personal attack against fellow member deleted, as per forum rules.]

 

My bad.. should have just ignored the post. Apologies to forum (only).

 

A multi derectional speaker I havnt seen in this thread are the Sonab speakers designed by Prof Carson. I hads both the OD11 and OA116"S.Thjey were awsome speakers,with fantastic imagine. Only problem was the tweaters used to blow periodically. Anybody else heard these?

 

Jeff, when you get your 901's listen to them with the grills on for a few days and then take OFF the front and back grills and put some self-adhesive foam around the front speaker driver. I used some of the foam that Bose had inside the back grills to go around my front speaker driver.

The back grills are pretty easy to take off but for the front grills you need a hammer and a nail to remove the two staples on each side. If you hit the nail at a 45 degree angle on the staple the staple comes out pretty easy.

I think your going to be shocked at the difference these tweaks make !..

 

I've heard direct/reflecting speakers in audio showrooms mostly. I was always struck by bass/lower midrange confusion in the sound of the Bose 901's. I recall hearing the PA version, where most of the speakers faced the audience, found that better. I remember being blown away by a demo of the Ohm Walsh F speakers, coupled to a Phase Linear mega-amp, back when they made the amplification monsters of the day. However, I also knew that the image was much bigger than life. So far, it's the dipole speakers that seem to image the best of that batch, or at least seem to have fewer audible problems than box designs.

But, since messing with some Magnapan mid/bass panels from some SMGs, I'm wondering if these sorts of speaker arrays would work better if their radiation pattern were more purposely designed. I have a thread here:

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=269395&highlight=speaker+experiment

I find out that the tweeter panels of my SMGs are blown. That means that there's little above 2k that bounces off the walls. Meanwhile, the ADS L400e's have the usual cardioid lobe. I don't know of any planar/mini-monitor combo, but I'd posit that such a system, properly realized, offers the best potential for realistic imaging.

 

Yep. IMO, friends, you can't really talk about 901's without mentioning the Series. They are different animals. I think everything from the Series III, and especially from the IV on, are honky and nasal and I don't think I could ever live with them (have not heard the most recent version).

Now, the Series I and especially the Series II, sounded great. Pretty well-made to boot. Rugged drivers and real wood cabs. Imaging was beautiful and very spacious - the sound did not seem to come from the pentagonal "boxes." Yes, they were power hogs due to the 6db bass boost, but tonally they were extraordinary. Bass was incredible and when I had my Series II, many said they had never heard anything that good. I only sold them when I moved and had too little space in my listening room.

Starting with the Series III, the speakers were "cheapened" and with the IV's became junk, with inferior components and hollow sound. Cost reduction and profits for Bose became more important than sound quality it seems to me. Bose has never recaptured that original sound.

 

I don't recall hearing 901's, pre Series III's, so I can't comment on them. I only heard store demos of Series III's, but thought they were most impressive. I bought Series IV's but soon moved to a house with no good place to set them up, but in the time I had them I did come to think they had a definite chesty coloration. Overall though, I still dug them. FFW to today. I've had my Series VI's for two years. Very neutral, ocatave to ocatave, w/ no objectionable frequency response abberations. Still, not the smoothest thing out there, but not significantly more or less so than most good speakers, in-room.

As for relative quality of series iterations, especially pre Series III compared to latter, I can't really say much other than what I've read. True, pre III's were all wood, whereas III+ series, including the current VI's are actually a molded polymer with a composite wood shell. I do believe going to the plastic construction allowed for a much more precise and complex vented enclosure, which is largely responsible for the big increase in sensitivity.

I don't know off-hand what changes have been wrought in driver design and construction over the years. Perhaps they are more cheaply made than they used to be. If so, it could be due to nothing more than economies of scale and cheaper non-US based manufacture. The drivers are still rather unique in terms of their impedence and construction. ( I believe they use helical voice coils - supposedly a good thing.) I see no virtue in costly over-build. Good enough is good enough.

Whatever. They are what they are. Either you like them or you don't. I love mine, but many audiophiles just don't care for that lively, immersive sound. Many just prefer the sound of monitor-type loudspeakers or the more subdued soundfield of a dipole or bipole. Who's to say what is "right"? That would necessarily change from recording to recording, depending on the venue, and the instumentation and set-up, mics, etc.

 

To perhaps better assist the op, my take on the sound of the Bose 901 is this, in a nutshell:

Big, expansive, lifelike imaging. If you're looking for "pinpoint" imaging, look elsewhere!

Fantastic bass! Warm, deep and solid. Some of the most impressive I've heard. Accurate? I can't say it's more or less accurate than a gaggle of big floorstanders or subs, but subjectively speaking, it's killer!

Good, clean mids, but not distinct at lower levels. The louder you get, the better they sound.

Highs are good, but not the last word in sparkle and air. Most adult males can't hear 20kHz anyway, and if you can, you won't for long.

Set-up is critical! Ya gotta have the proper EQ unit for the series of 901 u r using. Ya gotta have a good way to insert the EQ into the signal path, ideally ahead of, not behind, the volume. A tape monitor or ext. signal processor loop is ideal.

Thoe more power you can supply, the better!

In-room set up is equally critical. Just follow Bose' guidelines and you won't go wrong: 8-18" from front wall; 18-48" from sidewalls and 18-36" from floor or ceiling. It's also important to keep other reflective or absorptive surfaces at least 24" from the speakers. But don't worry; it sounds more difficult than it is! And the rewards are worth the effort.

 

I have my 901's about 9 and a half inches from the front wall and about 22 inches from the sidewalls and about 22 inches from anything between my 901's. I have my 50" Plasma HDTV between my 901's . My plasma HDTV is about 25 inches out from the front wall too.

These tweaked out 901's sound AMAZING !!
A MUST TRY TWEAK FOR ALL 901 SPEAKERS!!

 

I also now have my 901's about 2 ft. off the floor.

 

Can we get a photo of your set-up? All of these tweaks are getting complicated. My current speakers simply sit on the stands recommended by the manufacturer (dry sand loaded Target), but I'll be looking to upgrade in a year or so.

 

Omnidirectional?

Here ya go:





Doug

 

First, here is an Ebay page that is good http://www.ebay.com/gds/Bose-901-Speakers-A-primer-/10000000001314034/g.html
Having had Altec Lansings and JBLs, I then heard 901 series l, Bette Midler vinyl sounded real to me, not in your face, loudspeaker-ish. Upon getting out of Army, ordered the Super Bose system.
Four series ll 901's and Bose 1801 power amp 250 w/ch 8ohms 400 into 4 ohms. 901's wired in parallel for 4 ohm load. Had Marantz 3300 pre-amp, then eventually Phase Linear 4000 Autocorrelation pre-amp. Had custom wood pedestals 30" tall with 901's stacked, kicked butt. Then things new were happening, Bose spatial receiver and series lll speakers. Ported 901's with third speaker terminal. First bought 901's (one pair) took stacked 901's off pedestal and placed series lll there, that one pair, bigger bass, better sound and efficient too, like day and night. Then sold super Bose, bought Spatial receiver. Had "wide"-"narrow" slider that with the receivers 4 amplifiers would move sound outward or inward on back of 901's. More or less power to each panel on "V", did not affect front driver of course. Do not have this anymore, did go to series lV. I now have had series Vl for 23 years. Going to refresh, 901 trade-in ($600.00) Still series Vl, Bose has done improvements all along, but nothing to yet warrant a series Vll label. Oh yeah, paper drivers, plastic baskets, plastic tuned enclosure, there are good reasons for all of this already explained by Tony3D and page 2 of this thread. Recently listened to B&W 802's $8,000 each, too much in your face info, then Mcintosh $10,000 each, more spatial, better to me (me 901?) Plan on buying Mcintosh MA8000 and MT-5 turntable (16,500), its not about the money, it is about what I like. Listening at my computer right now to two pairs of new Bose 301's stacked on 301 pedestals.

I have looking at blogs as of late, and the "normal" arguments/disagreements seem to have gotten more vehement over the last 40 years (I am 63) did go through 4 /channel phase in early 70's also.
I think more vehement because of some exotic prices on so called exotic gear that have been paid by some, some gear is way over priced... period. Don't get me going on $3000 speaker cable ...

 

I'll chime in with my Dalquist DQ-10's dipoled speakers. I have them now as back channel speakers and I listen to music in 5.1 as the soundstage is huge and very enjoyable. It was a chore to get the balance right. The music seems to spread equally outside of the room at the same dimension now.

 

I am currently running a pair of Larsen Model 4's in an (otherwise) all-Naim system. The design is based on work Stig Carlsson did for Sonab years ago; kind of a hemispherical/omni sort of presentation. They work a treat, allowing me to listen from almost anywhere in my loft and feel connected to the music. Speaker placement is right up against the wall, and somehow disperses the sound up and into the room, giving a very "live music" sort of presentation. One of the best speaker systems I've ever heard, let alone owned.

 

I will choose the Ohm Walsh's over any Bose speakers anytime ...

 

here you go

http://www.bubblews.com/posts/bose-901-series-vi-version-2-speaker-system-amar-s-swan-song

 

I used to like those Dalhquist speakers in the late 80's but have never gotten around to get a pair. IIRC, Saul Marantz was somehow involved in the design ...