TONEAudio Reviews the Bose 901 IV pt.1

heiney9

I admit to not being a "vintage" type of gear guy. I enjoyed my journey from past to present, but I have no desire, aside from nostalgia, to go backwards in my audio journey. I have no desire to revist what I had in middle school or high school. For me it's a moot point.

H9

steveinaz

heiney9 wrote: »

Cerwin Vega's do that too.............doesn't mean it sounds good or like it should

I've past my adolescent early teen's, 901's should stay in the past, where they belong.

H9

Are you after ultimate fidelity or satisfaction? Which aspect has higher priority for you?

heiney9

Ultimate fidelity is my satisfaction. Bose 901's don't provide me with satisfactory output.

The Rambler was a popular car in it's day. I doubt many of us would go out an buy one and get the same driving satisfaction compared to a new car.

H9

TitaniumMan

I'd like to say something that's just too darn obvious. Proper setup of any speaker system is important. There's nothing worse than listening to some fine speakers that have been planted against the side wall. Rear-ported speakers positioned against the wall behind them? A fate worse than death. Yet very few people, except for the most devoted audiophile, will give up the floor space for properly placed speakers from any brand.

Maggie and other planar owners understand just how much placement affects their speakers. I'm sure I'm not the only enthusiast who has been asked, "Why are your speakers in the middle of the room?"

heiney9

I'm finding it hard to believe I have to defend my dislike of Bose products here. My how the times have changed.

I say you give up your Harbeth's Steve, and persue satisfaction with a pair of 901's rather than ultimate fidelity. It seems you are trying to make a point that satisfaction should be the goal not ultimate fidelity.

H9

SolidSqual

heiney9 wrote: »

I'm finding it hard to believe I have to defend my dislike of Bose products here. My how the times have changed.

I say you give up your Harbeth's Steve, and persue satisfaction with a pair of 901's rather than ultimate fidelity. It seems you are trying to make a point that satisfaction should be the goal not ultimate fidelity.

H9

Damn right satisfaction should be the goal! Why spend so much money on high fidelity if it doesn't make you happy? I think you are pointing to an issue which affects so many audiophiles. The issue of course is the ability to balance the pursuit of high end sound with the ability to be content with what you have.

heiney9

I get satisfaction from ultimate fidelity. Bose doesn't even come close to ultimate fidelity. And the comparison to Harley Davidson is ludicris, IMO. I don't even ride so it's not like I am a Harley Davidson fan.

I will never agree that Bose is nothing more than an over-hyped, way over priced pile of firewood. The 901's being the possible exception, but still far from high fidelity.

H9

steveinaz

No need to defend your position, I'm just saying not everyone is into the nth degree of fidelity. No, you couldn't give me 20 pairs of 901's to replace my Harbeths. Just as I'm sure that there are people who think I'm nuts owning a bookshelf speaker that only goes to 46Hz in the low end, at $3650/pr., and would probably send me a laundry list of towers that perform "much better", well, at least on paper.

Perception is everything. There is what we are "suppose to like" as audiophiles; and what we genuinely like, as listeners...sometimes the 2 gel, sometimes they don't.

heiney9

I get ya Steve, just throwing it out there for discussion. I just am used to most of the posters here to be way beyond the Bose stage in this hobby, most are but I'm sure some aren't. I just have no desire to revisit most of my past audio experiences. I've progressed far beyond what I once thought was good.

If you isolate the 901's in the context of what they were when they were introduced, I'm sure they were groundbreaking. Now, not so much, if at all.

H9

Serendipity

steveinaz wrote: »

It can also be viable choice for people hyper-sensitive to treble, or just can't seem to sort their system out because of digital glare.

Absolutely. For those who, for example, can't stand being in a night club or environment with loud music for more than a few minutes, the 901's absolutely remove digital glare. Gets rid of the headaches and throbbing pain typically experienced with high-end speakers played for extended periods of time.

Again, this is a speaker you have to hear setup properly without any pre-conceived bias, etc.

rebuy

All you have presented valid arguments. While the goal is probably "ultimate fidelity", some will find a synergy to their own way of hearing and what their stereo is playing and they will reach a point of "satisfaction". That's why all equipment going into some guys system is different than yours. Some are in heaven with a pro amp, they are completely satisfied, you would not be.

markmarc

The second installment is now available, just scroll down until you see Part Two.
http://www.tonepublications.com/review/we-review-the-bose-901/

steveinaz

Someone else does "get it" I appreciate the reviewers honesty. Dead-bang on.

mhardy6647

OK. I am baffled. Why the fug did the reviewer choose to power a pair of notoriously power-hungry loudspeakers (which includes the use of significant LF boost via the dedicated EQ) with an entry-level (i.e., bottom of the line) Pioneer SX-424? Now, the SX-424 is a cute and fairly well-made little receiver, but it is mediocre sounding at best (yes, even for its day) and it's rated - in pre 1974 FTC regulation terms, at 12 watts per channel (at 1kHz and 1% THD) into 8 ohms. Now, I am a flea power kind of guy - but 12 wpc (probably more like 10 wpc @20-20k) is not exactly a perfect match for the 901s.

Interested parties may download a moderate-quality scan of the SX-424's sales brochure at
http://www.kallhovde.com/pioneer/sx-424-b.pdf

I am also tempted to quibble with the match of a high-compliance Gradio in the medium mass arm of an SL-1200... but 1) folks do put Grados in the Technics arms and 2) at least it is a nice, lush sounding cartridge that should play to the 901's strengths.

steveinaz

He states later that they will be powered with a Pass labs amp as well. My only quibble is deciding to place them 5 feet into the room...huh? This is not a near-field mini-monitor; 901's need to be much closer to the back wall. His observations so far, are very close to my own, after 13yrs of ownership. I can already sense thousands of 901 owners slowly peeking out of the closet....LOL.

It's like anything do with speakers; ignore the parrots and go give them a listen--then decide for yourself.

Joe08867

I actually like that he used an entry level Receiver with the 901's. Considering most people that buy equipment like this from Bose would probably not by separate amp (Consider how many time you have read you need a separate amp on this forum alone) so to me the Pioneer receiver is a good testbed.

I would have maybe gone for something with a bit more juice but any speaker that is worth anything in my book needs to be able to run on flea power. I am sick of needing 1k watts just to wake up my speakers.

And the Tube integrated he used is a nice sounding piece. 35wpc all tube isn't anything to sneeze at.

Drenis

I agree this review is spot on from what I remember of the 901's. I do miss the house sound of Bose at times because I always enjoyed it for the 10+ years I had Bose in my setup.

Steve - You ever listen to the 901's reversed? As in the 8 drivers facing the front?

Looking forward to part 3.

mhardy6647

steveinaz wrote: »

He states later that they will be powered with a Pass labs amp as well. My only quibble is deciding to place them 5 feet into the room...huh? This is not a near-field mini-monitor; 901's need to be much closer to the back wall. His observations so far, are very close to my own, after 13yrs of ownership. I can already sense thousands of 901 owners slowly peeking out of the closet....LOL.

It's like anything do with speakers; ignore the parrots and go give them a listen--then decide for yourself.

Yeah but... something in between would've been nice. Maybe a Yamaha CA-1010 integrated amp would be a more rational but stilll "period authentic" choice. I mean, folks did not use an SX-424 to run a pair of, e.g., Dahlquist DQ-10 or Magnepans back in those halcyon days. I'm an old guy; trust me on this ;-)

In fairness to the reviewer, he's pretty explicit about his rationale for room choice (and his beef vis-a-vis the traditional placement for 901s).

Joe08867 wrote: »

I actually like that he used an entry level Receiver with the 901's. Considering most people that buy equipment like this from Bose would probably not by separate amp (Consider how many time you have read you need a separate amp on this forum alone) so to me the Pioneer receiver is a good testbed.

I would have maybe gone for something with a bit more juice but any speaker that is worth anything in my book needs to be able to run on flea power. I am sick of needing 1k watts just to wake up my speakers.

And the Tube integrated he used is a nice sounding piece. 35wpc all tube isn't anything to sneeze at.

Even something like a Pioneer SX-850 would've been a more "authentic" choice, though.

(Needless to say!) I don't disagree about your speaker comment in principle... but in practice modern design fashion tends towards quite insensitive speakers with complex passive crossovers (and often low load impedance), so the big juice to drive 'em kind of comes with the territory. The 901s are intrinsically insensitive, and the LF boost required to flatten LF response via the passive EQ means that considerable amplifier grunt is going to be required to play at "concert" levels in even a modest room. It's that old "laws o' physics" thing.

steveinaz

Drenis wrote: »

Steve - You ever listen to the 901's reversed? As in the 8 drivers facing the front?

No, never tried them that way.

sucks2beme

why a period proper piece?????
These are new speakers. Not an old Bose series.
Even back in the day, we were running 70+ watts with receivers
or integrateds.
How about a 100 watt Rotel or at least a 50 wpc NAD integrated?
That would be a more likely match.

steveinaz

Exactly my sentiments---this is a current year model, don't know why the want to pair it with "vintage" electronics. Would they do that with Vandersteens?

mhardy6647

sucks2beme wrote: »

why a period proper piece?????
These are new speakers. Not an old Bose series.
Even back in the day, we were running 70+ watts with receivers
or integrateds.
How about a 100 watt Rotel or at least a 50 wpc NAD integrated?
That would be a more likely match.

I agree 100% (possibly even more than 100%...).
"Why a period proper piece?" Beats me. You'd have to ask the TONE Audio jasper why he chose to do that.
Your suggestions sound completely appropriate to me.
An SX-424? Not so much.
... and that was my point.

If one's gonna go vintage with such loudspeakers... there are far more appropriate choices (including, yes, a vintage NAD or Rotel).

sucks2beme

I was thinking about an appropriate MODERN piece.
Most people buying new 901's would pair it with new electronics.
Anyone shopping used would find a lot of cheaper speakers than the
BOSE. Used bose are either cheap because they are clapped out with no eq,
or $400-600, and too many other speakers on craigslist for less money that
sound better. Most likely- they'd use a HT receiver or an Insignia or Sherwood
2 channel receicer from best buy. Anyone shopping for Rotel or NAD most likely
wouldn't be looking at Bose. The best thing I guess is to go web hopping and see
how people are using them. The Bose outlets around here no longer have the
901's on display. My guess is the classic 901 isn't going to be around much longer.

mhardy6647

It's only fair to evaluate them with good - and budget-appropriate - electronics (modern or vintage), I'd opine.
The 901s today are not phenomenally expensive. I think the Court of Public Opinion finds in favor of a current NAD, Rotel, Marantz, Yamaha, or Cambridge Audio stereo integrated amplifier (or something along those lines).

markmarc

mhardy6647 wrote: »

OK. I am baffled. Why the fug did the reviewer choose to power a pair of notoriously power-hungry loudspeakers (which includes the use of significant LF boost via the dedicated EQ) with an entry-level (i.e., bottom of the line) Pioneer SX-424? Now, the SX-424 is a cute and fairly well-made little receiver, but it is mediocre sounding at best (yes, even for its day) and it's rated - in pre 1974 FTC regulation terms, at 12 watts per channel (at 1kHz and 1% THD) into 8 ohms. Now, I am a flea power kind of guy - but 12 wpc (probably more like 10 wpc @20-20k) is not exactly a perfect match for the 901s.

Interested parties may download a moderate-quality scan of the SX-424's sales brochure at
http://www.kallhovde.com/pioneer/sx-424-b.pdf

I am also tempted to quibble with the match of a high-compliance Gradio in the medium mass arm of an SL-1200... but 1) folks do put Grados in the Technics arms and 2) at least it is a nice, lush sounding cartridge that should play to the 901's strengths.

I was at Tone Studio on Saturday afternoon and got to listen to the 901's. I won't go into specifics until part 3 comes out later this week. I will say that the VI are NOT the power hungry monsters of earlier itinerations.

As for the Grado on the SL-1200, contact Jeff directly or via the Steve Hoffman forum, he goes by TonePub.

mhardy6647

markmarc wrote: »

I was at Tone Studio on Saturday afternoon and got to listen to the 901's. I won't go into specifics until part 3 comes out later this week. I will say that the VI are NOT the power hungry monsters of earlier itinerations.

... ahh, now that's interesting. That must mean that the EQ curve is very different than earlier iterations of the 901. Wonder how they boosted the LF sensitivity of the 4"drivers in the enclosure to permit that?

As for the Grado on the SL-1200, contact Jeff directly or via the Steve Hoffman forum, he goes by TonePub.

Not necessary. Folks do put Grados on such arms. Not a perfect match, but serviceable... and, again, what Grados do right should complement the 901 nicely.

markmarc

Part three, "epilogue" is now available.
http://www.tonepublications.com/review/we-review-the-bose-901/

mhardy6647

The time is right for a Bose 901/Polk Audio Model Nine shoot-out.

steveinaz

Amazing when you ignore the negative hype and actually take a listen. Are the awesome? hell no, just another choice that might interest certain listeners. Being an "off the beaten path" approach, much like SDA technology--there's going to be people who like it, or don't care for it. Personally, I've never been a fan of SDA, but that doesn't make it a bad speaker. When it comes to speakers, stop listening to people, and go listen for yourself...

mhardy6647

The classic Bose designs had a tendency to "get the midrange right" which I certainly appreciate and admire.
FWIW, I still maintain that the early versions of the 301 was their overall best loudspeaker design from that standpoint.
I actually had a pair of dump-find 201s a while back (since given away) that surprised me with the quality of their midrange reproduction.




I also gave their new owner this - seemed somehow fitting...