Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site druxu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!drutx!druxu!mohler
From: mohler@druxu.UUCP (MohlerDS)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: Re: A-B CD comments
Message-ID: <1474@druxu.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Apr-85 13:02:24 EST
Article-I.D.: druxu.1474
Posted: Mon Apr 22 13:02:24 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 23-Apr-85 06:32:35 EST
References: <260@moncol.UUCP>, <3612@alice.UUCP>
Lines: 24

There is overwhelming evidence that the Bose speaker design is highly
flawed for critical monitoring! That doesn't mean that some people 
that like them can't hear, sound after all is subjective (beauty in
ear of listener). The Bose 901 series (any) is virtually worth-less
for critical monitoring (see my previous comments on the net in Re:
A-B CD). 

Phase and frequency response as well as speed of the transducers
are much too flawed, to not be the weak and masking link in the comparison.
Dispersion and delta directionality with respect to frequency are also
very poor (yes even with the direct-reflecting idea). If the Bose were
perfect in the previously mentioned areas (which it is far from) it 
would still be poor for critical monitoring because of the multiple
driver effect on phase and dispersion as well as the direct-reflecting
design pulling the other weak link (the room) into the comparison much
more than most speakers.

If anyone still needs evidence of the flaws of this design send me mail,
there is tons of documentation on this speaker.
Most headphones have similar problems.

                 David S. Mohler
                 AT&T-ISL @ Denver
                 DRUXU!MOHLER