LDL Reflector ? ? rather cool

[Andy]

Here's a neat pair of speakers, ebay number 320152966365. Much like the scarce KLH model Twenty Eight or Bose of the 1970 era. Could be a good buy for a thrifty New Englander since they are in the ebay furniture catagory.

[JKent]

Interesting. They went for 10 bucks. Wish I had seen them sooner because I'll be passing through Coastal Maine next week.

Anyway, these were Bose 901 clones, sans equalizer, produced by Linear Design Labs. LDL was among a whole slew of companies sued by Bose for one dumb reason or another (uh-oh! Maybe they'll sue ME!). Besides Consumer Reports and Speaker Builder mags, they sued Cambridge Soundworks for having the temerity to claim their radio sounded better than Bose for half the price (it does), and even Thiel for using ".2" in a speaker model designation! In this case it would appear the frivolous suit-happy Bose had a case. The LDL WAS a 901 knockoff

Kent

[soundminded]

>Interesting. They went for 10 bucks. Wish I had seen them

>sooner because I'll be passing through Coastal Maine next

>week.

>

>Anyway, these were Bose 901 clones, sans equalizer, produced

>by Linear Design Labs. LDL was among a whole slew of companies

>sued by Bose for one dumb reason or another (uh-oh! Maybe

>they'll sue ME!). Besides Consumer Reports and Speaker Builder

>mags, they sued Cambridge Soundworks for having the temerity

>to claim their radio sounded better than Bose for half the

>price (it does), and even Thiel for using ".2" in a

>speaker model designation! In this case it would appear the

>frivolous suit-happy Bose had a case. The LDL WAS a 901

>knockoff

>Kent

This was a low quality knockoff of the original Bose 901. You can't just sue someone without justification or your lawsuit will be thown out of court without even a hearing. Grounds for lawsuits include patent infringement and knowingly making false statements about someone or their product. My radio sounds better than your radio is not grounds for a lawsuit especially if you have opinions to back it up like your uncle Jimmy, your cousin Susie, your aunt Zelda. You have to make a factually false statement and I think you are given an opportunity to publicly retract it before you can be successfully sued. Without knowing the particulars of each case, it is impossible to say if they were frivolous suits of if there were actual suits at all and not just rumors.

Bose 901 was a very innovative idea which was manufactured to great precision. It had several fatal design flaws and limitations which did not keep it from becoming one of the most commercially successful products ever produced in the electronics industry. If you take its six "series" as variations on a single model (the really are quite different from each other in execution) than you would be hard pressed to find even one other electronic product which had a thirty-five to forty year production run. It was the start of a billion dollar a year privately owned company, something which galls a lot of jealous audiophiles.

[JKent]

As I said--they had a good case against the LDL knockoff. But those of us who remember them going after Consumer Reports know that was a bunch of hooey. Bose makes some moderately good products and promotes them with HUGE hype, then attempts to bludgeon competitors (and unbiased critics) into submission. At least that's MY take on their record of suits. You may not see it that way. You're entitled to your opinion.

[soundminded]

>As I said--they had a good case against the LDL knockoff. But

>those of us who remember them going after Consumer Reports

>know that was a bunch of hooey. Bose makes some moderately

>good products and promotes them with HUGE hype, then attempts

>to bludgeon competitors (and unbiased critics) into

>submission. At least that's MY take on their record of suits.

>You may not see it that way. You're entitled to your opinion.

I don't know much about their other products but I bought an original pair of Bose 901s in 1970 and still own them. I have reported on them extensively here and elsewhere having re-engineered them to eliminate what I consider to be their inherent design flaws which I elaborated on. One thing about their quality of manufacture, they were not "moderately good" their quality was as good as consumer electronics got, the equal of AR and KLH. There are various legitimate reasons for a law suit. One is patent infringement which may have been the case in LDL's specific instance as their design looked to me like a knockoff. In the case of Consumer Reports, it was more likely a review which made factual mis-statements which could not be backed up by measured data. It is one thing to state an opinion; 95% of the people in our survey who listened to Bose 901 didn't like the way they sounded, didn't think they were accurate and wouldn't buy them. It's quite another to say that the speaker does not reproduce frequencies below 40 hz or whatever. I really don't know what the Consumer's Report suit was about (I've been a long time subscriber myself) but I heard one rumor which said that it was over a claim that 901 made a piano sound like it was 8 feet wide. Mine is only 5'-6" but a Steinway concert grand is 8'-9" and a Baldwin is 9'-10" so a piano sounding like it is 8 feet wide is not only not implausible, it may be exactly what it should have sounded like. Again, I don't know the particulars of the suit. Anyway, that's what courts are for, to determine if someone was unfairly damaged by false public statements and to impose penalties if they were. If you are a critic who publishes your criticisms for a living, you'd better be careful about what you say and know what the law is and isn't. If you don't, you may wind up on the wrong end of a lawsuit for slander or libel and have to pay the victim damages.

[soundminded]

>As I said--they had a good case against the LDL knockoff. But

>those of us who remember them going after Consumer Reports

>know that was a bunch of hooey. Bose makes some moderately

>good products and promotes them with HUGE hype, then attempts

>to bludgeon competitors (and unbiased critics) into

>submission. At least that's MY take on their record of suits.

>You may not see it that way. You're entitled to your opinion.

I don't know much about their other products but I bought an original pair of Bose 901s in 1970 and still own them. I have reported on them extensively here and elsewhere having re-engineered them to eliminate what I consider to be their inherent design flaws which I elaborated on. One thing about their quality of manufacture, they were not "moderately good" their quality was as good as consumer electronics got, the equal of AR and KLH. There are various legitimate reasons for a law suit. One is patent infringement which may have been the case in LDL's specific instance as their design looked to me like a knockoff. In the case of Consumer Reports, it was more likely a review which made factual mis-statements which could not be backed up by measured data. It is one thing to state an opinion; 95% of the people in our survey who listened to Bose 901 didn't like the way they sounded, didn't think they were accurate and wouldn't buy them. It's quite another to say that the speaker does not reproduce frequencies below 40 hz or whatever. I really don't know what the Consumer's Report suit was about (I've been a long time subscriber myself) but I heard one rumor which said that it was over a claim that 901 made a piano sound like it was 8 feet wide. Mine is only 5'-6" but a Steinway concert grand is 8'-9" and a Baldwin is 9'-10" so a piano sounding like it is 8 feet wide is not only not implausible, it may be exactly what it should have sounded like. Again, I don't know the particulars of the suit. Anyway, that's what courts are for, to determine if someone was unfairly damaged by false public statements and to impose penalties if they were. If you are a critic who publishes your criticisms for a living, you'd better be careful about what you say and know what the law is and isn't. If you don't, you may wind up on the wrong end of a lawsuit for slander or libel and have to pay the victim damages.

[Guest sealy]

>Interesting. They went for 10 bucks. Wish I had seen them

>sooner because I'll be passing through Coastal Maine next

>week.

>

>Anyway, these were Bose 901 clones, sans equalizer, produced

>by Linear Design Labs. LDL was among a whole slew of companies

>sued by Bose for one dumb reason or another (uh-oh! Maybe

>they'll sue ME!). Besides Consumer Reports and Speaker Builder

>mags, they sued Cambridge Soundworks for having the temerity

>to claim their radio sounded better than Bose for half the

>price (it does), and even Thiel for using ".2" in a

>speaker model designation! In this case it would appear the

>frivolous suit-happy Bose had a case. The LDL WAS a 901

>knockoff

>Kent

This was a low quality knockoff of the original Bose 901. You can't just sue someone without justification or your lawsuit will be thown out of court without even a hearing. Grounds for lawsuits include patent infringement and knowingly making false statements about someone or their product. My radio sounds better than your radio is not grounds for a lawsuit especially if you have opinions to back it up like your uncle Jimmy, your cousin Susie, your aunt Zelda. You have to make a factually false statement and I think you are given an opportunity to publicly retract it before you can be successfully sued. Without knowing the particulars of each case, it is impossible to say if they were frivolous suits of if there were actual suits at all and not just rumors.

Bose 901 was a very innovative idea which was manufactured to great precision. It had several fatal design flaws and limitations which did not keep it from becoming one of the most commercially successful products ever produced in the electronics industry. If you take its six "series" as variations on a single model (the really are quite different from each other in execution) than you would be hard pressed to find even one other electronic product which had a thirty-five to forty year production run. It was the start of a billion dollar a year privately owned company, something which galls a lot of jealous audiophiles.

Ummm? My friends 601's had the worst build quality I've ever seen on a brand name speaker. Ditto the 301's, 201's, 501's, ....ad infinitum. The Bose paper (so-called) tweeter was infamous for its crappy quality. Bose was brilliant at marketing what were mediocre products at best. Think Bose Lifestyle System. How else could they get otherwise sensible folks to pay several hundred dollars for a tabletop radio or a bunch of cheap little cube speakers that could be twisted into interesting shapes? Remember the Advent receiver? There was a low-cost, high-quality product that was highly innovative in a retro sort of way, truly deserving of a larger following. Jealousy? Hardly. More like holding one's nose at the sight of Bose.

[dynaco_dan]

Ummm? My friends 601's had the worst build quality I've ever seen on a brand name speaker. Ditto the 301's, 201's, 501's, ....ad infinitum. The Bose paper (so-called) tweeter was infamous for its crappy quality. Bose was brilliant at marketing what were mediocre products at best. Think Bose Lifestyle System. How else could they get otherwise sensible folks to pay several hundred dollars for a tabletop radio or a bunch of cheap little cube speakers that could be twisted into interesting shapes? Remember the Advent receiver? There was a low-cost, high-quality product that was highly innovative in a retro sort of way, truly deserving of a larger following. Jealousy? Hardly. More like holding one's nose at the sight of Bose.

Hi there;

It is write-ups like this that will destroy our website's credibility.

Bad mouthing, bashing, a product or company the way you've done, is just not kosher.

We can agree to disgree.

I feel if you don't like a product or company, don't buy their products.

Buy the products that you do like.

Constructive criticism is always welcomed here.

Enough said.

Vern

[Guest sealy]

Hi there;

It is write-ups like this that will destroy our website's credibility.

Bad mouthing, bashing, a product or company the way you've done, is just not kosher.

We can agree to disgree.

I feel if you don't like a product or company, don't buy their products.

Buy the products that you do like.

Constructive criticism is always welcomed here.

Enough said.

Vern

I stand chagrined and chastised. But I bristle when I see people taken in by slick marketing. Some companies out there are predatory, and slick beyond the pale. However, that having been said, more temperate comments will be forthcoming from this point forward.

[dynaco_dan]

I stand chagrined and chastised. But I bristle when I see people taken in by slick marketing. Some companies out there are predatory, and slick beyond the pale. However, that having been said, more temperate comments will be forthcoming from this point forward.

Hi again;

Everyone here has the right to free speech.

Emailing one's thoughts, both positive and negative is your choice.

Posting them here is another story and the effect from them can be very damaging.

If we are bashing a product or company, we are not providing what this web site was created for in the first place, by Mark.

Thank you for being receptive to my comments.

I for one, look forward to your future writings.