I am sure most of you have a home theater setup. Based on the specifications and sound properties as-well-as-their spatial properties,anyone tried bose loudspeakers as surrounds ?
When I worked at a record press, we had a pair of 901 mkIVs floating around the no-longer-used monitor bin and I took 'em home to see if they did anything for me. I ended up using 'em as the rear speakers in a "Hafler surround" system and they were fine for that, although quality isn't a huge consideration there. They were power hogs, as I recall -- I kept draining all the current from the press's redundant Carver 400 with that set up and I ended up returning to my AR2ax/Advent receiver system until I was able to afford a Quad 303/ESL '57 system that really hit the spot.
yes,this is true (power).A cousin of mine has a pair and can take almost all the power you can throw at them and if you are aware of the small drivers,it is really scary.
The Bose 901 is one of the worse speakers I've ever heard. I haven't heard any Bose since then, and really don't care to. Bose does alot of tricks to get big sound out of small speakers, but I doubt the sound quality is worth bothering with.
If you don't have Bose speakers, don't buy any. If you have them and like them then by all means use them.
Remember, there is no real difference between a front channel (2 channel) speaker and a rear speaker. It's just a matter of where you put them.
An example would be Harry Pearsons surround system. He has Maggie 20.1's in the front and 3.5's in the rear...but everyone knows that the 3.5 is a 2 channel stereo speaker, right?
I've never heard a surround system based soley on Maggies, but I've heard they are awesome.
Eagle,are you trying to tell me Bose and for that matter Cerwin Vega are not good speakers ?!?!?!? if that is what you're saying,then,i agree lolAnyway,i was just wondering,knowing the spatial abilities (no connection with sound quality here) of the bose speakersand i am referring to older,larger ones,not those tiny hang-on-the-wall cubes they sell nowdays,how they'd sound as surround speakers.My crazy cousin (Maggies and bose if you read in another post of mine)has a pair of bose in his bedroom.Not the 901,the next one down,i think it was the 501I will never forget the experience.I was standing next to the speaker (mind you,they were either side of a hugh bed) putting my weight on it with one hand when my cousin asked me "which speaker is playing right now?" I said: come on , this is childish.I am not deaf ! it's the one next to me.Imagine my surpise when i put my ear next to the speak only to find out it was off and it was the other speaker playing instead.You do understand now why i am curious if anyone ever tried one of these older models as surrounds.
I have a surround system based on ESL's. Acoustat Spectra 2200's for the fronts with Acoustat Model One's for my rears. I have 2 12"subs in sealed boxes(acoustic suspension)for the front. The woofer cabinet from the Spectra's is connected to the Model One's. I have heard the MG20's. I have a buddy who has MG3.6R's. He bought the 3.6R's from a guy who had just bought the MG20's.
I don't think they have even sold more than perhaps four or five sets of speakers since they started out. Then maybe that is just wishful thinking! Sadly, many people use them in all sorts of horrible positions. The reason that many of them have a strange and diffuse sound field is that they have tweeters facing oposite directions. That makes them a quasi-bipole arrangement. Any Bi-Polar speaker would mimick the effect yet allow you many more options as to quality. Di-Polar speakers may work better in some places. I actually don't bother with them too much and use direct radiating speakers most of the time. They are typically more affordable at the same quality level as they use less drivers. You just need to place each type of speaker correctly to get the most out of each type.-Bill