Just heard some Bose 901's!

K_M

I get about the Bose bashing and all, but have not heard these in several years!
We walked into a friends house, long story how we know them, but alas, they had a set in the living room, set up on stands!

Did not get to do a lot of actual serious listening, but maybe 15 minutes alone with some music I was not familiar with at all.
They were playing on a vintage Pioneer Receiver, from maybe the early 80's. They had the small eq box going as well.
They were about 8 feet apart, about a foot or so from the back wall, and the side walls were 8-9 feet away, so not even close to a corner really.

The good:
The were able to play loud and not sound strained.
When playing loud, it was like a wall of sound, not annoying or loud just up close, but it filled the room with music.
They seemed very coherent and relatively even sounding and smooth.
They were very easy to listen to!

The bad:
sound came from a wide big area, never any precise point.
The bass was nothing special really.
After just hearing our Lsi15 with sub, the 901's seemed lacking in detail and precise sound.


Not nearly as bad as I was thinking, in fact far far better. Very smooth and integrated sounding and quite listenable, but kept feeling I was missing detail and little sounds in the treble range.
IN some ways more listenable than our Lsi15, but not nearly as analytical or clear or as pinpoint of an image at all.

I think I came away impressed, and can see why they have fans. Its a unique sound, not for everyone, but it does some things really right, but I miss the clarity.

mantis

I like Bose speakers. I think they fill a need in the industry. I think people bash them for no reason. They are not for everyone but the people who own them , love them.

K_M

mantis wrote: »

I like Bose speakers. I think they fill a need in the industry. I think people bash them for no reason. They are not for everyone but the people who own them , love them.

I do not think I could ever honestly own them, but after hearing the ones they own (along with a few other bose speakers, I did not mention) went away thinking maybe they get a bad rap somewhat unfairly.

They were not nearly as bad as described, and in fact before I saw what they were, I was thinking "Ooh his stereo sounds great!" ....

We own regular and SDA polk speakers, but the sound the 901's made was not similar to either, but I hate to say, maybe better in some regards, as far as to hearing something that is simply an expanse of music across a wall.

They simply created this huge encompassing wall of sound that while not precise nor with the SDA type effect, somehow just seemed more natural.

K_M

This was interesting.

http://www.tonepublications.com/review/we-review-the-bose-901/

steveinaz

Usually the bashers have never heard them outside of a showroom. I owned a pair of series VI for 14yrs and enjoyed them immensely. I typically ran mine about 9 feet apart, 10" off the back wall from the spkrs rear apex, and away from corners. It also KEY to run the EQ line-level if possible (loop circuit in pre or use a "rec out" connection) and have plenty of power on tap. Connecting "between" the pre and amp is less ideal. If you need to sweeten the treble a bit, keep your pre tone controls flat (or bypassed), and use the treble slider on the Bose EQ. They can be quite satisfying if you put effort into placement/setup.

K_M

steveinaz wrote: »

Usually the bashers have never heard them outside of a showroom. I owned a pair of series VI for 14yrs and enjoyed them immensely. I typically ran mine about 9 feet apart, 10" off the back wall from the spkrs rear apex, and away from corners. It also KEY to run the EQ line-level if possible (loop circuit in pre or use a "rec out" connection) and have plenty of power on tap. Connecting "between" the pre and amp is less ideal. If you need to sweeten the treble a bit, keep your pre tone controls flat (or bypassed), and use the treble slider on the Bose EQ. They can be quite satisfying if you put effort into placement/setup.

I was back at their house yesterday for a few hours.
Got only a bit of "alone" time with their speakers, all of maybe 30 minutes this time, as they were getting ready for new years that evening.

My follow up comments....
I still found them quite enjoyable, and extremely listenable.
Different from anything else, nothing like a normal speaker, and not really like the SDA "effect" that our Polks produce.
I found it still slightly similar to our more vintage speakers, in their great smoothness and listenability.
They are a but rolled off in the high end, but that may be part of why they seem so listenable.
They simply create a huge wall of sound, that is enjoyable.
Thinking maybe about buying a set to mess with at home now!

But they will not "Replace" my beloved LSi, or SDA!
Just simply another way of doing things, that engaged me!

msCritter1

I have had a set of acoustimas speakers for 25 years and they have never let me down, been thru 5 receivers tho, hope switching to polk works, giving my oldest son them, we'll see how long they last lol

mikeyb128

I have several Bose products in my home, over ear headphones, and portable blue-tooth speakers. And I love them, they really sound good too. A little over priced in my opinion, but a buddy works for Bose, so I got them dirt cheap.

steveinaz

The 901 (series VI) rolls off quickly above 13kHz, which explains the listenability factor (smoothness). While the "lab coat wearing" audiophiles would pass out on the floor knowing that, Bose built an empire with it, and its appeal to the general public.

I never knew what "digital glare" was until I sold my 901's and moved to conventional monkey coffins.

honestaquarian

I nearly bought a pair of 901 Series V's back when I was thinking about getting my first SDA's. The only issues-if you will-with the 901's is that you really MUST have a high current amp to drive them as the eq box introduces a HUGE amount of boost in the bass. FAR MORE than regular tone controls do. Also the placement issue.They really must be near corners in order for the direct/reflecting nature of their design.

K_M

honestaquarian wrote: »

I nearly bought a pair of 901 Series V's back when I was thinking about getting my first SDA's. The only issues-if you will-with the 901's is that you really MUST have a high current amp to drive them as the eq box introduces a HUGE amount of boost in the bass. FAR MORE than regular tone controls do. Also the placement issue.They really must be near corners in order for the direct/reflecting nature of their design.

My neighbors, had theirs about 8-9 feet from each corner, so maybe not the ideal set up.
But it still have an expansive big sound to it. it seemed like a wall of sound, maybe instead of coming from the sides also.

Gonna listen again and have them move them some. See how that sounds.

honestaquarian

Yeah remember the four drivers on the outside edge of each speaker (*the ones facing the corners of the room*) are supposed to reflect the sound off of the back wall,which then bounces off of the sidewall and into the listening area. The four drivers on the inner edge are supposed to reflect the sound off of the back wall. It doesn't work as well when they are too far from the corners.
I remember this audio shop I used to go to back in the 80's and 90's in my hometown of Hartford,CT called Al Franklins Music World had a pair of 901's hanging from the drop ceiling. I played Barbra Streisand's Somewhere from the Broadway Album CD and the floor was shaking from the bass at the beginning. Other than the chains which were hanging the speakers from the drop ceiling,THERE WAS NO PHYSICAL CONTACT BETWEEN THE SPEAKERS AND THE ROOM!!!!

heiney9

Wall of sound is not appealing to most serious music listeners. Also huge roll off is not appealing to most serious music listeners. Lack of timbre is not appealing to most serious music listeners, Lack of dynamics is not appealing to most serious music listeners (don't mistake playing loud as being dynamic). Lack of note delineation is not appealing to most serious music listeners.....shall I go on?

Accuracy, timbre, dynamics, and placement of musicians, etc., etc., is very important.

I think Bose 901's sound pretty horrid, but then we all have different expectations of what type of sound we're looking for. They would never even be something I'd be interested in messing around with.

Maggies and Dahquist DQ-10 are interesting to mess around with and have several shortcomings, but do well at some things...........Bose 901's don't do anything well except apparently foster a sense of nostalgia.

IMHO, of course

H9

Filling a huge room with above average spl without regard for actual, accurate reproduction is their strong suit.

honestaquarian

heiney9 wrote: »

Wall of sound is not appealing to most serious music listeners. Also huge roll off is not appealing to most serious music listeners. Lack of timbre is not appealing to most serious music listeners, Lack of dynamics is not appealing to most serious music listeners (don't mistake playing loud as being dynamic). Lack of note delineation is not appealing to most serious music listeners.....shall I go on?

Accuracy, timbre, dynamics, and placement of musicians, etc., etc., is very important.

I think Bose 901's sound pretty horrid, but then we all have different expectations of what type of sound we're looking for. They would never even be something I'd be interested in messing around with.

Maggies and Dahquist DQ-10 are interesting to mess around with and have several shortcomings, but do well at some things...........Bose 901's don't do anything well except apparently foster a sense of nostalgia.

IMHO, of course

H9

Filling a huge room with above average spl without regard for actual, accurate reproduction is their strong suit.

@heiney9
Do you have any idea how stereotypically snobby,nose in the air "MY audio is better than YOUR audio"- Nevermind how condescending-your post is???

heiney9

honestaquarian wrote: »

heiney9 wrote: »

Wall of sound is not appealing to most serious music listeners. Also huge roll off is not appealing to most serious music listeners. Lack of timbre is not appealing to most serious music listeners, Lack of dynamics is not appealing to most serious music listeners (don't mistake playing loud as being dynamic). Lack of note delineation is not appealing to most serious music listeners.....shall I go on?

Accuracy, timbre, dynamics, and placement of musicians, etc., etc., is very important.

I think Bose 901's sound pretty horrid, but then we all have different expectations of what type of sound we're looking for. They would never even be something I'd be interested in messing around with.

Maggies and Dahquist DQ-10 are interesting to mess around with and have several shortcomings, but do well at some things...........Bose 901's don't do anything well except apparently foster a sense of nostalgia.

IMHO, of course

H9

Filling a huge room with above average spl without regard for actual, accurate reproduction is their strong suit.

@heiney9
Do you have any idea how stereotypically snobby,nose in the air "MY audio is better than YOUR audio"- Nevermind how condescending-your post is???

Sorry you took it that way. It's how I feel about them. Am I supposed to tip toe through the tulips so as not to hurt your feelings? I don't tend to sugar coat things. I'm not sorry for what I posted, but I am sorry you took offense to it.

I guess it's a double standard, someone can gush on and on about something, but if you have something bad to say then you have to temper it, sugar coat it and PC it? I don't think so......

IMHO

H9

P.s. I didn't attack anyone, didn't attack the product. Just described how it felt when I listened to them.

tonyb

Geez Brock, for once can you tell us how you really feel ? lol

I didn't take it as snobby either. However if your going to do a review or comparison, traits as those already mentioned should be listened for. Wouldn't most agree ? I think that was what H9 was trying to get across....and his distain for the product as it relates to his preferences obviously.

heiney9

Look we're all at different levels and have different expectations in this hobby. If that means some of us appear to be "snobs", I can't help how you perceive things. I guess based on that Joey V is the biggest snob here followed closely by Darqueknight, but see, I don't see it that way. They are on a different level and have a different dedication with a different set of expectations. I call them how I see them. If it ruffles feathers, I'm sorry it ruffles feathers.

H9

mhardy6647

Didn't strike me as snobby but rather as an expression of opinion.

I will readily confess to being a snob (as if y'all couldn't tell!) but I do recognize that my opinions and tastes are just that, and de gustibus non est dispudantum.

The 901s are not awful, but they take a very nontraditional approach to certain fundamental problems in sound reproduction. I'm not much of a fan -- but I also don't go out of my way to disparage them, either.

I'll remind you all that Polk Audio's original consumer product, the Model Nine, was touted for its 901-like use of no electrical crossovers, using extended range drivers (which were suspiciously similar to the CTS full range drivers used by Bose at the time), a passive radiator, and a piezoelectric tweeter which is its own crossover (being in essence a capacitor). The interrelationship of the 901 and Polk Audio is pretty well documented -- heck, we all literally wouldn't be here were it not for the 901.

http://forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/comment/321664#Comment_321664

heiney9

And that was the 1970's. Where the AMC Pacer and Chrysler Cordoba were all over the TV. I'd say the 901's went the way of the Pacer and Cordoba and audio has moved on in a more positive direction, IMO, of course.

H9

P.s. The model 9 is gone too, that's a good thing.

heiney9

Except Polk went the opposite direction of Bose, thank goodness!

mhardy6647

True enough -- although the good stuff from the '70s (not to mention the '40s) in hifi is still good stuff today -- but that's another topic entirely

As to the Nine -- yes, not stellar. The 9A, which subbed the Peerless KO10DT silk dome tweeter for the rather dreadful (when run 'free-range') Motorola piezo tweeter, actually, really ain't that bad. There's a pair here in the Polk wing of the collection (ahem, that'd be the basement).

Those 4-1/2 inch CTS drivers are actually pretty darned fine, but of course not really full full-range drivers. Nice, nice midrange performance, though. And most of the vintage ('classic'!) Bose products get the midrange pretty right, to my ear.

Speaking of the '70s -- as goofily awful as fashions and cars were (looked) in those long ago times, some of the hifi stuff, at least to my tastes, was astonishingly, timelessly elegant looking (especially in retrospect).

CA610II and T550 by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

lightman1

Brock is big meanie.....

mhardy6647

(sniffle) it's OK, I'll be alright.
Gonna go crank up some KC & the Sunshine Band on a pair of Cerwin-Vegas or somethin'

heiney9

Oh, that's the way, uh-huh uh-huh
I like it, uh-huh, uh-huh
That's the way, uh-huh uh-huh
I like it, uh-huh, uh-huh
That's the way, uh-huh uh-huh
I like it, uh-huh, uh-huh
That's the way, uh-huh uh-huh
I like it, uh-huh, uh-huh

H9

heiney9

That's the way,
Uh huh,
Uh huh,
I like it,
Uh huh,
Uh huh

That's the way,
Uh huh,
Uh huh,
I like it,
Uh huh,
Uh huh

mhardy6647

See, I knew he was all right!

Hey! That song would really thump on a pair of 901s driven by a PL 700B, dude!

heiney9

Or on 8 track in an AMC Pacer! Duuuude!

mhardy6647

There is still one 8 track deck here

I just need to find a match book to shim the cartridge for maximum fidelity, you know?

8trackin by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

heiney9

The arm off a pair of Ray Ban aviators works nicely...................I'm told....lol

K_M

I think the term "Serious music listener" was not offensive in the least.

But to claim the wall of sound, is not appealing to most serious music listeners, is interesting to me!
I find many things very interesting in their unique traits, sound wise or how they are designed, but may not consider them adding to sound realism, but often to making it simply more appealing or entertaining to listen to.

Not everything has to be a serious critical musical listen.
Some things are just fun and fun to listen to.
And Heiney's comments are very welcome.
We all have differing ideas and thoughts.

I was merely shocked at how fun and different the 901's were to listen to music on.

heiney9

I dislike 5.1 for music very much and to me I always critically listen to music. I have a hard time listening (other than background) without "listening to the music, sound stage, placement of instruments, timbre, etc, etc". It's where my enjoyment comes from.

It's extremely hard for me to listen A) to music I don't like B.) listen casually. So putting A & B together is just plain annoying....to me. Probably why I don't stream music so much beyond background while cleaning, cooking, putzing, etc.

But that's just me.

H9