Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site unc.unc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!unc!rentsch
From: rentsch@unc.UUCP (Tim Rentsch)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: BOSE 901 Series Speakers
Message-ID: <357@unc.unc.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 20-Oct-85 17:35:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: unc.357
Posted: Sun Oct 20 17:35:49 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 22-Oct-85 05:23:18 EDT
References: <72@ecn-aa.UUCP> <1404@teddy.UUCP> <339@nrcvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: rentsch@unc.UUCP (Tim Rentsch)
Organization: CS Dept, U. of N. Carolina, Chapel Hill
Lines: 27
Summary: 


Bose 901's did have a gimmick, but even that isn't necessary for a
terrible speaker to be commercially successful -- look at the DCM
time windows (which sound even worse than the 901's, by the way).

What gets me is how much this speaker was adopted by the commercial
community for "Muzak" (or any piped in music) in restaraunts, bars,
etc.  I imagine the selling tactic was the "superior sound" at a
moderate price (which it was at first), plus the small size which
allows the speakers to be installed unobtrusively (physically, not
sonically) in the bar or whatever.

But I have to admit I was taken by surprise when I saw a set mounted
backwards(!), so that most of the drivers pointed away from the
listener, at one place.  It was then that I understood that the
people putting in muzak systems really don't care about the sound but
only install them so that more money will be spent.  (This is true,
of course -- ask any supermarket marketing person.)

For what it's worth, I think the Bose 901's have a good idea
(direct/reflecting sound) but a terrible implementation.  They sound
bad to mediocre.  But then, nobody ever went broke underestimating the
taste of the american public.

cheers,

Tim