TONEAudio Reviews the Bose 901 IV pt.1

steveinaz

I have always liked the 301 too. Neat little speaker, easy to listen too.

markmarc

Now that part thre is out I feel it's now appropriate to talk about my experience at ToneAudio studio. Jeff and I talked quite a bit about trial and error of finding the best position for the 901's. As mentioned in the review, he found the sound way too diffused using the recommended position near the corners both in his home and the studio. When I arrived they were in what one could describe as a semi near field position. They were being fed power via the 25wpc tube amp and Sooloos music server. The speakers were set on the stock stands with the 16 gauge wire. The stands are just too short unless one listens to the 901's while sitting on a bean bag. I found myself either low riding on the couch with my butt near the edge or leaning forward and down to hit the sweet spot.

First, the bass response was thunderous even in that big studio and respectfully detailed especially for $1400. The mid range where Bose focuses reproduction was neither sweet nor dry, just easy to listen to. What is missing is the top end, the shimmering of cymbals and air of flutes just didn't come out. Most vocals sounded like they were coming out from behind the bass notes, not surprising since all those mid drivers are rear facing. With jazz vocals it gave off the sense of being in a small night club.

The music that gave off the best impression is techno-pop. Yello's "Oh Yeah" made famous in Ferris Bueller and Secret of My Success Was wickedly fun to listen to. Every techno pop song we tried offered the same result. Just too bad that the Vangelis soundtrackto "Thief" wasn't on the Sooloos. If you had a two channel HT setup action movies would be a blast.

On the other hand, Chicago V (wood album), the horns were fat, flabby, and generally obnoxious. The 901's are a speaker that requires listening to in your own rig with attention paid to positioning. If you're just going to squeeze them into spare space between the couch and the bookcase go look for a white van and buy speakers.

steveinaz

Very good Mark, I agree with most of your observations. I always get a kick out of people who say 901's have no bass?!! Really? They've obviously never heard Bose 901's. 901's do best in rooms that most would consider "hard" rooms, because they depend on reflected energy, and you don't have to worry about treble getting bright.

heiney9

Not only do you NOT have to worry about them getting bright, you don't have to worry about any BOSE speaker extending much beyond about 11kHz and forget about air and decay, not even in the BOSE vocabulary.

I don't think BOSE speakers have ever sounded what I would catagorize as "good".

But that's just my opinion. The things I like to hear in my recordings are completely absent in a BOSE speaker, so they will never be for me. That's the great thing about it, there's lots and lots of choices out there.

H9

steveinaz

They're not for everyone---nor is any one speaker for that matter.

heiney9

steveinaz wrote: »

They're not for everyone---nor is any one speaker for that matter.

True dat!

sucks2beme

Just like jbl l100's.
Flawed. Some things work really well, other things fall flat.
70's rock shine. Fun speaker, but not HiFi.
Trouble is, Bose stuck with the same old sound after 40+ years.

newrival

heiney9 wrote: »

I admit to not being a "vintage" type of gear guy.

I'd say your Polks are quite "vintage"

SolidSqual

sucks2beme wrote: »

Trouble is, Bose stuck with the same old sound after 40+ years.

With the success Bose continues to have with this same old sound, I don't see how you can fault them for keeping it. You're basically faulting them for continuing to make speakers people like. Why should Bose be required to pursue audiophile sound? There are already enough manufacturers who attempt and fail. Why not do what you are good at?

sucks2beme

Ok. Bose- the Jerry Quarry of the speaker world

SolidSqual

Crap now I have to go Google, Jerry Quarry. Hang on, I'll be back with a snappy comeback.

mhardy6647

sucks2beme wrote: »

Just like jbl l100's.
Flawed. Some things work really well, other things fall flat.
70's rock shine. Fun speaker, but not HiFi.
Trouble is, Bose stuck with the same old sound after 40+ years.

I cannot think of two more different sounding loudspeakers than the Bose 901 and the L-100.
OK, actually I can... but they're both pretty different kettles of fish. Note that only one of them is still in production.

The Klipschorn has been in more-or-less continuous production since 1946.
The Altec (604) Duplex driver has been in more-or-less continuous production (now made by Great Plains Audio) since 1943... since 1948 or so in "permanent magnet" version.

The JBL L-100 was deliberately designed to ape the performance of the Altec Duplex as a studio monitor.

How's that for a tangled web? :-)

heiney9

SolidSqual wrote: »

With the success Bose continues to have with this same old sound, I don't see how you can fault them for keeping it. You're basically faulting them for continuing to make speakers people like. Why should Bose be required to pursue audiophile sound? There are already enough manufacturers who attempt and fail. Why not do what you are good at?

The marketing department tells people to like BOSE. In my experience most people who have never heard a decent rig choose BOSE by default. When they hear a better rig they usually move up. I know this is not the case with everyone, but for most of the people I know that have heard something other than BOSE they realize what they are missing.

BOSE has the super slick marketing as well as WAF factor going for it. Nothing wrong with that if you just want tunes in the background and your system to be invisible. But they aren't hi-fi and anyone who tries to convince they are is just trying to either make a buck or cover up the embarrassment of spending thousands on a system that reproduces boom-box type sound. 901's excepted.

H9

sucks2beme

Jerry Quarry- favorite punching bag of 70's heavyweight champions.
Ok, you weren't around in the 70's to listen to the Bose sound then?:cheesygrin:

The JBL monitor speakers have changed and improved somewhat over the years.
They did lose their spot doing double duty in homes. There were just too many
better choices. One of my favorite early 80's speakers, the Snell type "e" still lives
as a tweaked speaker, the Audionote AN-E

Joe08867

The problem with comparing Bose to others is Bose has a store. You won't hear a side by side with say Lsi9's and Bose whatevers in person. If you did you would hear a dramatic difference.

I think Brock hit it on the head. There marketing is top notch and has been for many years. The WAF is off the chart. Why do you think everyone makes a micro bookie now. Do you think the Polk Blackstone was built for audio first or WAF first? Bose just happened to do this before most companies. So I can't fault them for there ideas I just don't like there idea of music clarity. I prefer to actually hear Cymbals and high notes in my music.

steveinaz

Marketing doesn't mean anything, if people don't buy. That's a flawed argument. Especially with a product that has been around for over 3 decades.

Brock, really? I must fall into the category of "hiding my embarassment" for 13 consecutive years. A little subjectivity would go a long way. And, BTW any speaker that doesn't cover the full 20-20kHz spectrum specification is, by definition NOT hi-fi.

I get it, you don't like the 901---does that mean we hurl discredit at those who do?

heiney9

Steve, I never said 20-20 was prerequisite. My comment (about being embarassed) was not directed at the 901 specifically but BOSE in general with the over-priced "Lifestyles" type system vs. what you can buy for the 1/2 the cost that sounds better. I am not trying to discredit anyone. I honestly don't understand how you can go goo-goo-ga-ga over the Carbons and Harbeth and then still staunchly defend how good the 901's sound. The chasm between them is about as large as the Grand Canyon in my estimation since I've not heard the Carbons or the Harbeths.

H9

sucks2beme

The 901's can't be found at Bose outlets any more. Or any brick and mortar store
That I can locate. This thread is all about 901's, not the new age mini crap.
So the issue is, is it a good buy? At $1400 there's a lot of good speakers, but
none of them are without flaws. But a quick check of crutchfiled shows in the same price range:
PSB Image T6
PSB Alpha T1
Energy Veritas v-6.3

For a bit more
Polk RTi A9

All with free shipping.
Is Bose equal to these? Better? Worse?
I can't tell you from what I remember, nor is it likely I will find
a set cheap enough for me to do a head to head.

steveinaz

Being a "thinking-outside-of-the-box" design, you definitely need to audition them first. Like I said, they're not for everyone.

With speaker selection, "which is best" would elicit such subjectivity--you'd be spinning your wheels out of the gate. I would say that if you have a larger room, plenty of power, a system that would allow connecting the eq via tape loop or processor loop (NOT between the pre and amp); and prefer mellow treble at the expense of suffering from "sameness" syndrome---the 901 might blow your skirt up.

If you're an intense listener who digs maximum atriculation, subtle detail, ect--I'd look for something else.

steveinaz

heiney9 wrote: »

I honestly don't understand how you can go goo-goo-ga-ga over the Carbons and Harbeth and then still staunchly defend how good the 901's sound. The chasm between them is about as large as the Grand Canyon in my estimation since I've not heard the Carbons or the Harbeths. H9

The reason you don't understand it, is because you didn't OWN 901's, AND the "chasm" between them and Fritz/Harbeth is not nearly as large as you presume. Smooth laid-back treble, plentiful midrange, mid/upper 30's in bass---sounds like they share more in common than they differ, no? I'm not as "enchanted" with the 901 as you make me out to be-but IMO they don't "suck" nor do they sound like a boombox.

One is a 70's muscle car, warts and all---the other 2 are refined luxury automobiles. They all can go fast, but the emotion behind the wheel is different.

I refuse to jump on a bandwagon that simply goes against my own personal experience--sorry to disappoint you.

heiney9

steveinaz wrote: »

If you're an intense listener who digs maximum atriculation, subtle detail, ect--I'd look for something else.

Me to a "T", hence my opinion of the 901's. Again, it's my OPINION and I feel I am entirely entitled to it as much as anyone else. As far as the boombox sound and embarassment comment, that was not meant to be directed at the 901's (hence my disclaimer in said post; "901's excepted") but at the all-in-one Lifestyles systems that sell for several thousands. I realize making that comment in a "BOSE 901" thread people would assume I was directing it towards the 901's specifically. My bad for not being more clear about what I was commenting on.

It has been a while since I heard 901's, but they never impressed me as having good treble, air, extension, creamy, silky midrange nor tight, deep articulate bass. All the things I look for in a speaker.

That will be my last comment as it's a personal thing and if 901's float your boat, enjoy.

H9

ALL212

I ran 901's with a Sansui G-9700 for a number of years. That combination ended up in a church and then was taken down later. If you're going to run 901's make sure you get the equalizer - it's the heart of all that marketing - the speakers alone will sound like crap. If you put enough power into them (the G-9700 is rated at 200w/channel) and then give them the space they need - blank wall, probably 15 feet or more across- you'll have a decent system. You also have to get them off the floor - the stands they sold with them are very good quality, very heavy. It will blow the doors out of an apartment and truly piss the neighbors off. The bass ports can knock empty beer cans over 5 feet away (tested and true).

It's a 1980's speaker. Put up against something from this century it will not stand up but for its age and combined with the equalizer it can be a decent listen.

Thank god that's his last comment - went a bit off thread, eh??? :rolleyes:

sucks2beme

My JBL L100's are off to consignment. 901's? Different, certainly not better. And the JBL's were
a lot easier to place and drive. I don't know that I'd ever have a proper space to run 901's.
As I stated before, the Snell type E's were better than both. I can think of too many other speakers
that can be had a a reasonable price that would be better. Other than someone reliving their youthful
dreams, I don't see why 901's would ever be an option. L100's fall into the same fold.

naturallight

Wow, a real NEW, Bose 901 review. I didn't even think they still made them. But according to there website, they do. Still for the same price too...LOL

I have heard these over the years, some bars had them. I think a few stores used to sell them, Circuit City used to sell them at one time. I'm not sure my recollection of them is 100% right, or what models they were.

They will get loud,if you have enough power to push them. They will give you bass, altho it was not well defined at all. But this may have been a selling point back in the day. To get such loud volume and bass out of that size speaker.

To say the high end is laid back on them, would be an understatement. From what i recall, if you turn up the treble on the EQ box, they just become pretty much nasty to listen to. When they were for sale in any music listening room, and there was any decent type speaker in there from Klipsh or anybody else, at probably 1/2 the price, they could never sell the 901's. Which is probably why Bose took them out of the chain stores.



Now granted, i'm sure they were not placed well, may not have had good power..whatever. Now maybe the newest model (6) i guess, MAYBE they have corrected some of these issues. Not sure really how they could, but would be interesting to hear the new set. Now why anybody would still spend $1400 on a set of these today. That i don't understand. From what i have heard out of these speakers,(older model 901's) a 1987 set of SDA 1C's will lay waste to them pretty much in any Frequency range. It's pretty much night and day difference. But again, i will bow to the fact I have not heard the newest 901. But there has to be a LOT more smoke and mirror stuff going on here to make them even close to the SDA's.

naturallight

You know what..since this review came up..I'm kind of interested in hearing a set of model 6 901's...LOL

Not that i would change out my SDA's for them..LOL But would like to hear them again.

I looked on ebay..there are a ton of these for sale..what there worth is about 300-350 max, with the EQ box and the stands..nothing more. Nobody is buying them..but i figure i could get a pair in good working condition for that price.



What they really are is "wife" friendly..they don't take up much room, or look like, 2 tons of speakers...LOL

To drag up a set of RTi 12's..stick them in the living room....there massive speakers. The back end also has to stick a foot off the back wall to make them work....which has them sticking way out in the living room. There just really big, really heavy speakers.....the 901's on the other hand are pretty small...don't stick out.



My wife on the other hand could not tell the difference between the bose, and the RTi12's or the SDA's...if it gets loud, and has bass..she can play her music...well that works...LMAO



I can see why there wife friendly....there small, don't wreck her living room. The 12's would destroy them for sound quality...but be MASSIVE pieces in the living room.. the wife would be nuts about the size ..again the wife would not know the sound quality difference anyway.



May be something i would look into...to me there not worth more then $350..but if it gives her some music in the living room, and i don't have to drag up the 12's...which she would hate (just because of the size)in the first place...works for me..LOL