Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site pyrnj.uucp
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!nsc!pyramid!pyrnj!romain
From: romain@pyrnj.uucp (Romain Kang)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: Bose 901 experience
Message-ID: <117@pyrnj.uucp>
Date: Wed, 16-Oct-85 17:05:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyrnj.117
Posted: Wed Oct 16 17:05:07 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 18-Oct-85 01:16:10 EDT
References: <3229@teklabs.UUCP>
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp, Woodbridge, NJ
Lines: 27

Maybe I shouldn't say this in the face of such impressive naysayers.
But...

About ten years ago, my family got 901 Series II's.  Looking in that
general price range, the salesman thought the best he had were either
the 901's or a double set of the old Advents.  The 901's sounded more
transparent to me, though they also revealed the flaws (scratches,
hiss, etc.) in recordings less mercifully than the Advents.  (What are
people saying about Advents these days?)

We haven't been to demanding on the 901's; we tend to listen to music
at low or moderate levels, even though we've got an old SX-1010 with
100 watts per channel behind them.  Yes, the imaging seems rather
weird, but I notice it mostly in doorways and other weird places in the
room.  On the whole, we've been satisfied with them.

I haven't been speaker shopping since then, so I don't know what the
current crop of 901's sound like.  My friends certainly aren't buying
them.  I do visit friends from time to time; however, I've never
noticed anything that sounded especially good.
-- 

--Romain Kang, Pyramid Technology Corporation

US Mail:	900 Route 9, Woodbridge, NJ  07095
Ma Bell:	(201) 750-2626
UUCPnet:	{allegra,cmcl2,pyramid,topaz}!pyrnj!romain