Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site teddy.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!dual!vecpyr!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!teddy!rdp From: rdp@teddy.UUCP Newsgroups: net.audio Subject: Re: BOSE 901 Series Speakers Message-ID: <1404@teddy.UUCP> Date: Wed, 9-Oct-85 09:50:50 EDT Article-I.D.: teddy.1404 Posted: Wed Oct 9 09:50:50 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 12-Oct-85 18:41:58 EDT References: <72@ecn-aa.UUCP> Reply-To: rdp@teddy.UUCP (Richard D. Pierce) Organization: GenRad, Inc., Concord, Mass. Lines: 93 In article <72@ecn-aa.UUCP> motzi@pur-ee.UUCP (John Motzi) writes: > > > > I would be interested in hearing both good & bad comments >concerning the BOSE 901 (I think that's what they are still >called) speakers. Has anyone augmented the bass using a >subwoofer with these speakers? What about the high frequency sound ? >PLEASE, Let's limit the discussion to those people who have >ACTUAL LISTENING EXPERIENCE with these speakers. > >Thanks. > In my long and only occasionally glorious past in the audio business, the Bose loudspeakers have come to occupy a warm spot in my heart as the all-time worst audio product ever conceived. Given my strong feelings against it (it being one of the few products that I really get emotional about), I must resist the temptation to lash out at Dr. Amar and his Framingham gang of thieves. So, I think I must pass on this. NAAH! Let's deal with some facts, here, boys and girls. For the greater part of its life, the Bose 901 was constructed out of some of the cheapest and worst drivers available anywhere. The theory (marketing theory, not physical theory) is that the variations between drivers would tend to cancel themselves out. Well, that is so much bullshit, because one thing can be said about Bose's supplier of drivers, and that is that even though they are truly wretched, they are very consistantly truly wretched. All those anomolies such as cone breakup and rim resonances all happen with a few percent of a given frequency, and response plots and listening tests confirm that. There is so much wrong with those speakers that to discuss the objective measurements would require a book. Try some experiments (I have). Take the Bose 901 and another pair of loudspeakers. Have a friend make a decent recording of himself saying the numbers 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, etc, with a pause between each one. Then play the tape back, having him stand between the loudspeakers, and have him say that even numbers while the tape is playing back. Which pair of loudspeakers sounds more like your friend? Now, try this. Get a piece of cardboard mailing tube about 3 inches in diameter and a couple of feet long (a piece of PVC drain pipe works too). Have hime now say the even numbers through the tube in response to the tape. Now which pair sounds more like your friend? Try the same thing with a cardboard box, a small kitchen garbage can, whatever. Please realize here I am being perfectly serious! The Bose presents such a bizarre aural image as to, initially, defy identification. Many people, some of whom are perfectly reasonable, intelligent, honest people, are taken in by the absolutely unique (I mean, there is NO other sound like it anywhere! even in the real world) that they are willing to plunk money down on the spot without any critical and skeptical evaluation. In most cases, I have found they live to regret their decision, but are totally unwilling to admit it. "What about the great reviews". When I was consulting to JBL, I happened across one of the advertising reps for a major Hi-Fi monthly journal that Reviews Stereo equipment, and another that is involved in the Audio business, as well. It was the stated editorial policy that "favorable reviews are a function the commitment of the manufacturer to an advertising contract". Period. No pretenses, no hidden costs, no under the table dealings. You commit to 2 years of inside front cover advertising and we will say your speakers are better than sliced white bread followed by multiple orgasms. This is fact folks, and one of the things that irritated me most about the audio business. Flame me, Bosofiles, if you please, but the flame cannnot hide the facts. If you want to deal with facts, fine. The Bose 901 does not, did not and probably never will, give anything even remotely approaching an identifiable analog of the things some of us use our stereos to listen to, MUSIC. An anecdote: In my early days in the business (at a long defunct store called SoundScope in Boston), an 18 year old male type college student came in to spout eloquently on the virtues of the Bose. He stated that the Bose was the only speaker that satisfied his desires in musical experience. He would not (could not?) listen to any of our arguments. He then proceeded to demonstrate what he meant. He took the pair of Bose 901's from the display area, placed them back to back about a 18 inches apart on either side of his head, and proceeded to listen to them while clipping the beejebers off a Phase Linear 700 power amp listening to Pink Floydd's "Dark Side of the Moon". After a minute of this torture (we could not even stay in the showroom, but had to observe from behind a hastily constructed lead and concrete barrier!) we note that blood (yes!) was beginning to slowly drip from his ears. The boy was nearly totally deaf from but a few months of Bose-listening! We later were able to confirm a continuous sound pressure level at the ears approaching 140 db!!!! (let's see a pipe organ do that, Mr. Grantges :-)) It was rumored that the only alarm clock that would get this guy going consisted of a Radio Shack timer connected to a small tactical thermonuclear warhead. Dick (sorry that someone finally had to bring this subject up) Pierce