AR 9 disc. - Bose ?

[Guest rickcee]

Hi discussing the AR 9 speaker /room response in other post, Bose mentioned. Just for fun, - half hour to kill at work . . .

Bose 901 V - St.Review, Dec/ '86 - response was measured as +- 3 from 40 - 20,000 which is very flat, even for expensive spks. no loss of high freq. indicated there.

Bose 301 II - High Fid May '83 - the upper midrange ( 1000 -15,000 hz)of the on axis and 'off axis' responce are identical -- not the sloping upper freq. typical of AR at time. ( couple years ago, redid the crappy foam surrounds on my sisters 301-II)

Obviously there's more to it, but seems to me the 'stereo' Bose were good designs,- back when, I sortof wanted the 501 model, similar but larger than 301-- different maybe but not 'cheezy'. the current home theatre, on the other hand, vastly over priced??

[soundminded]

This is one time I must disagree with Julian Hirsch. My ears tell me tht the Bose 901 simply doesn't have the high frequency capabilities of most multiway loudspeaker systems using dome tweeters. This makes sense to me because of the high inertia I expect from a 4 inch driver. I am not familiar with this particular variant but both the original which I own and series VI which I heard several months ago gave me this impression. Bose 901 can never achieve the bass reach or power of AR9. Even the original is no match for it. On paper the original 901 goes down to 23 herz with some distortion and to 26 hz with very little while the AR9 has a lower limit of 28. But these numbers also don't correlate with experience. The bass capabilities of AR9 are astounding. Bose compromised the lowest octave of bass from 20 to 40 hz when they went to a ported system. This made the speaker more efficient but abandoning the acoustic suspension principle was from a technical point of view, as far as I am concened, a major error. What they should have done instead is to have augmented the 4 inch drivers with tweeters. Then they would have produced a much wider range more accurate and clearer sounding loudspeaker.

[Guest Sean]

Bose of yester-year ( WAY long time ago ) is surely not the same company of today. Whereas Dr Bose played with specific ideas back then that were based upon his specific concept of how things should sound and measure, the latest products are simply based on marketing strategies and profit margin. The differences in both sonics and value per dollar can't be compared. This is not to say that i think that older Bose products are "good", but that they were FAR better than what they are offering the public today.

Having said that, the sound of older Bose models lacked a specific "crispness" that most other direct radiating models offered. At the same time though, many felt the same way about older AR designs and they were correct. Due to Bose's use of large diameter drivers and AR's potent woofers combined with their limited output mids and tweeters, they both shared a somewhat "dull" presentation. Compare a set of vintage AR's or Bose speakers to a pair of EPI's or Genesis speakers of similar price and you'll instantly know of what i speak. This is true even though all of these manufacturers were located in Massachusetts and characterized as having the "east coast sound". Then again, EPI's and Genesis sound more like AR's than they do JBL's or Cerwin-Vega's, so it is all a matter of perspective and how wide one wants to make specific categories.

Other than that, Bose used something like 22 gauge solid wire in all of their earlier speakers. They also had light bulbs built into the crossovers. Both were done as an attempt to keep costs down and increase power handling. The small gauge wire added series resistance and the light bulbs would energize as voltage levels climbed high enough to turn them on. Both stole peak energy away from the drivers, resulting in less warranty claims. At the same time though, linearity was drastically reduced and so was the ability of the amp to load into and control the drivers. As such, it is quite evident that a manufacturer that uses such methods would never really be concerned with sonic accuracy being one of their main goals.

Like many of you, i once aspired to have a "killer" Bose based system. While this is painful to admit, i learned all of this the hard way back when i was quite young. We've had 301's, 501's, 601's and 901's in my house. Bare in mind that these were all the original versions, not the newer versions recycling the same model numbers. While i could comment on their performance based on memory, I listened to a pair of 601's that i recently repaired for a friend less than a year ago. As far as i'm concerned, they wouldn't be desirable to either a "music lover" or "audiophile" in any way, shape or form. Sean

>

PS... The original 301's had a tremendous bass peak centered at appr 120 Hz and rolled off rapidly below that point. This was done to psycho-acoustically give one the sense of "good bass output" without straining the driver. As frequency response is extended lower, a driver has to increase excursion, which results in increased stress and the greater potential for damage or failure. By minimizing the potential for this and making the speaker sound "fuller" at lower volumes, one didn't feel the need to push it as hard. This was just one more method that this manufacturer chose to use in order to ensure high profit margins via reduced warranty claims.

[soundminded]

Using a light bulb to limit power is really clever. A kind of thermister. It never occured to me in all these years. As the temperature of the filament goes up, so does the resistance so the odds of overdriving the speaker and damaging it are greatly diminished. At reasonable current levels, the resistance remains relatively constant so its effect is entirely predictable and linear. Linearity within rated current levels, nonlinearity at excessive current levels. Electrical engineers usually think of only using passive circuit elements in a linear mode (except for reverse breakdown diodes.)

The high frequency spectrum of the Bose 901 did not extend nearly as far as multiway speakers like AR3, AR3a, AR2a, or KLH6. However, their overall tonal balance was somewhat similar. Compared to today's typical loudspeakers, the high end of many of these older models sounds dull. IMO, it can be and should have been improved but it wasn't. Not to the extent AR did with later speakers like 10pi and 303.

As for the Bass, when sufficient power was available and it was properly set up, Bose 901 gave AR3a a run for its money. Few other speakers of the day and most even today are not in the same league. But AR3a's overall frequency response was much flatter.

As for lesser designs, where you cut costs to make a cheaper model depends on what you think the market will value most and value least. In the case of Bose 301, the illusion of bass if not the reality was their conclusion. In the case of AR4x, flat bass that wasn't as extended or with as much capacity was AR's conclusion. Who was right? Both. They each targeted a different segment of the market.

[tysontom]

>

>The high frequency spectrum of the Bose 901 did not extend

>nearly as far as multiway speakers like AR3, AR3a, AR2a, or

>KLH6. However, their overall tonal balance was somewhat

>similar. Compared to today's typical loudspeakers, the high

>end of many of these older models sounds dull. IMO, it can be

>and should have been improved but it wasn't. Not to the

>extent AR did with later speakers like 10pi and 303.

>

All of the older speakers tend to have a sloping on-axis high-frequency response, not necessarily intentional, but which was actually desirable at the time to compensate for some recordings made in the 50s, 60s and 70s. Again, the important thing is the acoustic-power response in the room. This will determine the overall quality of the reproduced sound more than merely flat on-axis power. A speaker with very flat on-axis response out to 20 kHz, but poor off-axis response and uniformity, will sound 2-dimensional and dull back in the reverberant sound field because of its severely rolled-off, acoustic-power response. The illusion of sonic realism is lost when that happens.

All of the early AR speakers, moreover, have good acoustic-power response. The Bose 901 also has good acoustic-power response. It is nice to have both flat on- and off-axis response, and the AR-10Pi, AR-9, AR-303 and so forth tend to improve on the earlier AR speakers.

>As for the Bass, when sufficient power was available and it

>was properly set up, Bose 901 gave AR3a a run for its money.

>Few other speakers of the day and most even today are not in

>the same league. But AR3a's overall frequency response was

>much flatter.

>

I agree 100% with this comment. The Bose 901 could produce powerful bass, with relatively low distortion, down to 30 Hz and below. At moderate levels, the AR-3a could match the 901's bass with somewhat lower distortion, but without equilization the AR-3a was not flat down as low, and it could not match the high-power level of low bass the 901 could produce. For that matter, no other speaker of the day could either. As I mentioned in another post, the 901 is a much-maligned, over-criticized loudspeaker. I do not personally care for the inconvenience of having to critically mount the speaker, and so forth, but the quality of the 901 is much higher than critic's claim. And Bose has been building this speaker, with new interations, continuously since 1968. I think the speaker continues to sell well, tens-of-thousands have been sold, and there are commercial versions that are used everywhere.

I did research Bose vs. Harman, and I found that Harman Industries had sales of $2,228,519 in 2003, and Bose -- a privately held company -- had estimated sales of $950 Million. But Bose is highly profitable according to rumors, and since it is privately held by the family and others, there is no possibly whatsoever of Harman taking over Bose as was suggested in another post elsewhere, unless Bose wanted to do that. Bose, it was also stated, has much-higher speaker market share according to one source, at 25% of the speaker market. This came from *Folio* Magazine marketing manager Elizabeth Gardner, quoting Publisher's Information Bureau. There was no documentation with those numbers, so they are probably only roughly correct. The 25% speaker market-share data is possibly highly inflated since the total speaker market place is probably larger than 4 Billion, but I am sure that Bose outsells probably the next several companies combined, including Harman Industries.

--Tom Tyson

[soundminded]

Thank you for your comments Tom. I'm a little surprised at the sales volume for Harman. Harman Industries I think is listed on the New York Stock exchange and owns Tannoy, JBL, Infinity, Revel, and who knows what else. I think you may have omitted three zeroes and that their sales volume is around 2 to 3 billion dollars a year. As for Bose being sold, anything is for sale....if the price is right. Well, almost anything.

The original Bose 901 had a high end that only extended to about 14khz according to independently published tests of the time. Today's versions may be somewhat better but the problem is still obviously the inertia of the 4 inch cones. There comes a point where the increase of electrical power required to overcome the falloff in power radiation as a function of frequency through further equalization is no longer practical. This is where the lighter tweeter has the advantage. Although radiation paterns for the forward driver is an important consideration, for the rear firing drivers it is much less critical and of course, the smaller diameter of a tweeter improves the dispersion angle at higher frequencies. In the case of the Bose 901 design, the choice of driver mass is a compromise between the strength needed to move sufficient air at low frequencies without distortion due to breakup and the low mass required for high frequency response. The original choice favored the low end. By going to a ported design and abandoning any serious effort at reproducing the lowest octave between 20 and 40 hz with series III, there were some gains possible at the high end. Materials improvements over the intervening decades helped too. But Dr. Bose said in his paper that phase shift above 180 hz is inaudible. That is why he used the small enclosure. He deliberately pushed the system resonance up to 180 and equalized the linear falloff below that frequency. By this arguement, there was no reason not to incorporate separate tweeters. This speaker obviously made no pretense at time alignment. I think that this was a missed opportunity to appeal to a wider market. Given the substantial effort towards reasearch, you can be sure that this approach was tried and rejected. BTW, you are correct about the quality of manufacture. Even from its early days, inspection of the quality of the hardware and manner of assembly showed it to be a well made product. Even if they did omit all of the electrical ground wires connecting the RCA jacks on the back.

[tysontom]

>Thank you for your comments Tom. I'm a little surprised at

>the sales volume for Harman. Harman Industries I think is

>listed on the New York Stock exchange and owns Tannoy, JBL,

>Infinity, Revel, and who knows what else. I think you may

>have omitted three zeroes and that their sales volume is

>around 2 to 3 billion dollars a year. As for Bose being sold,

>anything is for sale....if the price is right. Well, almost

>anything.

Yes, Billions, thanks! I meant to put that number in "000," but forgot to add the additional three zeros. Yes, Harman's sales for 2003 was $2,228,518,000, and Bose had estimated sales of $950,000,000, so Harman's corporate structure is significantly larger than Bose; but then again, Bose is not a public company, so there is no possibility of a corporate leverage-buyout or anything of that nature, unless the private owner's wished to sell it. How Bose is held by the owners is not known either, but I suspect that Dr. Bose owns at least 51% or more of the company.

Bose is definitely a diversified, innovative company that rewards its engineers for thinking outside the box, as they say. They are constantly developing new ideas, and their marketing has been stellar. The product quality, as you concurred, is excellent; their after-sales service support is as good as any manufacturer in the industry. Probably not quite as good as AR during the halcyon years, but still in this modern era it is superb. For example, I had an Acoustic Wave Music system that I bought from Bose at a big "demo-unit" discount and it failed (CD) after a month or so, so I sent it back to Bose. They repaired it, and it ultimately failed again. Just like the old AR, they said after the second try to return it and a new one would be on the way to me. They stand 100% behind their products, at least from the experience I have had with them.

Tell me one person on this earth (shall we say in the free world) that is old enough to know anything about music or radios or hifi that does not know the name "Bose." It's a household name, and the envy of every audio manufacturer in the world from that perspective. "AR," "JBL" and "Advent" are well-known names to the audio crowd; "Bose" is simply known to everyone.

--Tom Tyson

[tysontom]

>This is one time I must disagree with Julian Hirsch. My ears

>tell me tht the Bose 901 simply doesn't have the high

>frequency capabilities of most multiway loudspeaker systems

>using dome tweeters. This makes sense to me because of the

>high inertia I expect from a 4 inch driver.

I am sure that you are correct here for the most part. The 4-inch drivers do struggle a bit with 20 kHz tones. But, too, the size of the diaphram doesn't automatically doom its ability to respond to high frequencies. It's all a matter of damping, motor strength, diaphram rigidity and so forth as to the ability to respond to high-frequency signals. There's definitely a major trade-off in off-axis dispersion, but this is not an issue with this speaker since it radiates most of its energy from the rear and bounces it off the reflecting surfaces behind, with directional clues coming from the single driver in front. The 4-inch drivers have a natural roll-off at the top and bottom; and of course, the equilization circuit compensates for those drivers' inability to respond to the highest frequency (or lowest frequency). I think that Bose -- knowing that there really isn't a great deal of music up in the 18-20 kHz area -- intentionally tailored the speaker to respond cleanly out to 15 kHz or so before beginning to fall off in response. Besides, since dispersion is "covered," so-to-speak, by the reflection off the back wall, driver directionality is unimportant.

What the 901 does do well is integrate the bass, midrange and treble in a seamless way because of no crossover, no overlapping drivers, no real interference effects or lobing effects. The sound across the spectrum is fairly uniform because of that.

>Bose 901 can never achieve the bass reach or

>power of AR9. Even the original is no match for it. On paper

>the original 901 goes down to 23 herz with some distortion and

>to 26 hz with very little while the AR9 has a lower limit of

>28. But these numbers also don't correlate with experience.

>The bass capabilities of AR9 are astounding.

Well, what is happening here is that the Bose is equalized down to 23-26 Hz, and it then becomes a cone/area-displacement issue, or how much air can be moved at the low frequencies. Remember, too, that for a given acoustic output, the excursion of the woofer quadruples with each lower octave below ultimate-radiation resistance, and those 9 4-inch drivers can move only so much air. Beyond that max-excursion point, which is very high power into low frequencies, the little woofers begin to "double," and soon the harmonic overtones are louder than the fundamental frequency (extreme distortion). By that time you have probably caused the speaker to buzz and rattle. The 901 can handle a lot of power, incidentally, as I proved back in the 70s with a pair of the original sealed versions. After quite a goodly number of "cool ones" one night, having previously listened to a Bose rep boast about all the power the 901 could handle, etc., etc., I tested his demo (1) with the full energy of a 115 VAC wall socket. It was a short test, a second or two at the longest, but the speaker did not actually self-destruct as I thought it would! It was one of the most deafening 60-Hz. sounds I have ever heard in my life. The next day the rep was back demoing the same pair of 901s, and they amazingly seemed to sound fine. My respect for the little Bose 901 rose significantly after that experience.

The AR-9 with its two 12-inch woofers, each capable of slightly more than one-half-inch linear excursion, can move much more air than the Bose. The 28 Hz number on the AR-9 is the system *resonance* (fc), and the output is extended significantly below that number. The AR-9 is flat down to at least 28 Hz, begins its 12 dB/octave rolloff below that, and is only -6 dB at 21 Hz or so, discounting room effects. Placement close to any corner will actually boost the output, so the speaker might be capable of nearly flat output down to the low twenties. So what you are hearing is real bass down lower than you thought the speaker would go.

--Tom Tyson

[soundminded]

The circuit board inside the equalizer was glass epoxy and there were many precision parts including 1% and 5% components. The drivers have shown no signs of deterioration after nearly 35 years and they were stored in an unconditioned space for several years exposed (although carefully packaged) to extremes of heat and cold. The only problem was an occasional loud hum which I always thought was due to a bad interconnect cable. Then one day a few years ago, I took the equalizer apart expecting to clean the center connector of the RCA jacks from the inside to remove oxide buildup and was amazed that the grounds had never been connected with wire soldered to their pins. A little solder, a little hookup wire and a few minutes later the thing was repaired and I never had that problem again.

Bose 901 if considered as one product although it has had 6 versions has had a longer run than any other audio or electronics product I know of. In an era when many manufacturers change their models and product lineup every other week that is saying something. Audiophiles detest the commercial success of this product because there are alternatives that much better suit their tastes and needs for far less. However, Bose 901 fills a niche in another market that can't seem to get enough of it. About the only unfortunate thing I can say about it is that I am disappointed that the low bass capability has been reduced, the overally tonal accuracy has not substantially improved, and the price has gone up. But for those who want it and can afford it, I am happy for them that they apparantly get so much pleasure from it.

[tysontom]

>

>Bose 901 if considered as one product although it has had 6

>versions has had a longer run than any other audio or

>electronics product I know of. In an era when many

>manufacturers change their models and product lineup every

>other week that is saying something. Audiophiles detest the

>commercial success of this product because there are

>alternatives that much better suit their tastes and needs for

>far less. However, Bose 901 fills a niche in another market

>that can't seem to get enough of it. About the only

>unfortunate thing I can say about it is that I am disappointed

>that the low bass capability has been reduced, the overally

>tonal accuracy has not substantially improved, and the price

>has gone up. But for those who want it and can afford it, I

>am happy for them that they apparantly get so much pleasure

>from it.

That's a great final tribute to the Bose 901 on these AR pages!

--Tom Tyson

[Guest rickcee]

Hi once again this site comes thru with a good discussion. thanks guys Rick who knows zip but sometimes gets curious . . . ( mostly in Jan. /Feb.)

[Guest Sean]

It amazes me that you two can sing the praise of a company and product that has done nothing but found ways to lower performance standards and charge more money while doing so. While Bose might be admirable from a marketing point of view, it is a disgrace to anyone that values an honest return on the money invested in a product. Bose is a prime example of why American companies are in the shape that they are i.e. high prices and poor products. Somehow, Bose has managed to overcome this liability and is highly profitable. Given that the only other people that have been able to do so in the past were "con artists" ( promise the world and deliver a bucket of crap ), it is no wonder that Bose has the reputation that they do amongst discerning consumers and audiophiles. Sean

>

[Guest tony3d]

It amazes me that you two can sing the praise of a company and product that has done nothing but found ways to lower performance standards and charge more money while doing so. While Bose might be admirable from a marketing point of view, it is a disgrace to anyone that values an honest return on the money invested in a product. Bose is a prime example of why American companies are in the shape that they are i.e. high prices and poor products. Somehow, Bose has managed to overcome this liability and is highly profitable. Given that the only other people that have been able to do so in the past were "con artists" ( promise the world and deliver a bucket of crap ), it is no wonder that Bose has the reputation that they do amongst discerning consumers and audiophiles. Sean

>

Hi, 
 Thought I should share with you my own experiences with the 901. My first introduction to them was back with the series 1's. I heard them at a friends house who happened to be an engineer at Fermi National Accelerator Labs. This guy was an absolute perfectionist when it came to his audio system. He wasn't satisfied with the low end of any speaker he heard at the time. Remember we are talking 1970. So he built his own speakers using Electro-voice 30" woofers!. He built a ported enclosure, using the crawl space under his house to get the required cabinet volume behind the speaker so he could tune the port based on the free air resonance of the woofers. He finally finished the project 3 months later. The first time I heard it I was floored! He powered them with a Crown DC300 amp. One day I get a call from him and he told me to get over right away. He sits me down in front of these 2 weird looking boxes he had suspended from his ceiling and said, "well I finally found them". He put on a cut from the Missing Link direct disc and my jaw dropped. The low end just blew away his 30" masterpiece's which he promptly removed shortly after. From that day on I was after those 901's. 

At the time I worked for Jensen Sound labs curve tracing speakers. I have to laugh when I hear these Bose bashers on all these websites rant on about things they know very little about. Most all of them say that Jensen made the drivers for the 901 series 1 and 2. Not quite right. Rola made the drivers for Bose in those days who also made the drivers for Jensen. Jensen stopped manufacturing drivers many years before that. Rola manufactured drivers for many other prominent speaker companies of the day. The 901 series 1 and 2 were an excellent speaker in there day, but had real difficulty reaching down below 50 hz with out severe doubling at high listening levels. They were also very inefficient. The series 3 was a new rebirth for the 901's. Those so called cheap, junky, toy like drivers are actually extremely high quality transducers! The advent of the helically wound voice coils and oh yes those plastic baskets brought the 901 drivers into a whole new level of precision. Everybody rants on about the cheap plastic baskets, but do they realize that is the only way that Bose could hold the very tight tolerances required for that driver in order to raise the system's overall efficiency. You can mold plastic to much tighter tolerances than a stamped metal basket could hope to hold. I know this is true because I was a machinist for 25 years. It is stronger, and much less resonant than a stamped basket. When I use to curve trace Jensen drivers you could feel that metal basket flexing all over the place. This brings us to the cheap plastic matrix enclosure. Bose was brilliant making that out of plastic. Again, almost resonant free, and plastic gave them the opportunity to make a very complex chamber to route the air flow, benefiting both efficiency, and low end performance. Just put your hand on the 901 cabinet while pushing 50-60 hz and tell me what you feel. I'll admit that the ports are not totally silent, but the only time I can here them at all is when I'm driving 250 watts peak power into them on pipe organ music, and then only on the very lowest notes! So the ports actually do a great job raising the efficiency of the speaker while re-enforcing the low end to bring the range down to about a clean 35 hz! There is plenty of output that low. 

Back to those cheap drivers that can't reproduce bass very well. The 901 can move enormous amounts of air, and because of the matrix enclosure there movement has been greatly reduced thus reducing the distortion from the very large excursions of the previous non ported systems. By using the 9 cones back wave to re-enforce the forward motion of the drivers, Bose doubled there bass output. Setup properly and given enough clean power, the 901's are capable of very impressive tight clean bass output. And I'll tell you, these speakers will put a 400 watt amp to bed before running out of clean undistorted sound. The 901's are not the finest sounding speakers on the market, but they are certainly among them. So many people bash this speaker, and say some of the most ridiculous things about them, that quite frankly I'm embarrassed for them. They are an embarrassment to any board and the community. 

Remember that engineer friend from Fermi Labs. He could go on with more facts about what Bose did right with the 901's than you or the Bose bashers would care to listen to. He just sold his 901 series 1 for the series 6 about a year ago. He sees no reason to look any further. Currently I own a Pair of 901's series 6 speakers driven with a 475 watt per channel Crown Xti-2000 power amp. There are many good worthwhile improvements in the 901's. Just remember to set them up properly and feed them as much clean power as you like there practically indestructible! How many people can say that about there speakers? Must be those cheap plastic drivers. Well there is my take on it. I am in no way affiliated with Bose. These are purely my opinions. One more interesting tidbit. The bass reflects enclosure principles that the 901's are based on was invented by Wayne Schott of Prospect Il. It became popular after a white paper was published on one such design by James Novak an engineer at Jensen Sound Labs. I knew him well.

[Mexicomike]

I was a nutso stereo geek at the time the 901s came out, ALWAYS looking for the next best thing and when I heard about the 901s I immediatly went to hear a pair at Bill Case sound, in San Antonio, TX. Initially, they were very impressive. I remember thinking, WOW, the sound is all around me. Then they played the Straus "Also Sprach Zarathustra" from 2001, A Space Oddessy, which was the "Thing" to see at the time. Everybody in the room, and there ware probably 7-8 of us listened at they played them AB on 3as and 901s. EVERYBODY had the same reaction to the 901's..."Where's the bass?"

The more we listened for extended periods, the more annoying they became. One of the listeners made a comment that later turned out to be part of the famous saying though I'm sure he wasn't THE originator. "There is no bass and no highs either..." Can't say that's where, "No Highs, No Lows, it must be BOSE." Came from but I re-listened to them many times over the next several years and OTHER than the "sound all around me" thing, there was nothing impressive IMHO. And when is a real sound source ever "all around" you anyway. It's a cool psychodelic thing which fit in well in the early days of the 901 but after the drugs/weed wore off, it's attraction was minimal.

[Guest tony3d]

I was a nutso stereo geek at the time the 901s came out, ALWAYS looking for the next best thing and when I heard about the 901s I immediatly went to hear a pair at Bill Case sound, in San Antonio, TX. Initially, they were very impressive. I remember thinking, WOW, the sound is all around me. Then they played the Straus "Also Sprach Zarathustra" from 2001, A Space Oddessy, which was the "Thing" to see at the time. Everybody in the room, and there ware probably 7-8 of us listened at they played them AB on 3as and 901s. EVERYBODY had the same reaction to the 901's..."Where's the bass?"

The more we listened for extended periods, the more annoying they became. One of the listeners made a comment that later turned out to be part of the famous saying though I'm sure he wasn't THE originator. "There is no bass and no highs either..." Can't say that's where, "No Highs, No Lows, it must be BOSE." Came from but I re-listened to them many times over the next several years and OTHER than the "sound all around me" thing, there was nothing impressive IMHO. And when is a real sound source ever "all around" you anyway. It's a cool psychodelic thing which fit in well in the early days of the 901 but after the drugs/weed wore off, it's attraction was minimal.

If you honestly believe that the 901's don't reproduce deep powerful tight bass, then I think your confusing true bass with something else. Here's an article I did not write, that you may want to have a look at.

"Summary:

Another perspective, and PLEASE take this seriously! I'm not interested in anything but highest quality music reproduction - as a professional, and classically trained musician, this is mandatory for me.

I've owned literally 100's of pieces of audio gear, some extremely expensive and esoteric examples. All great fun, but especially when it comes to choosing speakers, I have long known that, like pianos, say, they all sound different. Yes, in spite of all attempting to do the same thing, they all have a distinct sonic "footprint". In my experience, there will never be a "perfect" loudspeaker for all listeners, as tastes, budget, and ears are all different.

To write an objective review is an impossibility: by definition I will use my own biases, as does EVERYONE. Having been exposed to so much live music over the years may give me a slight advantage, who knows?

To all those silly people who indulge in Bose-bashing, let me say 'NONSENSE'! To those who like to indulge in the childish 'No highs no lows must be Bose' refrain, again nonsense! Unless my ears and testing equipment are lying to me, these speakers, PROPERLY EQUALIZED and PROPERLY LOCATED, are nothing short of astonishing, In terms of bass, their ability to produce fundamentals at 30Hz and below, with clean accuracy is simply marvelous. Unless you really need to feel a 15Hz fundamental, there will NEVER be a need for an outboard Subwoofer. Never. Period. For a smallish speaker, this is remarkable. Highs are equally well tended to, and with careful EQ and placement, your pets will be bothered even when you're not!

My listening tastes run the gamut from organ music at realistic volumes (I am an organist, and I know what to listen for), to techno and just about everything in between. These rather remarkable speakers will take anything that's dealt to them, bearing in mind the need for decent amplification - anything less than 50 Watts will run into problems if you enjoy realistic listening levels. Even massed vocals, one of the most severe tests, and the downfall of many speakers, are handled with ease and transparency.

Much has been written on the use of paper cones, and the necessity of using an Equalizer. For the former, I don't care what the materials used are, as long as the sounds are correct. Any criticism on this basis is simply puerile; the final sound is all that matters. I must admit I don't care for the fact that the foam surrounds will probably perish after 15 years or so, but since replacements are so easily available this isn't too much of an issue. (Try refurbishing the single speaker from an Ohm Walsh in comparison!!) The equalizer is another issue. Whilst on principle I don't like to introduce more electronics into the chain than necessary, this little box earns its keep, hands down. Listening without any equalization is an unpleasant experience, to say the least. (Bose bashers and others please note). I have experimented extensively with using second-party equalization, and I will go on record as saying that if you have the patience and the tools, you are not limited to the Bose equalizer. I am listening as I write to a thrilling version of Also Spracht Zarathustra, at neighbour-threatening levels, using a second-party equalizer - simply marvelous!

In sum, and you might think surprisingly, these are a very difficult speaker to recommend unequivocally. If the user is not prepared to take a very active part in careful placement and equalization, perhaps they're best left alone. I am utterly convinced that it is these facts alone that have contributed to so much of the nay-saying associated with the 901's.

Not for everyone, but definitely for me!

Strengths:

When properly placed and EQ'd, the 901's are capable of compelling imaging. The speakers will disappear, just as they should.

Effortless dynamics, and a remarkably extended bass. Only the music remains.

Fast, involving, transparent.

Weaknesses:

The speaker has, in my opinion, been the butt of more vitriol and uninformed malice than any other piece of Audio equipment in the history of the hobby. Everyone has an opinion, apparently especially those who appear unable to read a manual! Very sad. To all the bashers, I would politely say you're welcome to hear them at my house. Friends of mine who count themselves knowledgeable and critical have consistently praised these humble-looking transducers, and not just to be polite!

Again, CORRECT PLACEMENT is absolutely essential, as is CORRECT EQ! This may be too much effort for some folks: if so maybe they should look elsewhere.

As this design radiates a great deal of energy to the rear, it's not a plug-and-play design: the stereo image can easily become too diffuse if the speakers are not properly placed. Complex room interactions can result in sound-smearing, and this must be taken seriously.

Bose perhaps gloss over this difficulty: these speakers MUST be placed carefully - sometimes a difference of a couple of inches is crucial.

Perhaps the most confusing, mis-reviewed, speaker of all time.

IF, and only IF you are prepared to put in a little time, these speakers fully justify a 5 Star rating.

Say what you want the 901's when set up, and powered correctly can blow the doors off many 15" speaker system.

[Mexicomike]

It has always been interesting to me that the 901 supporters claim that those that don't hear bass out of them are somehow deficient in what they THINK is real bass. Or the explanation is that the room placement was bad, the EQ wasn't working properly, etc, etc, etc.

I am not even remotely interested in the science involved or whether on paper the bose 901s SHOULD/DO out perform an AR 3a. I'm just saying I never HEARD them do so and none of the audiophiles I knew at the time ever claimed to have heard them do so. I never met anyone who actually bought them and never saw them in anybody's house. PERHAPS the demos I heard in the stores - many times over several years - were, in fact, not properly set up. I have no idea. MAYBE the 901s really can substantially outperform AR3As. But if they can, then apparently the set-up necessary to do so must be very difficult to achieve.

Then, as now, I was quite familiar with live bass, whether from an elec or acoustic bass, orchestral bass drum, and organ. I carried recordings of those things to the shops and never heard the 901 impart anywhere close to the real sound with the same authority that an AR3a did. EVERY time, the thought with the bose was, "Where's the bass."

So all I can go with is my actual listening experience. I only care about what I hear out of the speakers, not what somebody else hears. Obviously, as with many things, there are different views and as they say, "Your mileage may vary."

[soundminded]

I was a nutso stereo geek at the time the 901s came out, ALWAYS looking for the next best thing and when I heard about the 901s I immediatly went to hear a pair at Bill Case sound, in San Antonio, TX. Initially, they were very impressive. I remember thinking, WOW, the sound is all around me. Then they played the Straus "Also Sprach Zarathustra" from 2001, A Space Oddessy, which was the "Thing" to see at the time. Everybody in the room, and there ware probably 7-8 of us listened at they played them AB on 3as and 901s. EVERYBODY had the same reaction to the 901's..."Where's the bass?"

The more we listened for extended periods, the more annoying they became. One of the listeners made a comment that later turned out to be part of the famous saying though I'm sure he wasn't THE originator. "There is no bass and no highs either..." Can't say that's where, "No Highs, No Lows, it must be BOSE." Came from but I re-listened to them many times over the next several years and OTHER than the "sound all around me" thing, there was nothing impressive IMHO. And when is a real sound source ever "all around" you anyway. It's a cool psychodelic thing which fit in well in the early days of the 901 but after the drugs/weed wore off, it's attraction was minimal.

"No highs, no lows, it must be Bose." There is an element of real truth here. But it deserves an explanation. The uninformed bashing of Bose 901 is usually unreasoned and unreasonable. So far no loudspeaker I've ever bought or seen commercially produced was not seriously flawed as a high accuracy reproducer of musical instruments. The very concept of the problem and how to solve it is what is most flawed, that is my mathematical analysis of it. No matter how well executed, no speaker built to current views of sound reproduction will sound like music to an experienced critical ear. And that includes AR9s. If that weren't so, I would not have been tinkering with loudspeakers much of my life. And if I'd felt I'd made no progress in understanding them and being able to improve them, I'd have given up long ago.

What are the facts of Bose 901, at least the originals that I've owned for 39 years? Bose 901 is built to a different paradigm of the problem with different shortcomings than other speakers. That paradigm, the direct/reflecting principle is overwhelmingly superior to the direct firing paradigm. By comparison, it has very low what I call vector distortion which is their main attraction. Direct firing loudspeakers have enormous vector distortion and it becomes much worse as frequency increases. The problem with Bose 901 was inadequate execution by the manufacturer and the customer often not understanding the installation requirements for them to achieve what potential they have. Also, a shortcoming of ALL high fidelity sound reproduction systems is that the spectral balance variables of recordings are so great, that unless they are compensated for individually, no sound system will perform well on all but a small minority of recordings whose characteristics compliment those of the particular sound system. At the state of the art today, this can only be accomplished by a well trained ear familiar with real musical instruments and the willingness to painstakingly re-equalize every recording. It is tedious often taking repetitive listening for days or weeks with a long break between sessions.

In my house, both Bose 901s and AR9s have had a recent upgrade to their performance by a noticable improvement of their treble. For 901, this was the first change in around 4 years, for AR9, the first change in 19 years. This was the result of changes to the high frequency directional propagation performance, in the case of 901 in the vertical plane, in the case of AR9 in the lateral plane. This was done by adding still more tweeters and rebalancing the system. AR9s have probably about reached their limit of what I can do with them short of entirely re-engineering them as direct/reflecting speakers, an impractical idea in my situation. Bose 901 has a way to go yet. More amplifier power and a second and even third pair for more power handling capability would improve the bass further. Original Bose 901 and series II as I've said exploits the linear falloff of an acoustic suspension speaker below resonance by employing a complimentary linear boost to the electrical output. But the equalizer design is insufficient. Its 6 db per octave electrical boost is short of the 12 db per octave acoustic output falloff of the speaker/enclosure combination. There are room effects to be taken into consideraton too. The small room mine are in, about 14 x 14 has a very high cutoff frequency which means substantial additional boost and power has to be pumped in to make them acoustically flat. Instead of the 18 db the Bose equalizer provides at 30 hz, about 30 db or more is needed. This means that the power requirement will increase from around 100 to 200 watts per channe Bose recommendedl to around 600 to 1000 or more which is well beyond the power handling capabilities of a single pair which is only 270. The speakers in my room seem to cross the 1khz output level at around 90 hz. At 30 hz, they would be down at least 10 db without further boost not counting possible falloff in the recording. This is why the low C organ pedal in Also Sprach Zarathrustra would be nearly inaudible just using the Bose equalizer unless played at very high volume and this is why more 901s and more power would improve bass capabilities in my installation. But even AR9 requires a low frequency boost in my approximately 30 feet long room. Bose 901 can reproduce a 30 hz organ pedal note at 10% THD, AR3 at 5%. I pointed out in the thread about amplifiers that the reason the bass drum reproduction in the BAS article was inadequate IMO was because of LF falloff of the AR 12" woofer that was not compensated for. Still, these were the best available and may still be better than most on the market today, decades later.

At this point Bose 901 and AR9 in my house are now both superb performers. Both can reproduce the sound of musical insturments very accurately on many recordings when carefully adjusted. AR9 cannot achieve the kind of presence 901 does because of its direct firing attributes between 200 hz and 6 khz. BTW, there are no unimportant frequency ranges in the audible spectrum, all of them are critical for accurate music reproduction IMO and changing one of them affects the balance of all the others making the problem of adjustment even harder. Also frequently overlooked is the requirement to play recordings at the "correct" loudness. This depends on the nature of the musical instrument, how it is being played, and its apparent (perceived) distance from the listener (a critical parameter.) This can only be achieved by those who have become familiar with how these instruments sound so listening to as much live music as you can as frequently as you can is a prerequisite for being a critical audiophile. Taken on their own, neither speakers can reproduce anything remotely resembling concert hall acoustics. But they can best be used reproducing the sound of soloists and small groups that could perform in your home. And of course while not accurate at reproducing the sound of large ensembles like symphony orchestras on their own, still enjoyable.

[genek]

So all I can go with is my actual listening experience. I only care about what I hear out of the speakers, not what somebody else hears. Obviously, as with many things, there are different views and as they say, "Your mileage may vary."

I came into audio in what was probably the dark ages. Manufacturers almost certainly measured what they designed and built, but none of us did. There were no arguements about "flat response," or "accurate reproduction," people just liked what they liked. Some were "Marantz people," others Scott or Pilot or Fisher. I don't think I ever heard anyone prior to the late 60's/early 70's try to say that their chosen gear was "better" because it sounded more like a live performance. Most everyone I knew who was willing to spend a huge percentage of their income on higher end audio than what came out of a Philco radio actually went to live performances and knew that nobody's home system sounded anything like live.

Today's discussions and analysis of what goes on in my speakers are interesting bits of trivia, but make no difference in whether I like the way they sound.

[Guest tony3d]

I also have an excellent recording of Also Sprach Zarathrustra, and the pipe organ notes are reproduced with the authority, and excellent dynamics I would associate with much larger systems. I am driving the 901 Series 6's with 475 watts per channel, and have hit peaks of 315 watts according to my scope! I can hear no doubling, no boom, nothing but tight well defined , and controlled bass. The kind of bass one would think would come from a 15" subwoofer. Now I have a very good room 20 X30 feet with a vaulted ceiling. The acoustics in it must be just right because I am continually amazed at what these speakers can do.

[Guest slinkeey]

I can hear no doubling, no boom, nothing but tight well defined , and controlled bass. The kind of bass one would think would come from a 15" subwoofer.

Would a 15" woofer produce tight well defined bass?

[soundminded]

Would a 15" woofer produce tight well defined bass?

Only if in combination with its enclosure it has a flat frequency response down to a very low frequency at or below the limits of audibility and low nonlinear distortion the way AR3 and a handful of others nearly does. 15" "professional" woofers in horn enclosures often do not produce useful sound below 40 or 50 hz sacrificing the bottom octave of sound. Deepest bass is usually not one of its design goals.

The analysis of the mechanical properties of woofer/enclosure combinations requires understanding and application of Newton's second law of motion as applied to forced oscillation. Analysis of its electrical response requires an understanding and applicatoin of equivalent circuit modeling and electrical filter analysis. The problem is also subject to acoustic room resonances and so an understanding an application of that too is required. Many tinkerers just put a speaker in a box and experiment with inductors, resitors and capacitors until they find a combination that they like. Others use tried and true cookbook recipes out of textbooks, usually with the expected results if they are careful to follow instructions.

[genek]

What are the facts of Bose 901, at least the originals that I've owned for 39 years? Bose 901 is built to a different paradigm of the problem with different shortcomings than other speakers. That paradigm, the direct/reflecting principle is overwhelmingly superior to the direct firing paradigm. By comparison, it has very low what I call vector distortion which is their main attraction. Direct firing loudspeakers have enormous vector distortion and it becomes much worse as frequency increases. The problem with Bose 901 was inadequate execution by the manufacturer and the customer often not understanding the installation requirements for them to achieve what potential they have.

I first heard Bose 901's during the early days, when the company had no stores or dealers and was doing direct sales with demos by existing owners in their homes. The demo I heard was by a fellow who had several mega-powerful (for the day) Mac amps and a huge living room with highly reflective surfaces all around. He had followed Bose's setup and placement instructions to the letter, and the result was quite impressive, with no lack of either highs or lows that I could perceive. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately, I don't know), at the time I lacked both the income and the space for them, and ended up buying a more modest system with AR-2ax's. It was many years later that I heard my next 901 demo, of Series IV in a dealer showroom, and it was downright awful. I have heard several 901 demos since, all in dealer showrooms, and they have all been just as bad. I don't know if it's just that no dealer I've visted has ever set up or powered their 901's correctly or if the company has made changes to the product that downgraded its quality; I have heard both offered as explanations.

[soundminded]

I first heard Bose 901's during the early days, when the company had no stores or dealers and was doing direct sales with demos by existing owners in their homes. The demo I heard was by a fellow who had several mega-powerful (for the day) Mac amps and a huge living room with highly reflective surfaces all around. He had followed Bose's setup and placement instructions to the letter, and the result was quite impressive, with no lack of either highs or lows that I could perceive. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately, I don't know), at the time I lacked both the income and the space for them, and ended up buying a more modest system with AR-2ax's. It was many years later that I heard my next 901 demo, of Series IV in a dealer showroom, and it was downright awful. I have heard several 901 demos since, all in dealer showrooms, and they have all been just as bad. I don't know if it's just that no dealer I've visted has ever set up or powered their 901's correctly or if the company has made changes to the product that downgraded its quality; I have heard both offered as explanations.

One big surprise for me is how little sound there is above 9 Khz when the systems are brought into timbral accuracy and the sound below 9 khz is removed at least in the case of the re-engineered Bose 901. And yet this sound is so critical in so many aspects of its characteristics to those who can hear it that it makes a world of difference, like night and day without and with it. The human ear is not very sensitive in this range but the brain seems to make enormous use of what is there. There is a natural tendency to adjust sound systems to be unnaturally bright. I read somwhere that the brain is stimulated by high frequencies. Having live music in my house to compare to makes it much easier to make critical judgements about timbre and adjust them in music reproducing equipment. I saw on TV a long time ago that tests on villagers in a remote part of Africa where there was very little noise ever, showed that people in their 70s had hearing accuity the same as teenagers. There is hope if your hearing is not damaged through overexposure to noise or through illness or accident.

Lately I've been playing several discs over and over again and my current earwig (theme I can't get out of my head) is Kissin's performance of the Bussoni's arrangement of the Bach Chaconne. The 8'-9" Steinway D is an enormous piano of staggering dynamic range and the Bussoni arrangement makes full use of of both that and the entire keyboard. I think I'm very close to its sound now and heard at the correct loudness in a room approximately 200 square feet and 2000 cubic feet it can be one loud piano. The re-engineered AR9 can match the timbre very closely also but because of its direct firing characteristics between 200 hz and 6 khz is less convincing especially at close range, say around 10 to 12 feet or less. (fortunately the room its in is 30 feet long.) I think if I put both speakers in the same room together I could get their timbre to be so close that I could hardly tell them apart but because of the different radiation pattern, there'd be no difficulty distinguishing them especially up close. Another recent earwig for me was the Wild arrangement of the Rachmaninoff Vocalese. (I'm thinking about buying the sheet music and trying it myself--what a pipe dream.) The Baldwin SD-10 is in its own way just as impressive at 9'-6" but there is sharp disagreement in my house about the desirability of that instrument's sound. Definitely "colder" and I must finally admit slightly more brilliant than the Steinway sound, I like it very much but the "informed" opinion in my house turns thumbs down on it. Funny, until relatively recently, we've both been accustomed mostly to the Baldwin sound except ours is on a much smaller scale. BTW, for those who know pianos or are looking for something relatively smaller and less expensive than a grand, the Baldwin Acrosonic is the only spinet piano I ever heard that has the power of a grand piano. Add that to its clarity and brilliance of tone as well as its excellent bass and consistency of tone across the entire keyboard and it is worth considering. I don't think they make them anymore, I'm not sure. I've had mine for almost 50 years and we bought a second one about 20 years ago. In good condition used, they are often offered at a reasonable price. I think we paid $900 for the second one.